What is name of 17th chapter of Koran?
Dr. Christoph Heger
Johnny in his message of 17 Aug 2001 00:34:58 GMT repeats some
assertions which are recycled by Muslim apologists time and again, but
don't get more credibility by mere repetition.
> First of all, the Quran that we have in our hands today *is* the
> *original* Quran revealed by Allah and recited by prophet Muhammed
> (PBUH)
In the first place, there is no evidence whatsoever in favour of this
assertion. Secondly, the bad textual state of the Koran, i.e. the
incomprehensibility of at least 20 percent of its text, is evidence
against this assertion. It hardly can be explained if not by textual
corruption.
> and all the Sahabis.
Even in traditional reports in Muslim historiography it is related that
on the contrary at least two of the most respected Sahabi had a Koran
which did not agree with Caliph `Uthman's edition, allegedly the "master
copy" of the Koran as handed down to posterity.
To be concrete: It is even unknown from which manuscripts, from which
verifiable tradition the Cairo standard of the Koran has been made, 80
years ago.
> Now to your question pertaining to the name of the Surah's of the
> Quran, the answer is taken from Abu Amaar Yasir Qadhi's excellent
> book, "An Intorduction to the Sciences of the Quran", ...
It's indeed a valuable book insofar as it represents traditional Muslim
Koran scholarship in a fairly concise manner, repeating the usual
orthodox assertions like the above one. It has however nothing to say
with regard to modern textual criticism of the Koran.
> The names of the Quran are dealt with in page 54 - 55
>
> "The Qur'aan has referred to itself by many names, including:"
>
> ...
> 1) The Qur'aan (Recitation) [17:88]
>
> 2) The Kitaab (Book) [2:1-2]
It is however not always the Koran what is named "the book".
> 3) The Furqaan (Criterion) [25:1]
"Furqaan" is a Syriac word meaning "delivrance, redemption or
salvation". You can check it in the standard dictionaries R. Payne
Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, II, Oxford 1901, columns 3294-3298, and C.
Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, Halle 1928, p. 605 f.
The meaning "criterion" usually maintained for "furqaan" results from
the attempt to interpret this Syriac word in a way that relates both to
the Arabic word "farq" meaning "separation" and to the contexts in which
the word furqaan is found in the Koran.
The later and meanwhile traditional identification of "furqaan" with the
Qur'an is especially odd in surah 25:1 - but not only there. More to
this item at my homepage:
http://home.t-online.de/home/Christoph.Heger/sura25_1.html
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Johnny
> Greetings to all,
>
> Johnny in his message of 17 Aug 2001 00:34:58 GMT repeats some
> assertions which are recycled by Muslim apologists time and again
I did not "repeat" any assertion which is "recycled" by "Muslim
apologists". I merely mentioned a *fact*, which is basiclly what
*all* Muslims believe and even the majority of the non-Muslim scholars
accept, even though they may not acceptthe Quran to be from Allah.
And yes, I will continue to repeat the *truth* and *facts* which are
mentioned by my other Muslim brothers and sisters *time and time
again*. Perhaps you should stop repeating your polemics and hoaxes
instead of lecturing us.
>but
> don't get more credibility by mere repetition.
Exactly, your polemics do not get more credibility by mere repetition.
Infact they are seen to be more ridiculous every time you repeat
them.
>
> > First of all, the Quran that we have in our hands today *is* the
> > *original* Quran revealed by Allah and recited by prophet Muhammed
> > (PBUH)
>
> In the first place, there is no evidence whatsoever in favour of this
> assertion.
But there is plenty of evidence in favour of this assertion. Just
because you imagine there is none dosen't mean none exists.
>Secondly, the bad textual state of the Koran, i.e. the
> incomprehensibility of at least 20 percent of its text, is evidence
> against this assertion.
The textual state of the Quran is very good indeed, much much better
compared to Hegger's New Testament which he refers as "word of God",
62.9% for the entire NT and 54.5% for the anonymous "Gospels". Why
not check it out here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html#2
Only someone who has never even read the Quran would make such a
ridiculous statement that 20% of the Quran is incomprehensible.
Sorry, we have the Quran in our hands and can clearly see your
statement is a false one.
>It hardly can be explained if not by textual
> corruption.
Your previous statement was a false one, and textual corruption
precisely explains the reason why we have 54.5% for the so called
"Gospels" and 62.9% for the entire NT. comparison (with other critical
texts) does not take into account the orthographical differences in
the variant free verses. Maybe this is what he is so proud of?
As for the Quran, as is well known, the Quran in our hands today is
precisely the same one revealed to Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and what
the Sahabis recited. It is a revelation that was *always* recited from
the very beginning not once, not twice, but 5 times a day publicly and
openly, and was memorised by many sahabis and many had it written down
in their personal copies. The Quran is a very easy book to memorise
and its oral transmission is mutawatir, meaning their can be no doubt
about it. It has been narrated by so many people at each and every
generation and stage over such a wide geographical area that there can
be no doubt regarding its authenticity. Muslims today are united upon
one Quran, which could not have been possible had there been such
massive differences regarding the Quran from the beginning years of
Islam. Its logically impossible, and the simple fact of today that
Muslims, no matter what sect, are agreed upon one Quran is itself
sufficient to refute Heger's wild theories. so how was that possible
if Hegger's theories are correct?? Let me also quote Br Lomax:
"Remember that the Qur'an was recited in community, a community which
understood the language of the Book intimately. This was not a book
confined to scholars, understood only by an elite, a priesthood. And
this community rapidly dispersed over much of the known world, and
began to disagree about much, even to fight and kill each other. So
what they agree upon is almost certainly from the common origin, the
Qur'an as delivered by the Prophet.
Examining the readings, we see just what level of variation was
considered non-controversial among these people. It is quite small by
the normal standards of manuscript variation. And the vast majority of
variations do not reach to the level of actual letter variation;
mostly they involve pronunciation.
So, yes, we have the Qur'an from the time of its compilation. "
Taken from here: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Lomax+oral+transmission&hl=en&group=soc.religion.islam&safe=off&rnum=9&selm=6mri8j%24pmp%241%40shell3.ba.best.com
>
> > and all the Sahabis.
>
> Even in traditional reports in Muslim historiography it is related that
> on the contrary at least two of the most respected Sahabi had a Koran
> which did not agree with Caliph `Uthman's edition, allegedly the "master
> copy" of the Koran as handed down to posterity.
Old stuff which has been answered many times. They were *PERSONAL*
copies of the Sahabis which contained Quranic as well as non-Quranic
material such as Dua's or Hadeeth's, Tafsir etc, for the *PERSONAL*
use of the Sahabi.
Tell us which part of *PERSONAL* didn't you understand??
Further, Abu Bakr's (RTA) first collection was the basis of the second
one by Usman (RTA). Not only that, the Sahabis you are referring to
(yes you didn't name them, but I am pretty sure which ones you have in
mind) are themselves the transmitters of the Quran in our possession!
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html#4
hence my initial statement was 100% correct, that the Quran that we
have today is the same one that was revealed to Prophet Muhammed
(PBUH) and that which was recited by the Sahabis.
>
> To be concrete: It is even unknown from which manuscripts, from which
> verifiable tradition the Cairo standard of the Koran has been made, 80
> years ago.
Manuscripts of the Quran from the 1st century and onwards can be seen
here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
Anyway, Muslims have never relied upon this or that MSS. The Quran's
authenticity does not depend upon any MSS, as does your NT's which is
basically a slave to manuscripts and as a result in such a big mess.
The Quran is a recited text, orally transmitted whose transmission is
MUTAWATIR and which has been recited memorised and passed down
continously with no break-up in its transmission from the beginning of
Islam up to the present day.
>
> > Now to your question pertaining to the name of the Surah's of the
> > Quran, the answer is taken from Abu Amaar Yasir Qadhi's excellent
> > book, "An Intorduction to the Sciences of the Quran", ...
>
> It's indeed a valuable book insofar as it represents traditional Muslim
> Koran scholarship in a fairly concise manner, repeating the usual
> orthodox assertions like the above one. It has however nothing to say
> with regard to modern textual criticism of the Koran.
Well, the book is regarding the Quran and its sciences, it deals with
the respected scholars of the Quran and represents SCHOLARSHIP OF THE
QURAN etc. Sorry, but you guys are not exactly "scholars" of the
Quran, even though you may imagine you are. You are not our scholars
and are not authorotative for us and what you say and claim regarding
the Quran is not considered "scholarship of the Quran", your so called
"modern textual criticism" has absolutely no meaning for us and is not
"scholarship", its just worthless as far as we are concerned.
Just as Sheikh Ahmed Deedat is not considered a "scholar" of the Bible
by you, just as his statements are not considered "modern textual
criticisms" of the Bible by you folks, similarly you are not our
scholars. What your saying is like me saying: "Oh well, Bruce
Metzger's book is very good, but you see he does not mention modern
Bible criticism spearheaded by the renowned Bible scholar, Ahmed
Deedat" (!) I am sure this will offend any Christian.
So in conclusion, scholars of the Quran are those which are mentioned
in Abu Amaar Yasir Qadhi's book, not you lot, and criticism etc., is
all contained in his book.
By the way, this book also contains criticism of the writings of
Burton, Arthur Jeffery and Noldeke on pages 374 - 391, also available
online.
>
> > The names of the Quran are dealt with in page 54 - 55
> >
> > "The Qur'aan has referred to itself by many names, including:"
> >
> > ...
> > 1) The Qur'aan (Recitation) [17:88]
> >
> > 2) The Kitaab (Book) [2:1-2]
>
> It is however not always the Koran what is named "the book".
So what is your point?
>
> > 3) The Furqaan (Criterion) [25:1]
>
> "Furqaan" is a Syriac word meaning "delivrance, redemption or
> salvation". You can check it in the standard dictionaries R. Payne
> Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, II, Oxford 1901, columns 3294-3298, and C.
> Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, Halle 1928, p. 605 f.
Furqaan means criterion in Arabic which distinguishes truth from
falsehood. I believe that the Arabs know more about their own Arabic
language than you non-Arabs do. I would rather trust the Arabs and
what they have to say about their own language. No offense.
>
> The meaning "criterion" usually maintained for "furqaan" results from
> the attempt to interpret this Syriac word in a way that relates both to
> the Arabic word "farq" meaning "separation" and to the contexts in which
> the word furqaan is found in the Koran.
>
> The later and meanwhile traditional identification of "furqaan" with the
> Qur'an is especially odd in surah 25:1 - but not only there. More to
> this item at my homepage:
>
> http://home.t-online.de/home/Christoph.Heger/sura25_1.html
Refutation to all the above silly claims are to be found here:
http://shibli.zaman.net/furqan1.htm
and:
Finally, someone who dosen't even know the difference between
"Kalimatuhu" and "KhiTaab" has no right whatsoever to dive into this
topic of the Arabic language.
Johnny
Denis Giron
> The textual state of the Quran is very good indeed, much much better
> compared to Hegger's New Testament which he refers as "word of God",
> 62.9% for the entire NT and 54.5% for the anonymous "Gospels".
I think you've misunderstood what Dr. Heger was saying, and have also
committed a mild fallacy. First, with regard to what I claim is a
"mild fallacy," I would like to note that your points about the Bible
are irrelevant. While it may seem like I'm coming to Dr. Heger's aid
in this post (proving the kuffaar are awliyaa unto themselves, et
cetera), I would have to agree that the Bible is far from the word of
God. That being said, your Islamic bias towards the Bible and my
Ilhadic dislike for the Bible are wholly irrelevant. Even if the Bible
is as poor as you and I claim, this does not mean the Qur'an some how
wins by default. The discussion was about the Qur'an and not the
Bible, thus your switch to the Bible counts as a red herring, and a
bit of an ad-hominem (attacking Dr. Heger's faith in an attempt to
defend your own).
Second, Dr. Heger was referring to a "bad textual state" that is the
opinion of some who have read it. He was, I believe, referring to what
Salomon Reinach referred to as the "declamation, repetition,
puerility, a lack of logic and coherence," that "strike[s] the
unprepared reader at every turn." [Reinach, "Orpheus: A History of
Religion," (New York, 1932), p. 176]
In other words, the Qur'an often repeats itself with statements that
are not always consistent, and much of it is difficult to understand.
For example, this thread is actually discussing the seventeenth
chapter of the Qur'an, soorat Bani Isra'eel, and the first aya of that
chapter makes no sense without the myriad of traditional
interpretations connected to it. I discussed this in ARI under my
play-time pseudonym, and would like to invite you to read through it:
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=3fad66b0f4c4887c,30
Arabic speakers may find some of my errors to be laughable (I even
noticed blunders in my transliterations), but I still think it has
some points though just being a rough compilation of thoughts.
Furthermore, getting back to the subject, some of the words in the
Qur'an have no root at all or have had a root erroneously given to
them (like how Yahood, obviously from the Hebrew Y'hudaah, is now
given a root that is totally different from the root of its Hebrew
counterpart, or words like Jahannam, Sabt, et cetera that are obvious
loan words).
> As for the Quran, as is well known, the Quran in our hands today is
> precisely the same one revealed to Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and what
> the Sahabis recited.
You're pulling this from extracanonical sources that those who are
more skeptical severely question. The history that your making
reference to is tendentious in my opinion. While this is still to be
debated, I find the whole source of knowledge of Islamic history to be
questionable simply because of the fact that it stems from what would
today be called "hearsay accounts".... "I heard from so and so, that
so and so said he heard from somebody else that Muhammad said XYZ, and
we know this is true because so and so said so and so would not lie
about this." You'll probably find my analogy to be both dismissive and
inaccurate, but I must say that reading the ahadith collections and
seera literature as always felt similar to reading the Bible, and left
me wondering how people could believe it (no offense intended here).
> The Quran is a very easy book to memorise
> and its oral transmission is mutawatir, meaning their can be no doubt
> about it.
I think the text of the Qur'an itself disputes this claim. the
repetition of variant traditions implies the possibility that the text
was a copilation drawn from a plurality of sources. This is covered in
a less-than-spectacular article by myself (which has none-the-less
become a bit of a cult classic among the kuffaar):
http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/quranmulti.html
It was this sort of textual analysis that led scholars like Wellhausen
et al to postulate the existence of sources J/P/E/D for the Torah, and
I still don't see why such analysis cannot be applied to the Qur'an
(save for some sort of appeal to dogma). To give an example of what is
trying to be said here, let me set an analogy with the aforementioned
Bible...
Have you ever seen an Atheist or Muslim ask a Christian what were
Jesus' last words? This is done, obviously, as an opener to
contradictions in the Bible, and is successful mainly because the
traditions about what Jesus said varied and thus three different
quotes made their way into the canonized compilation (Mt.27:46;
Lk.23:46; Jn.19:30). Noticing the different quotes can *QUICKLY* lead
non-Christians to presuppose that there were multiple sources for
these quotes considering the fact that they contradict one another
slightly. The existence of inconsistent repetition can be cited as
evidence that may corroberate the claim that the Bible is from various
sources rather than one God (even if the particular tradition, like
Jesus' precise last words, is not crucial to Christian faith).
So now, assuming you understand this sort of criticism, I would like
to apply similar textual analysis to the Qur'an. When Allah created
Adam, he ordered all the angels to prostrate before him, but Iblees (a
lone Jinn up in Jannah) refused. According to the Qur'an, what was the
conversation that took place? As you can see, this is similar to the
question "what were Jesus' last words?"
In other words, according to the Qur'an, when Iblis refused to
prostrate before Adam (and risk committing shirk), did Allah say "ya
ibleesu ma laka alla takoona maa as-sajideena?" [Soorat al-Hijr 15:32]
or did He say "ya ibleesu ma manaaka an tasjuda lima khalaqtu
biyadayya astakbarta am kunta mina alaaleena?" [Soorat Sad 38:75]
And according to the Qur'an, what was Iblis' response? Was it "lam
akun li-asjuda libasharin khalaqtahu min salsalin min hama-in
masnoonin," [Soorat al-Hijr 15:33] or was it "ana khayrun minhu
khalaqtanee min narin wakhalaqtahu min teenin" [Soorat Sad 38:76]?
There are *MANY* questions like this that I could ask about the
Qur'an, and while I admit this is to be debated, I think it can be
seen as evidence that it is derived from a plurality of sources, thus
we can doubt the traditional Islamic claims about its transmission.
> Just as Sheikh Ahmed Deedat is not considered a "scholar" of the Bible
> by you, just as his statements are not considered "modern textual
> criticisms" of the Bible by you folks, similarly you are not our
> scholars.
Huh? May I ask *WHO* considers Ahmed Deedat a scholar of the Bible or
anything else? Do you? Ahmed Deedat was, in reality, just a person who
had many some standard criticisms memorized, and put them forth with
an Islamic slant. His claims have often made me think that he worked
more from a concordance than an actual knowledge of the Bible.
Finally, his debates were basically a guide for point scoring contests
against Christians, and not much else.
> > "Furqaan" is a Syriac word meaning "delivrance, redemption or
> > salvation". You can check it in the standard dictionaries R. Payne
> > Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, II, Oxford 1901, columns 3294-3298, and C.
> > Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, Halle 1928, p. 605 f.
>
> Furqaan means criterion in Arabic which distinguishes truth from
> falsehood. I believe that the Arabs know more about their own Arabic
> language than you non-Arabs do.
Before I comment on this I must admit that I have no where near the
comprehension of Arabic and Aramaic needed to really take part (while
recently my understanding of Hebrew has enabled me to learn Arabic at
a decent rate, I'm still below the level of an Arab child, by far).
That being said, I would like to note that there is a rumor (I heard
it from Ibn Warraq) that there will soon be an English translation of
Christoph Luxenberg's "Die Syro-Aramaische Lesart des Koran" by
Prometheus Books. This may shed some light on the whole issue, or
maybe just go down in flames. I wait anxiously, with baited breath. :)
Personally, I have been unable to follow the line of thought behind
this claim about certain loan-words obviously shows that the
traditional story is fabricated to cover the fact that the Qur'an was
originally in some
form a Christian text that was tampered with to make it look like an
Arabic
text, and made to fit in a Procrustean way into the traditional
biography
of the Muhammad (i.e. the original text must have belonged, according
to this line of argumentation, to some heretical Judaeo-Christian
sect, and was
probably originally in Syriac with large dollops of Hebrew). I
personally, though diligently trying to follow the discussions, have
seen no solid evidence. This could be because the claim is blatantly
false, and thus there is no evidence, or could just as easily be due
to my own ignorance of Aramaic and Arabic. I know for a fact that I
have not really checked the sources Heger has cited, and Shibli Zaman
admitted in July of last year to not actually checking Heger's
supporting references (he complained that some were in German and most
were out of print). I think those who have failed to scrutinize the
sources cannot really be considered experts on the issue (and this
includes the countless monolingual individuals who just copy and paste
Mr. Zaman's research, sometimes putting their own name on it, and act
as though they have scored a victory in a debate that they're not able
to really take part in). That being said, I must agree with Shibli's
criticism that Heger has not typed/translated specific quotes from the
sources cited (Geschichte des Qorans, Koranische Untersuchungen, Neue
Beiträge zur Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, et cetera).
> I would rather trust the Arabs and
> what they have to say about their
> own language. No offense.
But often a words true meaning can be changed when it is adopted, thus
the claim of one group may be false. To set an analogy, let me point
towards Hebrew. The Hebrew text of the Bible is filled with many words
that are not of Hebrew origin; rather they are loan words from other
languages (known and unknown). Still, these loan words take on a new
meaning, and over the centuries the Rabbis write texts on their root,
thus making it seem like they are obviously part of the Hebrew
langauge. Even today I see Israelis use the word "sharmoota" in a way
that is totally different from what it means in Arabic. I wouldn't be
surprised if in 1,000 years Jews are claiming a Hebrew root for the
word. The same is the case with Arabic. Alfred Guillaume and others
have commented on how Muslims have "found" the Arabic root for
"al-Qulays," when in reality it is a loan word from Greek (Latin?). I
already made reference to the word "yahood". According to what I've
seen, Muslims claim it comes from the infinitive "haada" which is a
synonym of the word "taaba". They both mean "to come back to the right
path," it more specifically means "to come back and repent." One
Muslim even tried to say there was a lexical connection to "khaana"
(to betray), but others claimed it was ridiculous. Regardless, from
this we see how, the way a word is used in the text (especially if the
Holy Writ places it near similar sounding/spelled words) can cause
speakers of that language to postulate a false origin/root to that
word. Thus, while I don't understand or agree with the furqaan
argument, I think we should all concede that (A) it is possible for a
loan word to take on a false root (particularly considering the fact
that semitic languages have the three leter roots that can mean a
whole myriad of different things), and (B) sometimes the native
speakers can be mistaken about the root of a given word, due to
influence of their religion, dogma, holy write, et cetera.
Barakatuddajjaal 'ala l-kuffaar ajma'een!
-Dionisio (Denis) Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm
(al-Mawqi ar-Rasmi lid-Dajjaal)
mabdul...@hotmail.com
> yadda yadda...................
give me some hard facts, with authentic sources.
not just accusatory drivel, with a few misrepresented points and references. Have you ever
discussed this with a good muslim scholar or orator, or do you like talking to those who are
unprepared for your accusations. the quran is perfect, and nowhere in the quran does it say or
hint that it is not perfect.
you give me every point you have against the quran, list them with sourse info, and logical
arguments. And though it may take me some time and research, I will do my best to answer
them.
Johnny
> johnny_b...@yahoo.com (Johnny) wrote in message news:<9ln297$kmm$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> > The textual state of the Quran is very good indeed, much much better
> > compared to Hegger's New Testament which he refers as "word of God",
> > 62.9% for the entire NT and 54.5% for the anonymous "Gospels".
>
> I think you've misunderstood what Dr. Heger was saying, and have also
> committed a mild fallacy. First, with regard to what I claim is a
> "mild fallacy," I would like to note that your points about the Bible
> are irrelevant. While it may seem like I'm coming to Dr. Heger's aid
> in this post (proving the kuffaar are awliyaa unto themselves, et
> cetera), I would have to agree that the Bible is far from the word of
> God. That being said, your Islamic bias towards the Bible and my
> Ilhadic dislike for the Bible are wholly irrelevant.
Yes, I basically agree with that (!). I was just trying to show the
double standards of the author. On one hand he believes the Bible to
be the "word of God", and then he has the audacity to launch attacks
against the Quran. Now all what he is saying against the Quran can
be, and has been, launched against the Bible with much much more
ferocity and intensity, and Christians will have a tough time
responding to it. So basically those who live in glass houses should
not caste stones at others. Heger should first declare that the Bible
is not God's word (well, that it contains errors, much lost etc), and
after making such a statement should he then proceed to say what he
wants to say against the Quran. But if he does not do this, insists
his book is God's inerrant word and continues to make such arguments
against the Quran, well then he is just using doublestandards.
>Even if the Bible
> is as poor as you and I claim, this does not mean the Qur'an some how
> wins by default.
Yes I know and I agree with that. My point was to show his double
standards.
> The discussion was about the Qur'an and not the
> Bible, thus your switch to the Bible counts as a red herring, and a
> bit of an ad-hominem (attacking Dr. Heger's faith in an attempt to
> defend your own).
Using your same argument, wouldn't you say that Heger's attacks upon
the Quran are also "a bit ad-homein" and "attacking Muslim's faith"?
Or is it perfectly ok to go ad-homein as long as the recieving party
happens to be Muslim?
>
> Second, Dr. Heger was referring to a "bad textual state" that is the
> opinion of some who have read it.
Yup, and I responded to that saying its false.
> He was, I believe, referring to what
> Salomon Reinach referred to as the "declamation, repetition,
> puerility, a lack of logic and coherence," that "strike[s] the
> unprepared reader at every turn." [Reinach, "Orpheus: A History of
> Religion," (New York, 1932), p. 176]
I don't have a clue who he was referring to, but as any reader can see
this is just a false statement and *many* I am sure will disagree with
it. So Heger, and you, are welcome to believe what these fellows have
to say and I will continue to accept what the others have to say.
>
> In other words, the Qur'an often repeats itself with statements that
> are not always consistent, and much of it is difficult to understand.
This is simply your own opinion and personal views and I am sure many
others disagree with you, like you say: "These are just my rough
thoughts". Well fine, just don't try to push it down our throats.
There is nothing wrong with repeating something, the Quran afterall is
a reminder. It does not prove anything if lets say there is this
statement in the Quran which is "difficult" to understand and numerous
interpretations regarding it available etc. If we do not understand
something then that does not logically suggest it is "incorrect" or
not from God. In general the Quran is clear and perfectly
intelligible in statements and teachings and Heger's statement of
"20%" is simply nonsense with all due respect. And yes, stories are
repeated in the Quran emphasizing different aspects of them and in
order to bring home the moral and teaching contained in them. The best
tafsir of the Quran is the Quran itself and you can read more on this
here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/Internal/contexinter.html
> For example, this thread is actually discussing the seventeenth
> chapter of the Qur'an, soorat Bani Isra'eel, and the first aya of that
> chapter makes no sense without the myriad of traditional
> interpretations connected to it. I discussed this in ARI under my
> play-time pseudonym, and would like to invite you to read through it:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?th=3fad66b0f4c4887c,30
The one who you cite as authority is Wansbrough. Unfortunately for
you, his theories are just theories and not accepted scholarship. So
before trying to convince the Muslims, you should first try to
convince the majority of the non-Muslim scholars who reject his
theories and have made fun of it. For example we read:
"Readers who do not have a thorough knowledge of German, Latin, Greek
and Hebrew, apart from Arabic and English (the language in which the
book is written although that is not obvious in many instances!) will
probably find no use for it and are advised not to take it up."
G. H. A. Juynboll, Journal of Semitic Studies.
"Wansbrough appears to set out to convince us of his learning."
R. B. Sergeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.
"Qur'anic Studies is so radical in its basic hypotheses as to ensure
that many will reject its conclusions out of hand".
William. A. Graham, Journal of the American Oriental Society.
So why should I accept blindly anything coming from this "scholar" of
yours?
The verse your referring to reads:
"Most glorified is the one who carried his servant during the night,
from
the inviolable place of prostration to the farthest place of
prostration."
The response to this is to be found here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html
And no, there is nothing "absurd" about this (talking about
ad-homein).
>
> Arabic speakers may find some of my errors to be laughable (I even
> noticed blunders in my transliterations), but I still think it has
> some points though just being a rough compilation of thoughts.
Since you admit that "Arabic speakers may find some of my errors to be
laughable", then I suggest you try to keep out of places where you
don't belong.
> Furthermore, getting back to the subject, some of the words in the
> Qur'an have no root at all or have had a root erroneously given to
> them (like how Yahood, obviously from the Hebrew Y'hudaah, is now
> given a root that is totally different from the root of its Hebrew
> counterpart, or words like Jahannam, Sabt, et cetera that are obvious
> loan words).
Arabic is a living language, and like every living language, it takes
words from other languages and untill it becomes part of the language.
It does not matter what the word may have mean't in the "Hebrew"
language, what one needs to see is how it is understood in the Arabic
language because now that word has become part of that language and is
in common usage. The words you are referring to were already part n
parcel of the Arabic language by the time the Quran was revealed by
Allah, it was in common usage and hence ARABIC. "Alcohol" is not
originally from English, but if you check out any English disctionary
you will find the word therein. It has now become a part of your
language and were I to use it in a sentence no one would accuse me of
using a non-English word! The same with Arabic, the word your
referring to was already a full part of the Arabic language when the
Quran was revealed by Allah.
>
> > As for the Quran, as is well known, the Quran in our hands today is
> > precisely the same one revealed to Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and what
> > the Sahabis recited.
>
> You're pulling this from extracanonical sources that those who are
> more skeptical severely question.
I am mentioning a simple fact and it does not matter if you guys
question it or not. You know many question what you and your friend
Heger have to say don't you?
> The history that your making
> reference to is tendentious in my opinion. While this is still to be
> debated, I find the whole source of knowledge of Islamic history to be
> questionable simply because of the fact that it stems from what would
> today be called "hearsay accounts".... "I heard from so and so, that
> so and so said he heard from somebody else that Muhammad said XYZ, and
> we know this is true because so and so said so and so would not lie
> about this."
Its not my fault if you are igorant regarding the sciences of the
Hadeeth. You can learn some basics from here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/
Its not as simple as you may wish it to be.
"... the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and
their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each
step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of
Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily
growth of content, so far as the hadīth of Muhammad and the hadīth of
the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive
increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission."
[Nabia Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II (Qur'ānic
Commentary & Tradition), 1967, The University Of Chicago Press, p. 2.]
Taken from: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html
I am not a scholar of the science of Hadeeth, so I suggest you have a
discussion on this topic with knowledgable Muslims such as Br Lomax,
Dr Jibrael Haddad and Dr Saifullah. Infact, I think they did respond
to your claims some time ago.
I was not referring to hadeeth, I was talking about the MUTAWATTIR
oral transmission of the Quran.
>
> > The Quran is a very easy book to memorise
> > and its oral transmission is mutawatir, meaning their can be no doubt
> > about it.
>
> I think the text of the Qur'an itself disputes this claim.
No, I think the text of the Quran does not dispute this "claim" of
mine.
>the
> repetition of variant traditions implies the possibility that the text
> was a copilation drawn from a plurality of sources.
No it does not suggest this, as mentioned before Quran emphasises
different aspects of them to bring home the moral and teaching
contained in them there is also no divergence in the accounts as such.
The Quran mentions a story and then warns the readers and gives them a
moral lesson. Thats all.
>This is covered in
> a less-than-spectacular article by myself (which has none-the-less
> become a bit of a cult classic among the kuffaar):
>
> http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/quranmulti.html
As usuall, the same old Cronie, Crook and Wansbrough nonsense. To
remind the readers again:
"Hagarism . . . is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone but
anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first
one wonders if it is just a 'leg pull', 'spoof'."
R. B. Sergeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.
Regarding the "plurality of sources":
"When they speak of 'the belated and imperfect editing of materials
>from a plurality of traditions' they are begging the question of where
this plurality came from. A lot of revelations? A lot of prophets? One
fact that needs to be taken into account with other facts is that the
Koran has given profound satisfaction to millions of people over
fourteen centuries. Are we to fall back on the notion that just anyone
could have written any of it?"
N. Daniel, Journal of Semitic Studies.
and finally:
"Unsurprisingly, the Crone-Cook interpretation has failed to win
general acceptance among Western Orientalists, let alone Muslim
scholars . . . The rhetoric of these authors may be an obstacle for
many readers, for their argument is conveyed through a dizzying and
unrelenting array of allusions, metaphors, and analogies. More
substantively, their use (or abuse) of the Greek and Syriac sources
has been sharply criticised. In the end, perhaps we ought to use
Hagarism more as a 'what-if' exercise than as a research monograph."
R. S. Humphreys, Islamic History - Revised Edition, p.85. Princeton
University Press: 1995
let me say again, no point coming to the Muslims when the majority of
your own scholars reject the theories of your favourite authors.
> I still don't see why such analysis cannot be applied to the Qur'an
> (save for some sort of appeal to dogma).
The Quran and the Bible are two different books. There transmission
is not the same. We have the NT which is dependant upon loads of MSS
wherese the Qurans transmission is and always has been oral. So just
because you have used certain methods with the Bible does not mean
that they become suitable by default against the Quran also. You need
to look at the Quran keeping in minds its history and not the Bible's.
[deleting the analogy]
>
> So now, assuming you understand this sort of criticism, I would like
> to apply similar textual analysis to the Qur'an. When Allah created
> Adam, he ordered all the angels to prostrate before him, but Iblees (a
> lone Jinn up in Jannah) refused. According to the Qur'an, what was the
> conversation that took place? As you can see, this is similar to the
> question "what were Jesus' last words?"
15:28-43 :-
----------
"And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "I am going to
create a man (Adam) from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud.
29.
"So, when I have fashioned him completely and breathed into him (Adam)
the soul which I created for him, then fall (you) down prostrating
yourselves unto him."
30.
So, the angels prostrated themselves, all of them together.
31.
Except Iblīs (Satan), - he refused to be among the prostrators.
32.
(Allāh) said: "O Iblīs (Satan)! What is your reason for not being
among the prostrators?"
33.
[Iblīs (Satan)] said: "I am not the one to prostrate myself to a human
being, whom You created from sounding clay of altered black smooth
mud."
34.
(Allāh) said: "Then, get out from here, for verily, you are Rajīm (an
outcast or a cursed one)." [Tafsīr At-Tabarī]
35.
"And verily, the curse shall be upon you till the Day of Recompense
(i.e. the Day of Resurrection)."
36.
[Iblīs (Satan)] said: "O my Lord! Give me then respite till the Day
they (the dead) will be resurrected."
37.
Allāh said: "Then, verily, you are of those reprieved,
38.
"Till the Day of the time appointed."
39.
[Iblīs (Satan)] said: "O my Lord! Because you misled me, I shall
indeed adorn the path of error for them (mankind) on the earth, and I
shall mislead them all.
40.
"Except Your chosen, (guided) slaves among them."
41.
(Allāh) said: "This is the Way which will lead straight to Me."
42.
"Certainly, you shall have no authority over My slaves, except those
who follow you of the Ghāwīn (Mushrikūn and those who go astray,
criminals, polytheists, and evil-doers, etc.).
43.
"And surely, Hell is the promised place for them all.
---------------
38:71-88 :-
------------
71.
(Remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Truly, I am going to
create man from clay".
72.
So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created
by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him."
73.
So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them:
74.
Except Iblīs (Satan) he was proud[] and was one of the disbelievers.
75.
(Allāh) said: "O Iblīs (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating
yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands[]. Are you too
proud (to fall prostrate to Adam) or are you one of the high exalted?"
76.
[Iblīs (Satan)] said: "I am better than he, You created me from fire,
and You created him from clay."
77.
(Allāh) said: "Then get out from here, for verily, you are outcast.
78.
"And verily!, My Curse is on you till the Day of Recompense."
79.
[Iblīs (Satan)] said: "My Lord! Give me then respite till the Day the
(dead) are resurrected."
80.
(Allāh) said: "Verily! You are of those allowed respite
81.
"Till the Day of the time appointed."
82.
[Iblīs (Satan)] said: "By Your Might, then I will surely mislead them
all,
83.
"Except Your chosen slaves amongst them (faithful, obedient, true
believers of Islāmic Monotheism)."
84.
(Allāh) said: "The Truth is, and the Truth I say,
85.
That I will fill Hell with you [Iblīs (Satan)] and those of them
(mankind) that follow you, together."
86.
Say (O Muhammad SAW): "No wage do I ask of you for this (the Qur'ān),
nor am I one of the Mutakallifūn (those who pretend and fabricate
things which do not exist).
87.
"It (this Qur'ān) is only a Reminder for all the 'Alamīn (mankind and
jinns).
88.
"And you shall certainly know the truth of it after a while."
------------
Please let us know what is confusing you here. The above is taken
>from the Hilali translation.
>
> In other words, according to the Qur'an, when Iblis refused to
> prostrate before Adam (and risk committing shirk), did Allah say "ya
> ibleesu ma laka alla takoona maa as-sajideena?" [Soorat al-Hijr 15:32]
> or did He say "ya ibleesu ma manaaka an tasjuda lima khalaqtu
> biyadayya astakbarta am kunta mina alaaleena?" [Soorat Sad 38:75]
As mentioned by Br Omar "In both cases, the Quran is giving a
paraphrased summary of the communications between Allah and Iblis."
>
> > Just as Sheikh Ahmed Deedat is not considered a "scholar" of the Bible
> > by you, just as his statements are not considered "modern textual
> > criticisms" of the Bible by you folks, similarly you are not our
> > scholars.
>
> Huh? May I ask *WHO* considers Ahmed Deedat a scholar of the Bible or
> anything else?
Thats what I said, Ahmed Deedat is not considered a scholar of the
Bible by the Christians and the actual Biblical scholars. So whats
your problem? I personally wouldn't call him a "scholar" even though
I respect him.
> Finally, his debates were basically a guide for point scoring contests
> against Christians, and not much else.
I have seen a number of his debates and I believe he has generally
done a good job in them no matter what names you may wish to call him
and he has debated very knowledgable and respected Christians.
[deleting more irrelevant stuff on "loan words"]
Following citation comes from Abu Amaar Yasir Qadhi's "Introduction to
the sciences of the Quran": (quoting Aboo 'Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn
Sallaam)
"...these words entered into the Arabic language, and were transformed
to Arabic words, and the foreign letters were exchanged for Arabic
ones, until they became a part of Arabic. Then the Qur'aan was
revealed, and by this time these words had mixed in with the Arabic
language. Therefore, he who says that the Qur'aan is only in Arabic
is correct, and he who says that there are some foreign words is also
correct.36" [pg. 27]
Johnny.
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> > For example, this thread is actually discussing the seventeenth
> > chapter of the Qur'an, soorat Bani Isra'eel, and the first aya of that
> > chapter makes no sense without the myriad of traditional
> > interpretations connected to it. I discussed this in ARI under my
> > play-time pseudonym, and would like to invite you to read through it:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?th=3fad66b0f4c4887c,30
>
> The one who you cite as authority is Wansbrough. Unfortunately for
> you, his theories are just theories and not accepted scholarship. So
> before trying to convince the Muslims, you should first try to
> convince the majority of the non-Muslim scholars who reject his
> theories and have made fun of it. For example we read:
Contrary to the claim of Freethought alias Denis alias whatever, Neal
Robinson has shown that the Surah al-Israa' is in fact structure. Please
refer to his book "Discovering The Qur'an: A Contemporary Approach To A
Veiled Text", 1996, SCM Press Ltd.: London. Very recenty, I remember
browsing through the journal "The Muslim World" where somebody discussed
the structure of Surah al-Baqarah. I do not have the complete reference at
hand.
Wassalam
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Arabic speakers may find some of my errors to be laughable (I even
> noticed blunders in my transliterations), but I still think it has
> some points though just being a rough compilation of thoughts.
> Furthermore, getting back to the subject, some of the words in the
> Qur'an have no root at all or have had a root erroneously given to
> them (like how Yahood, obviously from the Hebrew Y'hudaah, is now
> given a root that is totally different from the root of its Hebrew
> counterpart, or words like Jahannam, Sabt, et cetera that are obvious
> loan words).
Much of the Hebrew linguistics and grammar is based on Arabic not the vice
versa.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz1.html#3
It is quite well-known but people like Denis Giron would still like
to push about the "loan words". It was well-known among Muslim scholars of
the past such as al-Suyuti and those who came before him that the Qur'an
had some words not of Arabic origin but were assimilated in Arabic, like
any other language.
> I think the text of the Qur'an itself disputes this claim. the
> repetition of variant traditions implies the possibility that the text
> was a copilation drawn from a plurality of sources. This is covered in
> a less-than-spectacular article by myself (which has none-the-less
> become a bit of a cult classic among the kuffaar):
It does not follow from a source that has repetition to mean that it was
drawn from plurality of sources. Poor logic! Some of the English poetry is
repetitive. Does that mean it was drawn from plural sources? The Qur'an
in no way disputes "this claim".The same story with slight modification
can be repeated at different places to generate different themes. This is
precisely the Qur'an does.
Wassalam
Saifullah
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Shibli Zaman
all seen this act before and the jokes are old...
On 18 Aug 2001 04:43:14 GMT, Christo...@t-online.de (Dr.
Christoph Heger) wrote:
>In the first place, there is no evidence whatsoever in favour of this
Here, Heger would like to wish that "there is no evidence
whatsoever.." to support that the Qur'an is in its original state.
This denial of reality alone lends credence to the fact that his
verdict has been determined *in spite* of the evidence.
There is a wealth of evidence on the subject. Perhaps he meant "there
is no evidence whatsoever THAT I AGREE WITH.." This would be more
accurate as we know full well that if a 7th century Qur'an were to be
teleported in the future and land on Heger's head, he would then only
transform into a Hindu deity covering its eyes, ears and mouth. Oh I
left out two other hands needed to type on the newsgroups.
So to say "there is no evidence whatsoever..." only makes him look
like someone who doesn't like to read very much. Please take a look
at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
That is a wealth of evidence. He may not agree with it, but that has
nothing to do with the matter of whether or not evidence exists
"whatsoever". It does, he just don't want to see it.
>assertion. Secondly, the bad textual state of the Koran, i.e. the
>incomprehensibility of at least 20 percent of its text, is evidence
>against this assertion. It hardly can be explained if not by textual
>corruption.
Primarily, his material is in a "bad textual state". How someone who
is not familiar with the Arabic language can determine that 20% of the
Qur'anic text is supposedly "incomprehensible" is, in itself, utterly
incomprehensible.
Then he says, "It hardly can be explained if not by textual
corruption". Which "textual corruption" would that be, Heger? Of
course he is at a loss for words, thus he conjures up the fantasy
which is the subject of this post. A subject I already tore apart
nealry 2 years ago.
http://shibli.zaman.net/furqan1.htm
He was embarassed for a while and did not bother with the subject
anymore, but I guess he has peeked around, thought the coast was
clear, and mustered the courage to present this joke again. Well, here
I am again...
>Even in traditional reports in Muslim historiography it is related that
>on the contrary at least two of the most respected Sahabi had a Koran
>which did not agree with Caliph `Uthman's edition, allegedly the "master
>copy" of the Koran as handed down to posterity.
Here quite a severe claim is made. However, no quote, reference or
source is given for that claim. This is not unusual for Heger's
material which is constant upon the following style:
{
It is quite well know that Otis Spunkenmeyer was a martian who used
space dust in his cookie dough. This claim is indisputable [Geinhardt
1921; Unt Arabie Qoran Husker Dusker - Sflunkerdink 1988; Wagner;
Beethoven 1999; Aire unt a G-Schtringer - J.S. Bach 2001; Unt Ice
Cream ish Guten Schtuff - Haagen Daaz].
}
Do you recognize any of the sources? Neither do I. Neither does he.
Even if what he says is actually in the sources he cites, where does
it say that? Do you know? Neither do I. Even if the sources existed
can you verify them? Neither can I. Neither can he. Does he know that?
You bet he does.
If a source is strong, there is no pain in the fingers to type it out
in full. In 2 years, Heger has not done this regarding this
"Furqaan/Natheer" fiasco. Why not? I'd be interested in his answer.
So now he says that two Sahabi's had different Qur'an's from the
Uthmaani Qur'an. Any reference or source? Nope. Not a one. As Johnny
mentioned already, this is an old, tired polemic which has already
been ripped to shreds. Does Heger not visit
http://www.islamic-awareness.org or does he like to imagine that it
doesn't exist "whatsoever"?
>To be concrete: It is even unknown from which manuscripts, from which
>verifiable tradition the Cairo standard of the Koran has been made, 80
>years ago.
LOL! And I'd be most interested to know what Heger bases this claim
upon. Any references? Not any that I see here. Of course had he any
knowledge of Qur'anic sciences he would know that HafS, Warsh,
Qaaloon, etc have been in existence for much longer than 80 years!
This is indeed getting funny, but was there's more!
More in the next post which I divided into a second part for the ease
of the reader.
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
http://shibli.zaman.net
Shibli Zaman
shot it down for my plethora of heinous curse words like "bad" and "no
good".
This is part two in which I dig my teeth into the actual meat of this
issue and get into some heavy Biblical etymology...Excuse the sense of
humor, its the only way I could stomach going through all this
"stuff".
>salvation". You can check it in the standard dictionaries R. Payne
>Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, II, Oxford 1901, columns 3294-3298, and C.
>Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, Halle 1928, p. 605 f.
"BADA-BING!", *drum roll*, *cymbal splash*
Now watch this part and see what he says next..
>The meaning "criterion" usually maintained for "furqaan" results from
>the attempt to interpret this Syriac word in a way that relates both to
>the Arabic word "farq" meaning "separation" and to the contexts in which
>the word furqaan is found in the Koran.
So since Heger maintains that the meaning of "furqaan" is "salvation"
then it must ALWAYS mean "salvation". Since he uses this argument for
the Qur'an in Arabic, a language which evolved from Aramaic/Syriac,
let us see if Heger will use the same argument towards his own BIBLE.
So, since our unwelcome friend Heger has put the Qur'an to the test,
let us put his dear Old Testament to the same test:
"And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it
shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt
SALVATION/REDEEM his yoke from off thy neck." [Genesis 27:40]
"..REDEEM his yoke from off thy neck"? "SALVATION his yoke from off
thy neck"? "SALVAGE his yoke from off thy neck"? I don't think so...
"And Aaron said unto them, SALVATION/REDEEM the golden earrings, which
are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters,
and bring them unto me."
[Exodus 32:2]
"REDEEM the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives.."?
"SALVATION the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your
wives.."? Here even with a stretch to make the words applicable you
end up with the OPPOSITE of what the Bible says. The Bible says Aaron
said to remove the earrings and cast them off. Dr. Heger's
interpretation would be to salvage them.
And all the people SALVATION/REDEEM(ed) off the golden earrings which
were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.
[Exodus 32:3]
"REDEEM(ed) off the golden earrings which were in their ears.."?
"SALVATION off the golden earrings which were in their ears.."?
"SALVAGED off the golden earrings which were in their ears.."? Again,
Dr. Heger'sinterpretation of the word brings about a serious oxymoron
in this sentence. How does one "SALVAGE off" something?
I just cut and paste the above quotes from the refutation I wrote
nearly two years ago. That should end the subject right there.
Obviously, his own Bible doesn't adhere to the definition he does.
Now, to add to that let us address "Furqaan" further then go on to
"Natheer".
Can "PARAQ" be used in the context of "salvation"? Yes, it definitely
can, but this is an IMPLICIT definition based upon its root. As the
root "PRQ" means to separate, "PARAQ" can mean "to be rescued" based
on being seperated from adversity into safety.
"PRQ - To BREAK OFF, as the Hebrew; HENCE, to redeem [to get
deliverance from], Daniel 4:24"
[H.W.F. Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, page 692]
In the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon it states in the
ARAMAIC appendix:
"PRQ - verb. TEAR AWAY, break off..Daniel 4:24, acc. of sins.."
[BDB Hebrew-English Lexicon with Aramaic Appendix, page 1108]
Also it is interesting to note that among the scholars of Qur'anic
Exegesis, the different definitions given by the Companions of the
Prophet (peace be upon him), their companions and theirs (often coined
as the "Salaf" or "predecessors") have all contributed to the overall
understanding of this deep reference.
For example Imam Qurtubi states in his exegesis of the Qur'an
entitled, "al-Jaami`u li-aHkaamu-l Qur'aan":
"Ibn IsHaaq has stated: 'FURQAANAn" the divider between truth and
falsehood...as-Suddy (has said it means): Salvation ('Najaat').
al-Furaa' (has said it means): 'Victory and Help,' and continued 'in
the afterlife where you will enter Paradise and the disbelievers will
enter the fire."
>From the various sources from the Salaf the word "Furqaan" has
encompassed Division (Farq bayna-l Haqq wa-l BaaTil), Salavation
(Najaat), Help (NaSr), Victory (FatH), Outlet (Makhraj), and more, all
pointing to the understanding that in this world the Qur'an separates
truth from falsehood, the permissible from the forbidden, the right
>from the wrong; Whereas, in the afterlife it seperates believer from
disbeliever, the false deity from the True God, the false religion
>from the true religion, the truth from falsehood, the Heaven from the
Hell, the Help and Victory from the Loss and Defeat, etc.
This is the beauty of the Qur'an for those who actually STUDY it
properly and objectively. One word expresses a multitude of diverse
yet CONGRUENT ideas which encompass the overall meaning of the word.
This can't be said about ANY other book. I invite others to this
challenge.
Now for the next point. Heger tries to allude to the fact that
"Furqaan" is a loan word from the Aramaic language, thus, this shows
the Qur'an borrowed from other sources. Now, again, lets put his Bible
to the SAME TEST.
Ecclesiastes 2:5 says, "I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted
trees in them of all kind of fruits..." However, there is a little
surprise in this verse. It says in Hebrew, "`Aashiyty-li g'nwt
w'PARDAISIYM.."
In this verse we find the word "PARDAIS" which is NOT Hebrew, NOT
Aramaic, and NOT from ANY Semitic language at all. Its from ancient
PERSIAN. The English word "Paradise" comes from it. So based on that
should we say the Bible stole its ideas from the teachings of the
Persian fire-worshipping prophet Zoroaster?! Of course not. Thus, this
point is bulldozed to the ground as well.
Every language on earth has loan words from other languages throughout
history. This tired and lame missionary polemic that loan words from
one language to the other has ANYTHING at all to do with one scripture
BORROWING from another scripture is absolutely ridiculous to put it
nicely.
Now for the word "NATHEER". This will be much shorter, since its the
"less intelligent", so to speak, half of his polemic.
Heger says that Natheer is a supposed Christian Aramaic (Syriac)
reference to Christ.
Now there is a nice little Aramaic New Testament called the
"Peshitta". I'm sure he knows what I'm referring to (at least I hope
he does). Let us see how *it* uses the Aramaic/Syriac word "Nadiyr".
It is found meaning "vow" ONLY in the Book of Acts out of the ENTIRE
New Testament. Ready for a laugh? Here is how it uses the word nadiyr
in one form as "vow":
"...having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a VOW" [Acts 18:18]
Yup, shaved heads. Has a lot to do with Jesus huh? Not. Its used again
in another form in Acts 21:23: "...we have four men which have a vow
on them." ("..arba'la d'NADIYR lahun..etc")
So out of the ENTIRE New Testament this is the ONLY way the Aramaic
equivalent of "Natheer" is used. Not ONCE is it used in reference to
Jesus, or even anything ominous or divine at all. NOT ONCE.
Thus, for Heger to introduce this theory that the word refers to
Christ as a sacrifice for mankind in the Qur'an, he has one up on his
own god. Because his own god didn't see fit to call Jesus as a
"Natheer" in any context whatsoever in his own "divinely revealed"
scripture, the Bible. Yet Heger did! *Clap clap* for Dr. Heger who
outdid his own god! Refuting this "stuff" is utter child's play...
Also, this peculiar translation of "natheer" to "sacrifice" is also
something not found in any single sentence of any page of any book of
scholastic merit regarding the Semitic languages. Its Heger's own
invention (surprise, surprise).
>The later and meanwhile traditional identification of "furqaan" with the
>Qur'an is especially odd in surah 25:1 - but not only there. More to
>this item at my homepage:
Peculiar? Yes, peculiar to the Dr; But peculiar to anyone who has even
a fraction of knowledge on the subject? Not at all. You can't expect a
donkey to understand the books it carries on its back.
Why does he keep setting himself up like this year after year? Even
funnier than this was Mr. Giron jumping on the bandwagon.
As we say in Arabic, "Inn at-Tuyoor `alaa ashkaalahaa taqa`"
Go for it guys...whip out the lexicons and try and decipher that one.
Even if you do, you still won't get it.
Denis Giron
and Johnny...
mabdul...@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<9lv1kk$9ak$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> give me some hard facts, with authentic sources.
Hard facts? Authentic sources? Obviously I'm trying to reconstruct
history via abduction, and sadly that never produces hard facts. As
for authentic sources, there always has to be a first with regards to
a new theory (though obviously I'm not the first).
mabdulrahmanb:
> Have you ever discussed this with a good muslim scholar or orator, or do you
> like talking to those who are unprepared for your accusations.
Well, I don't know... I've emailed it off to a few self-proclaimed
Muslim scholars, but obviously all of this is in the rough. Would you
like to recommend a name for me to contact? I'm more than open to
discussing my thoughts with anyone, as I don't fear the truth... if
I'm wrong I'd like to know, as I can only learn from my mistakes.
mabdulrahmanb:
> the quran is perfect, and nowhere in the quran does it say or
> hint that it is not perfect.
Well, these are two different things. I gave some very specific
examples, and I could give more. Does the Qur'an say it is not
perfect? No, it does not; but then, doesn't that sound like a circular
argument? The Qur'an is perfect because it says so... As for it
hinting to imperfection (whatever that means), I think there are some
hints and clues. Of course, textual analysis is not an exact science.
It causes us to postulate certain things based on abduction, which is
essentially affirming the consequent every time out, thus there's
always room for error... so who knows!
mabdulrahmanb:
> you give me every point you have against the quran,
Sigh. Start with the ones I gave. I'll bring more and more, piece by
piece, and it is all going to be generally similar.
Moving on to Johnny's post...
johnny_b...@yahoo.com (Johnny) wrote in message news:<9lv343$9ji$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> I was just trying to show the double standards of the author.
> On one hand he believes the Bible to be the "word of God", and
> then he has the audacity to launch attacks against the Quran.
Well, I'll myself say upfront that the sort of method I'm using
against the Qur'an works so much better with the Bible. In fact, if
this methodology hurts the Qur'an, it makes the Bible go down in
flames! This is because such methods have been taken from the Biblical
scholarship of Wellhausen, et. al. Still, such double standards are
not at all relevant. Dr. Heger could be a man who worships Hindu
elephants in his spare time... regardless, this does not weigh in on
the Qur'an's integrity.
Johnny:
> Using your same argument, wouldn't you say that Heger's attacks upon
> the Quran are also "a bit ad-homein" and "attacking Muslim's faith"?
Well, yes, and no... I think any skeptical criticism is going to be
insulting to the believer's faith. However, I meant that your switch
was to a topic that was unrelated, and thus seemed like a personal
attack (for example, I'm an Atheist, thus if I criticize the Qur'an,
you wont go off on a tyrade about the integrity of the Baghavad
Gita... but if I was a Hindu, you might... as part of a personal
attack).
Johnny:
> Or is it perfectly ok to go ad-homein as long as the recieving party
> happens to be Muslim?
As far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly okay to criticize anyone's
beliefs, thus it doesn't matter who is on the receiving end. However,
I think we should stay within the topic... the only reason you brought
up the Bible in the first place was because Dr. Heger is a Christian
of some sort.
Johnny:
> This is simply your own opinion and personal views and I am sure many
> others disagree with you, like you say: "These are just my rough
> thoughts". Well fine, just don't try to push it down our throats.
Whose throat shall I push it down? I thought this was a board for
discussing Islam. When I am in alt.atheism, I appreciate those who
attempt to show the flaws of Atheism (speaking of which, Imran Aijaz,
if you're reading this, I promise I'll email you soon... I've just
been lazily slummin' it as of late). the theory is not in perfect
form, but I like to get comments on the rough drafts so as to see
where I may have gone wrong.
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/Internal/contexinter.html
This doesn't seem to be at all related to the discussion (particularly
anything having to do with repetition in variant forms). Furthermore,
I'm not surprised that the believers of a religious text would
reinterpret every nook and cranny of the text they love to be rather
beautiful. To draw an analogy to Orthodox Judaism, I've read Rashi's
commentary on the Torah, and with every grammatical error in the
Hebrew, Rashi gives a long explanation on how this was done
deliberately by God, to prove such and such point to the believers,
and he backs it up with copious references pointing to other scholars.
However, just because some respected Rabbis say the Torah is
beautiful, and every letter's position is deliberate, does not mean it
is true. On the same token, I'm sure Dr. M S M Saifullah, Jason
Hannan, and Dr. Muhammad Ghoniem all consider the Qur'an beautiful and
consider every letter positition to be deliberate, but this does not
mean it si true.
johnny:
> The one who you cite as authority is Wansbrough.
I cited more than juist Wansbrough, though i do admit I cited
Wansbrough quite often from start to finish. Furthermore, I didn't
just cite Wansbrough; rather I showed what he said and then commented
on it, often trying to show evidence. You did not respond to a
specific part of the article.
Johnny:
> Unfortunately for you, his theories are just theories
And, could you tell me what theories are not just theories?
Johnny:
> So before trying to convince the Muslims, you should first try to
> convince the majority of the non-Muslim scholars who reject his
> theories and have made fun of it.
With all due respedct, I don't think you know what the non-Muslim
scholars think about the work. the passages you cited didn't say much,
and seemed like a copy and paste job. I'm more than willing, however,
to discuss the passages you cited.
> "Readers who do not have a thorough knowledge of German, Latin, Greek
> and Hebrew, apart from Arabic and English (the language in which the
> book is written although that is not obvious in many instances!) will
> probably find no use for it and are advised not to take it up."
>
> G. H. A. Juynboll, Journal of Semitic Studies.
This is what you consider a criticism? Wansbrough's theories are not
even mentioned in the passage you have cited, thus I wonder why you
felt it was relevant. Indeed he does make use of Hebrew, Latin and
Greek, and Arabic appears on every page! As you could see in the post
I put to ARI, I was forced to transliterate (sometimes erroneously,
but then my English is error-laden as well) the numerous Arabic
passages. Indeed the language is a bit terse... it is thick reading,
and even Humphrey's referred to it as employing "teutonic grammar."
The point of the above is that it is not a simple read for some kaafir
neophyte who is looking for an intro to the Qur'an. My post from ARI
was meant to elucidate a few passages. This is not a criticism of his
book, thus you have not demonstrated that the majority of scholars
reject his theories. Furthermore, the Journal of Semitic Studies is a
journal published in many volumes. Could you please cite a year, page
and volume number?
> "Wansbrough appears to set out to convince us of his learning."
>
> R. B. Sergeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.
Again, this is not a criticism of his theories. Once again you have
failed to actually cite a year, page or volume number for this issue
of JRAS, which makes me wonder if you are copying this from another
site. I have no idea what context this was meant in.
> "Qur'anic Studies is so radical in its basic hypotheses as to ensure
> that many will reject its conclusions out of hand".
>
> William. A. Graham, Journal of the American Oriental Society.
I actually agree 100% with the above. It is similar to Cook and
Crone's humorous pun that the Muslims with the faith of a mustard seed
(a Biblical reference) wouldn't accept their theories. However, the
above is not a criticism of his theory or his methodology. It is
simply a point about how popular it will be. To draw an analogy, David
Straus' "Leben Jesu" was not popular among Christians (nominal or
fundamentalist), but this does not mean it wasn't a fine piece of
scholarship. Also, I would like a better citation from JAOS (I have
access to full collections of JAOS, JSS, JRAS, and would like to check
the articles in their entirety...).
> So why should I accept blindly anything coming from this "scholar" of
> yours?
I didn't ask you to accept anything blindly. In my post to ARI on Bani
Israa'eel 17:1, I gave the thoughts of various scholars, and tried to
elucidate their points and demonstrate a bit of evidence to give
weight to the theory.
Johnny:
> "Most glorified is the one who carried his servant during the night,
> from the inviolable place of prostration to the farthest place of
> prostration."
>
> The response to this is to be found here:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html
I made reference to this, though I admit in passing. I don't see why
we should assume the existence of any sort of rudimentary masjid on
the temple mount. Many Jewish and Christian sources note that the site
was being used as a dump for Christian refuse (a few Jews would wail
there during Tish B'av, and thus motivated some Christians to
besmatter the place with substances more foul than just trash). The
extracanonical sources are what tell us it was in Jerusalem, and they
often speak of an actual Masjid, where Muhammad led prayer with Jesus,
Moses, and popular figures from Biblical literature. I find it hard to
believe that Muhammad was standing in a trash dump with Jesus and
Moses. There is little evidence to back up this story (rather it seems
like an obvious example of a sort of Islamic midrash). However, you
should be able to put away the belief that he actually went to the
masjid on a flying horse(!) as Ibn Ishaaq (as per Ibn Hishaam's
rescension of course) quoted A'isha as saying "The apostle's body
remained where it was but God removed his spirit by night." This
implies that it was a dream (as indeed Ibn Ishaaq himself seemed
uncertain if it was a dream or not), and though it contradicts
slightly Ibn Ishaaq also stated that Umm Haani' bint Abu Taalib (AKA
Hind) said it was a dream (as he slept in her hosue the night he went
on the night journey). While I consider these traditions to be highly
tendentious, I think they allow you a way out of the lack of evidence.
Regardless, the above cited site is not proof of anything. It is
itself just a postulation of a rudimentary masjid, without any reason
as to why we should assume this is the case.
Johnny:
> Since you admit that "Arabic speakers may find some of my errors to be
> laughable", then I suggest you try to keep out of places where you
> don't belong.
I was referring to blunders in my transliterations and how I
conjugated certain verbs. Indeed, my English was poor in that as well
(as it was hastily thrown together), but I felt any Arabic error would
be punced on and set up as a source of ridicule that would replace any
discussion on the content of the actual post. Regardless, it is well
known here that my command of Arabic has been nil, but I am slowly
learning (thanks to already have my feet in the world of Semitic
languags). However, I don't think a pristine command of Arabic was
absolutely necessary for the discussion at hand. The little I know has
enabled me to develop a good argument IMHO.
Johnny:
> Arabic is a living language, and like every living language, it takes
> words from other languages and untill it becomes part of the language.
> It does not matter what the word may have mean't in the "Hebrew"
> language, what one needs to see is how it is understood in the Arabic
> language because now that word has become part of that language and is
> in common usage.
Ahhhh.... this is what Heger was trying to touch on originally in his
furqaan argument. The argument is that a word may have had one
meaning, but over time, a completely different meaning is applied to
it, and often old meanings die off. So, if you acknowledge that a word
can change in meaning when it is borrowed by another language, that
should be enough to question a modern lexicon that says this is what
the word means today. While I am not defending Heger's argument (nor
am I attacking it, as I don't understand it), I think you yourself
have at least begun to agree that it is possible for a text to lose
its original meaning in light of the adoption of a new sort of dogma.
I believe this is one of the keys to the arguments of Luling, Heger,
Luxenberg, et. al.
Johnny:
> "Alcohol" is not originally from English, but if you check out any English
> disctionary you will find the word therein.
I agree 100%, but then what do we say of trying to use modern
interpretations of an older text? For example, if we find a 16th
century English text that talks of "throwing a fag on the fire," this
should not be considered some form of barbaric attack on innocent
homosexuals (as "fag" means bundle of sticks).
Johnny:
> Its not my fault if you are igorant regarding the sciences of the
> Hadeeth.
I'm definitely no expert, but from what I've seen, the whole idea of
"isnaad science" is decidedly weak, often with different schools only
supporting those ahadith that support their own personal stance. It
still comes down to hearsay (A heard from B, that D told C....). I
have seen people try and cite older texts on rather naive scholarship
(dating a text based on the fact that a certain name appears on it, et
cetera).
Johnny:
> I am not a scholar of the science of Hadeeth, so I suggest you have a
> discussion on this topic with [...] Dr Saifullah.
I have discussed this with him, and the debate rages on.... though,
while I admit this may sound like arrogance, I think the more I learn,
the less certain arguments seem to hold up. Still, the debate rages
on.
Johnny:
> I was not referring to hadeeth,
When you say the Qur'an was the same that Muhammad was give, you can
only know this via the traditions. The Qur'an itself tells you nothing
about Muhammad.
Regarding repetition:
> The Quran mentions a story and then warns the readers and gives them a
> moral lesson. Thats all.
that's fine, but that is the sort of answer that will reconcile the
doublettes of any religious text. So, I guess we should ignore all the
contradictions in the Bible, as the main message (Jesus died for your
sins) is more important, right?
Johnny:
> > http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/quranmulti.html
>
> As usuall, the same old Cronie, Crook and Wansbrough nonsense.
Hardly. I don't think you're familiar with Crone and Cook, as my work
had ver little to do with them. I only used a passage from their book
to set the tone, and from there I presented evidence... evidence which
you have failed to respond to. My article did not rest on the strength
or weakness of Cook and Crone's scholarship, thus your attacks on them
are unrelated. That being said, lets see what you offered...
> "Hagarism . . . is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone but
> anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first
> one wonders if it is just a 'leg pull', 'spoof'."
>
> R. B. Sergeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.
Again, no citation. I have read this article (1978 issue, no. 1), and
it is indeed quite hostile. However, why did you put the three dots
("...") inbetween "Hagarism" and "is not.."? The reason, for those
readers who are interested, is that Sergeante wrote in the ommitted
text that Hagarism is "lacking the depth of Dr. Wansbrough's
undisputed learning". I guess that wouldn't look good in a post that
claims the scholars all despise Wansbrough. That being said, thus far
you are 1 for 1, as Sergeant's work seems to imply a massive hatred
for Hagarism.
> Regarding the "plurality of sources":
>
> "When they speak of 'the belated and imperfect editing of materials
> from a plurality of traditions' they are begging the question of where
> this plurality came from. A lot of revelations? A lot of prophets? One
> fact that needs to be taken into account with other facts is that the
> Koran has given profound satisfaction to millions of people over
> fourteen centuries. Are we to fall back on the notion that just anyone
> could have written any of it?"
>
> N. Daniel, Journal of Semitic Studies.
This is a weak argument, and I have said in the past that Daniel's
work is quite naive. He begins with a rhetorical question that is
unrelated, and ends off with an ad-numerum fallacy. Indeed, *BILLIONS*
of people have loved the Bible... could it really have been written by
man? If you want evidence corroborating the multiple sources theory,
just consider the numerous variant passages.
> "Unsurprisingly, the Crone-Cook interpretation has failed to win
> general acceptance among Western Orientalists, let alone Muslim
> scholars . . . The rhetoric of these authors may be an obstacle for
> many readers, for their argument is conveyed through a dizzying and
> unrelenting array of allusions, metaphors, and analogies. More
> substantively, their use (or abuse) of the Greek and Syriac sources
> has been sharply criticised. In the end, perhaps we ought to use
> Hagarism more as a 'what-if' exercise than as a research monograph."
>
> R. S. Humphreys, Islamic History - Revised Edition, p.85. Princeton
> University Press: 1995
Note again the three dots ("...") ommitting text. this is fine (I do
it myself, and have done it in this post) when one is paraphrasing,
but this is a form a deception when favorable comments are being
deliberately removed. The part that was taken out was the following:
"However, their account does squarely confront the disparities between
early Arabic tradition on the Conquest period and the accounts given
by Eastern Christian and Jewish sources."
[Humphreys, Islamic History, (Princeton, 1991) p. 85]
After that, Johnny demonstrated another deceptive form of editing with
the last sentence, placing a period where it does not belong. The last
sentence of the passage actually read:
"In the end, perhaps we ought to use Hagarism more as a 'what-if'
exercise than as a research monograph, *BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE
IGNORED*."
[Ibid. Emphasis mine.]
Stephen Humphreys actually was quite favorable towards Hagarism, and
the way Johnny has put forth this quote is rather poor. The reality is
that Humphreys was very much impressed with Cook and Crone's ability
to show the weakness of the traditional sources from which we derive
our understanding of Islamic history. Humphreys' main criticism was
that numerous people disagreed with the authors' conclusions as to
what really happened. This actually happens to be the main criticism
of most scholars who comment on the book. Many find their 'negative'
results excellent (the many inconsistent reports of orthodox Islamic
historiography which they expose, et cetera), while they find the
duo's 'positive' assertions (Syria instead of Mecca being the
birthplace of Islam, et cetera) to be somewhat questionable. Humphreys
is actually a fan of the work, and during a lecture presented at the
University of Tokyo on October 21st 1997, he said that "medievalists
have had their own shocker from a different direction, in particular
the brilliant graduate-student essay of Patricia Crone and Michael
Cook, 'Hagarism, The Making of the Islamic World'."
A transcript of the complete lecture can be seen at:
http://www.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/IAS/English/Unit/Soukatu/Soukatu-l/humphreys.html
So, being that Johnny chose to use a selective form a mine-quoting, I
would like to give the actually passage, unedited:
"In Hagarism, The Making of the Islamic World (1977), Michael Cook and
Patricia Crone have taken an even more radical step than Wansbrough.
They regard the whole established version of Islamic history down at
least to the time of 'Abd al-Malik (65-86/685-705) as a later
fabrication, and reconstruct the Arab Conquests and the formation of
the Caliphate as a movement of peninsular Arabs who had been inspired
by Jewish messianism to try to reclaim the Promised Land. In this
interpretation, Islam emerged as an autonomous religion and culture
only within the process of a long struggle for identity among the
disparate peoples yoked together by the Conquests: Jabobite Syrians,
Nestorian Arameans in Iraq, Copts, Jews, and (finally) Peninsular
Arabs. Unsurprisingly, the Crone-Cook interpretation has failed to win
general acceptance among Western Orientalists, let alone Muslim
scholars. However, their account does squarely confront the
disparities between early Arabic tradition on the Conquest period and
the accounts given by Eastern Christian and Jewish sources. The
rhetoric of these authors may be an obstacle for many readers, for
their argument is conveyed through a dizzying and unrelenting array of
allusions, metaphors, and analogies. More substantively, their use (or
abuse) of the Greek and Syriac sources has been sharply criticised. In
the end, perhaps we ought to use Hagarism more as a 'what-if' exercise
than as a research monograph, but it should not be ignored."
[Humphreys, Islamic History, (Princeton, 1991) pp. 84-85]
Johnny:
> let me say again, no point coming to the Muslims when the majority of
> your own scholars reject the theories of your favourite authors.
Let also say that you have not really shown these texts to be as
frowned upon as you claim. I will admit that some have given Hagarism
a tough time (but others have really enjoyed it), but this has, as was
stated above, mainly been with regard to their positive assertions. As
for Wansbrough's book, only R.B. Sergenant, as far as I know, gave it
a poor review. Most other scholars see it as a sort of benchmark in
the critical study of Islam.
> > I still don't see why such analysis cannot be applied to the Qur'an
> > (save for some sort of appeal to dogma).
>
> The Quran and the Bible are two different books. There transmission
> is not the same. We have the NT which is dependant upon loads of MSS
> wherese the Qurans transmission is and always has been oral.
Yes, but now that we can observe this oral text in written form, we
see some problems. the same is the case with Judaism, where for
centuries the Rabbis have memorized the Torah... however, once Western
scholars (like the aforementioned Wellhausen) have observed the
written text, problems arise.
Regarding the conversation between Iblees and Allaah:
> As mentioned by Br Omar "In both cases, the Quran is giving a
> paraphrased summary of the communications between Allah and Iblis."
And I gave my response to Omar:
"So then when the Qur'an says Allah said XYZ, Allah didn't really say
XYZ, correct? So when the Qur'an quotes God, it is not always an exact
quote? If so, how do we know when it is ever an exact quote? Is there
a set logic in Islamic hermaneutics?"
This is just using the Christian method of saying that the
contradiction doesn't matter, as long as we acknowledge the general
message.
Regardless, thanks for a fun post... please pardon all my grammatical
errors.
-Dionisio (Denis) Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm
And see the Suwar Min Mithlihi (Surahs Like It) at:
http://geocities.com/infideljihad/surahslikeit.html
Johnny
>
> johnny_b...@yahoo.com (Johnny) wrote in message news:<9lv343$9ji$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> > I was just trying to show the double standards of the author.
> > On one hand he believes the Bible to be the "word of God", and
> > then he has the audacity to launch attacks against the Quran.
>
> Well, I'll myself say upfront that the sort of method I'm using
> against the Qur'an works so much better with the Bible. In fact, if
> this methodology hurts the Qur'an, it makes the Bible go down in
> flames! This is because such methods have been taken from the Biblical
> scholarship of Wellhausen, et. al. Still, such double standards are
> not at all relevant. Dr. Heger could be a man who worships Hindu
> elephants in his spare time... regardless, this does not weigh in on
> the Qur'an's integrity.
No, it is totally relevant. If he refuses to accept what is said
against the Bible, and refuses to acknowledge the fact that his book
contains errors, parts are lost, contains interpolations and
deletions, then really he has no right whatsoever to start launching
attacks upon someone elses book whose state of preservation is far far
better than his own books. The guys is simply a hypocrite for doing
so.
>
> Johnny:
> > Using your same argument, wouldn't you say that Heger's attacks upon
> > the Quran are also "a bit ad-homein" and "attacking Muslim's faith"?
>
> Well, yes, and no... I think any skeptical criticism is going to be
> insulting to the believer's faith. However, I meant that your switch
> was to a topic that was unrelated, and thus seemed like a personal
> attack (for example, I'm an Atheist, thus if I criticize the Qur'an,
> you wont go off on a tyrade about the integrity of the Baghavad
> Gita... but if I was a Hindu, you might... as part of a personal
> attack).
My switch to the Bible was to show the guys double standards and
hypocrasy. That wasn't any "ad homein attack" or "personal attack".
What "personal attack" did I make against Heger? None, I merely
directed him to a site which contained "skeptical criticism" of the
Book Heger believes to be of divine origin, and the site simply
contained statements of BIBLICAL SCHOLARS and not some "mad looney
Muslim" with a sword in his hand. You being an athiest should have
absoluitely no objection at all to this because I merely referred
Heger to HIS OWN SCHOLARS who have to say some really amazing things
about Heger's book. Whats wrong with that? This isn't any "personal
attack". It would be a personal attack were I to call someone abusive
names, insult them etc, but it is not a personal attack when I am
trying to show the person that he is bias and using double standards
because all what he/she is saying against my book is actually totally
true when it comes to their own book! Now if Heger is not willing to
believe what HIS OWN scholars say, then why does he expect me to
believe what HIS OWN scholars have to say about MY book?
>
> Johnny:
> > Or is it perfectly ok to go ad-homein as long as the recieving party
> > happens to be Muslim?
>
> As far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly okay to criticize anyone's
> beliefs, thus it doesn't matter who is on the receiving end.
Fine, thats precisely what I did. Thanks...end of story...
>However,
> I think we should stay within the topic... the only reason you brought
> up the Bible in the first place was because Dr. Heger is a Christian
> of some sort.
Yes, and showed his double standards. I don't know what "sort of"
Christian he is though.
>
> Johnny:
> > This is simply your own opinion and personal views and I am sure many
> > others disagree with you, like you say: "These are just my rough
> > thoughts". Well fine, just don't try to push it down our throats.
>
> Whose throat shall I push it down?
Your own.
>I thought this was a board for
> discussing Islam.
It is.
>When I am in alt.atheism, I appreciate those who
> attempt to show the flaws of Atheism (speaking of which, Imran Aijaz,
> if you're reading this, I promise I'll email you soon... I've just
> been lazily slummin' it as of late).
Yes, I read (well some of it) your "kalaam" discussion with him.
Pretty cool.
[deleting more irrelevant stuff.]
>On the same token, I'm sure Dr. M S M Saifullah, Jason
> Hannan, and Dr. Muhammad Ghoniem all consider the Qur'an beautiful and
> consider every letter positition to be deliberate, but this does not
> mean it si true.
Just as your view that the Quran is all "bad" and "ugly" and every
letter position to be "not deleberate" DOES NOT MEAN it is
true...right?
>
> johnny:
> > The one who you cite as authority is Wansbrough.
>
> I cited more than juist Wansbrough, though i do admit I cited
> Wansbrough quite often from start to finish. Furthermore, I didn't
> just cite Wansbrough; rather I showed what he said and then commented
> on it, often trying to show evidence. You did not respond to a
> specific part of the article.
Look man, I don't have the time to respond line by line to that
article and I am not qualified to do so either. Knowledgable people
are here who can do so and have responded to the claims of your
favourite orientalists. It does not matter what "comments" you made
after citing your scholar called "Wansbrough". Since his theories
have been rejected, well then it does not matter to me at all what
comments you make, they are pretty much worthless as far I am
concerned. Like I said before, try to convince your own scholars that
what wansbrough is saying is the truth, and only then worry about
"saving" Muslims.
>
> Johnny:
> > So before trying to convince the Muslims, you should first try to
> > convince the majority of the non-Muslim scholars who reject his
> > theories and have made fun of it.
>
> With all due respedct, I don't think you know what the non-Muslim
> scholars think about the work. the passages you cited didn't say much,
> and seemed like a copy and paste job. I'm more than willing, however,
> to discuss the passages you cited.
Umm yes, they were a classic cut n paste job from Abdurraheem Green
debate material. I thought that was pretty obvious.
>
> > "Readers who do not have a thorough knowledge of German, Latin, Greek
> > and Hebrew, apart from Arabic and English (the language in which the
> > book is written although that is not obvious in many instances!) will
> > probably find no use for it and are advised not to take it up."
> >
> > G. H. A. Juynboll, Journal of Semitic Studies.
>
> This is what you consider a criticism?
If Juynboll considers it a "criticism", then really who am I to deny
its a criticism? Please carry on the discussion with Juynboll and
tell him how "crap" his "criticism" was.
>Wansbrough's theories are not
> even mentioned in the passage you have cited, thus I wonder why you
> felt it was relevant.
It was relevant because the chap says:
"...will probably find no use for it and are advised not to take it
up."
There we go. If according to Juynboll Wansbrough's book is pretty
much worthless, then hey thats it. he is talking about Wansbrough's
book in GENERAL, talking about it AS A WHOLE and not referring to any
specific text in Wansbrough's book. I don't see how this citation is
"irrelevant".
Juynboll also says:
"Since the earliest Arabic literary remains date from the second half
of the second century onwards, he therefore assumes that there was
nothing going before that time that warrants tracing back the origins
of Arabic literary activity to an earlier period . . . Logic alone
might preclude serious consideration of this version of Islamic
history . . . Suffice it to say that Wansbrough's implication and
logic are his, and his alone."
G. H. A. Juynboll, Journal of Semitic Studies.
>Indeed he does make use of Hebrew, Latin and
> Greek, and Arabic appears on every page!
"...will probably find no use for it and are advised not to take it
up."
[deleting some stuff...]
>Furthermore, the Journal of Semitic Studies is a
> journal published in many volumes. Could you please cite a year, page
> and volume number?
What year was Wansbrough published? I guess its the same year, anyway
the one to answer this question is Dr. MSM Saifullah or Br. Robert
Squires, on whose site (muslim-answers.org) we find the refutation to
Jay Smiths deception.
>
> > "Wansbrough appears to set out to convince us of his learning."
> >
> > R. B. Sergeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.
>
> Again, this is not a criticism of his theories.
And again it is talking about the book generally or AS A WHOLE. Whats
so difficult here? Here is are more words by R.B. Sergent:
"Wansbrough avers (p.47) that in certain Qur'anic passages "ellipsis
and repetition are such as to suggest not the carefully executed
project of one or many more men, but rather the product of an organic
development from originally independent traditions during a long
period of transmission". In this he is of course attempting to fit the
process by which the canon of the Hebrew Bible was established, onto
the Qur'an, but it won't wash! J.Burton in his recent Collection of
the Qur'an (Cambridge 1976), argues vastly more cogently than
Wansbrough's unsubstantiable assertions, that the consonantal text of
the Qur'an before us is the Prophet's own recension."
R. B. Sergeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.
Hope that cheers you up.
>Once again you have
> failed to actually cite a year, page or volume number for this issue
> of JRAS, which makes me wonder if you are copying this from another
> site.
Finding the "year" is a bit easy I would say, as for the "page number"
and "volume number", then you ask the one's I've named above. And duh
yes, I got the references from online papers, here:
http://www.muslim-answers.org/expo-05d.htm
More citations above.
Lester himself mentions, Wansborough's conclusions are not approved
even by most of the orientalists themselves some of whom describe his
work as "drastically wrongheaded", "ferociously opaque" and a
"colossal self-deception" [Lester's article, p.55.]
>
> > "Qur'anic Studies is so radical in its basic hypotheses as to ensure
> > that many will reject its conclusions out of hand".
> >
> > William. A. Graham, Journal of the American Oriental Society.
>
> I actually agree 100% with the above.
There we go! So now your job is to convince your own scholars and
then worry about Muslims.
[more deleted]
>Also, I would like a better citation from JAOS (I have
> access to full collections of JAOS, JSS, JRAS, and would like to check
> the articles in their entirety...).
So does Dr. Saifullah (I remember reading that some where!). Please
ask him for the specifics.
>
> > So why should I accept blindly anything coming from this "scholar" of
> > yours?
>
> I didn't ask you to accept anything blindly. In my post to ARI on Bani
> Israa'eel 17:1, I gave the thoughts of various scholars, and tried to
> elucidate their points and demonstrate a bit of evidence to give
> weight to the theory.
And again, they are YOUR scholars and NOT ours. You are free to
believe whatever they may have to say, I will syick with mine thank
you very much. And Dr. Saifullah mentions Neil Robinson, I will try
to get hold of his book.
>
> Johnny:
> > "Most glorified is the one who carried his servant during the night,
> > from the inviolable place of prostration to the farthest place of
> > prostration."
> >
> > The response to this is to be found here:
> >
> > http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html
>
> I made reference to this, though I admit in passing. I don't see why
> we should assume the existence of any sort of rudimentary masjid on
> the temple mount.
Masjid, what it means etc etc is all explained in the above article in
much much detail.
>Many Jewish and Christian sources note that the site
> was being used as a dump for Christian refuse (a few Jews would wail
> there during Tish B'av, and thus motivated some Christians to
> besmatter the place with substances more foul than just trash).
So what, that does not reduce the holiness of the pleace does it? The
site was not used as a Rubbish bin during the time of the Prophet was
it? hence it does not matter if LATTER it was transformed into a
rubbish dump by Christians. If you go to the above link you will
read:
"The priest who had gathered the coals entered the sanctuary first,
scattered them over the incense altar, prostrated himself, and
departed. Then the priest who was chosen by lot to offer the incense
entered, bearing the pan of incense in his hand. He was accompanied by
a priest appointed for this task who instructed him in the proper
ritual, and he did not offer it until he was told: "Offer the
incense!" The officiating priest waited until the space between the
hall and the altar was cleared of people, offered up the incense,
prostrated himself, and departed (Tam. 6; Kelim end of ch. 1). During
the offering of the incense in the sanctuary, the people used to
gather in the azarah for prayer, and even outside the Temple these
times were set aside for prayer (cf. Luke 1:10; Judith 9:1). After the
departure of the priest who had offered the incense, all the priests
filed into the sanctuary, prostrated themselves, and went out again."
["Temple", Encyclopaedia Judaica (CD-ROM Edition), 1997, Judaica
Multimedia (Israel) Limited.]
and comments:
"It is interesting to note that the Temple was considered as the only
place of prostration by some Rabbis and that they would refuse to
completely prostrate outside the Temple in Jerusalem."
>The
> extracanonical sources are what tell us it was in Jerusalem, and they
> often speak of an actual Masjid, where Muhammad led prayer with Jesus,
> Moses, and popular figures from Biblical literature.
What is the defination of a Masjid? Huge dome, towering minaret etc?
No of course not, again all this is explained in the above referred
article. Masjid is simply a place of prostration. Masjid does not
refer to any building and you can see pictures of early "Masjids" in
the above article.
>I find it hard to
> believe that Muhammad was standing in a trash dump with Jesus and
> Moses.
For Allah all is possible, its nothing difficult to remove any trash
>from that place. But then again you are an athiest, someone who does
not believe in the existence of Allah, so its really a waste of time
discussing this with you.
[more irrelevant stuff deleted]
>
> Johnny:
> > Arabic is a living language, and like every living language, it takes
> > words from other languages and untill it becomes part of the language.
> > It does not matter what the word may have mean't in the "Hebrew"
> > language, what one needs to see is how it is understood in the Arabic
> > language because now that word has become part of that language and is
> > in common usage.
>
> Ahhhh.... this is what Heger was trying to touch on originally in his
> furqaan argument.
Response to Heger's claims have been answered by Br Shibli Zaman. You
(and Heger) are free to carry on the discussion with him. heger is
simply making an extremely silly argument, he says that Furqaan in
another language means salvation, so when the Quran uses this word it
actually means salvation! and then he goes on to show his gloomy
CHRISTIAN interpretation of the verse! This is plain and simple
ridiculous.
>The argument is that a word may have had one
> meaning, but over time, a completely different meaning is applied to
> it, and often old meanings die off. So, if you acknowledge that a word
> can change in meaning when it is borrowed by another language, that
> should be enough to question a modern lexicon that says this is what
> the word means today.
Look, all I said was THAT EVERY LIVING LANGUAGE keeps taking words
>from other languages until it becomes part of that language. This is
how languages EVOLVE, this is nothing unique to Arabic. So it does
not matter what Furqaan means in another language, whatever it may
mean in another language is simply irrelevant because that meaning is
not how the word is understood in another language whose part it has
now become. By the time the Quran was revealed, "Furqaan" was already
a part of the Arabic language, it was understood to mean CRITERION.
This word was now a full part of the Arabic language. But to say that
wherever the Quran uses the word FURQAAN it actually is saying
"salvation" is simply ridiculous and laughable. So when an Arabic
dictionary says that FURQAAN means CRITERION, then that is totally
completely 100% accurate and correct. It is not a mistake. To use
one one example, lets take the word GHAROOR. In Urdu, it means proud
or rude. Here is a sentence: "yeh bunda gharoor wala hai"
translation: "this person is very proud (or rude)". Now some "Dr"
pops up and says: "hey you know what, the author was actually trying
to say that this person is very DECEPTIVE." Thats because in Arabic,
Gharoor means deception! And of course, someone who is rude/proud is
not neccessarily deceptive. But the "Dr" insists: "No no, GHAROOR
means DECEPTION, and the URDU sentence is better translated using the
word DECEPTION because this is a LOAN word, LOANED by THE URDU
LANGUAGE."! This is simply ridiculous reasoning, and precisely the
silly reasoning of "Dr" Heger, and now YOU! (Urdu by the way is
composed of many languages, known as LASHKARI ZABAN.")
>While I am not defending Heger's argument (nor
> am I attacking it, as I don't understand it), I think you yourself
> have at least begun to agree that it is possible for a text to lose
> its original meaning in light of the adoption of a new sort of dogma.
No no no and no. The Quran when it says FURQAAN it means CRITERION
between right and wrong, truth and falsehood and NOT "salvation", so
the Quran DID NOT "loose its original meaning" because the meaning of
the ORIGINAL meaning of the word in Arabic is CRITERION.
>
> Johnny:
> > "Alcohol" is not originally from English, but if you check out any English
> > disctionary you will find the word therein.
>
> I agree 100%, but then what do we say of trying to use modern
> interpretations of an older text? For example, if we find a 16th
> century English text that talks of "throwing a fag on the fire," this
> should not be considered some form of barbaric attack on innocent
> homosexuals (as "fag" means bundle of sticks).
When we see the word "fag" used in a 16th century document, then we
see how it was used at that time, and similarly how it is now being
used in modern times. So when someone in the 20th century uses the
word "fag", it does not mean what it used to mean in the 16th century.
And if someone insists it does, then he/she is simply being silly.
So if Johnny goes: "give me a fag", it does not mean I was saying
"give me a bundle of sticks". ("fag", where I am refers to cigarette)
>
> Johnny:
> > Its not my fault if you are igorant regarding the sciences of the
> > Hadeeth.
>
> I'm definitely no expert, but from what I've seen, the whole idea of
> "isnaad science" is decidedly weak, often with different schools only
> supporting those ahadith that support their own personal stance.
Again, I don't see how this issue has suddenly popped up in your posts
knowing full well that I did not make a single reference to the
sciences of Hadeeth in my original postings. I was talking about the
MUTAWATTIR ORAL TRANSMISSION of the Quran, and there you are talking
about the sciences of isnaad etc. Again, fine, it does not matter if
YOU consider it unreliable or "weak". There are many many others who
DO consider it RELIABLE.
Anyway, here is a link to early 1st century Hadeeths, which proves the
reliability of the hadeeths because what we find in an older document
is latter confirmed in the newer one:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html
Following is quoted from Dr. Muhammed Mohar Ali's book, "THE QUR'AN
AND THE LATEST ORIENTALIST ASSUMPTIONS":
"Broadly, the process of scrutiny and investigation took two distinct
lines
(1) a thorough investigation into the character, personality,
capacity, background and trustworthiness of each and every transmitter
of a particular report, together with the continuity of the chain of
narrators, and
(2) textual criticism with special reference to internal evidence,
compatibility with well-established facts and the rules of rational
criticism.5
Also, the reports were compared, collated and arranged according to
historical and juridical topics as well as under the names of the
original transmitters."
>
> Johnny:
> > I was not referring to hadeeth,
>
> When you say the Qur'an was the same that Muhammad was give, you can
> only know this via the traditions.
No, I know this because the transmission of the Quran is MUTAWATTIR
ORAL, its a Book that has always been in the hands of the people, not
some indivisuals but the entire community, its a Book that has ALWAYS
been recited not once, not twice but 5 times a day, its a book which
has ALWAYS been memorised by the people, major parts of it have been
memorised by MANY MORE, and today there are literally MILLIONS who
have memrised ALL the Quran and MILLIONS MORE who have memorised MAJOR
parts of it and MILLIONS MORE who have memorised small parts of it,
and this has been a CONTINOUS PROCESS going back to the time of
prophet Muhammed (PBUH). The Quran has been passed to us in this oral
MUTAWATIR way at each and every generation, each and every stage and
over a wide geographical area. As such there can be absolutely no
doubt at all regarding its authenticity.
> Regarding repetition:
> > The Quran mentions a story and then warns the readers and gives them a
> > moral lesson. Thats all.
>
> that's fine, but that is the sort of answer that will reconcile the
> doublettes of any religious text. So, I guess we should ignore all the
> contradictions in the Bible, as the main message (Jesus died for your
> sins) is more important, right?
Again you are using a discarded book against the Quran. There is no
similarity as such between the Bible and the Quran. The Quran is the
best tafsir of the Quran, as explained earlier, past stories are
mentioned in the Quran and a moral lesson is given, people are warned
etc, and in another place the same story is again mentioned in MORE
DETAIL (no contradiction) and MORE lessons are given to the believers
and unbelievers and they are asked to believe in Allah wih MORE
themes. There never is any divergence in the accounts as mentioned in
the Quran. This is not the same as "4 horses" and in another place
regarding the same incident, there were "12" horses.
>
> Johnny:
> > > http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/quranmulti.html
> >
> > As usuall, the same old Cronie, Crook and Wansbrough nonsense.
>
> Hardly. I don't think you're familiar with Crone and Cook, as my work
> had ver little to do with them
Johnny is familiar enough to know this is not accepted scholarship and
that Cronie and Crook are very deceptive orientalists and perhaps
racists, here is a recent example of their deception:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html
>I only used a passage from their book
> to set the tone, and from there I presented evidence...
You used poor source to set your "tone".
My "attacks" on these indivuals are perfectly related.
>
> > "Hagarism . . . is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone but
> > anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first
> > one wonders if it is just a 'leg pull', 'spoof'."
> >
> > R. B. Sergeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.
>
> Again, no citation.
Same answer as above. Abdurraheem Green in his debate with Jay Smith
quoted all of these references, and not once, not even once did Jay
Smith challenge these citations or even claim they are "misquoted" or
erroneous, infact the guy simply avoided responding to most virtually
all the tough questions posed to him.
>I have read this article (1978 issue, no. 1), and
> it is indeed quite hostile. However, why did you put the three dots
> ("...") inbetween "Hagarism" and "is not.."?
I did not put the dots there.
>The reason, for those
> readers who are interested, is that Sergeante wrote in the ommitted
> text that Hagarism is "lacking the depth of Dr. Wansbrough's
> undisputed learning".
Your a very funny man. So what if Hagarism is "lacking the depth of
Dr. Wansbrough's undisputed learning"??? It still does not contradict
the fact that: >"Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at
first
> one wonders if it is just a 'leg pull', 'spoof'." does it? So what are you talking about?? Ok, so Crone and Cook are dumber than Wansbrough, so what and who cares??
And about Wansbrough Sergeant says:
"Why should he insist that the Sira is concerned to locate the origins
of Islam in the Hijaz (implying that this is not the case) when the
plain and uncontested evidence is that the Hijaz was its birthplace?"
"A canonical consonantal text was plainly early established. It may be
compared with Epigraphic South Arabian, which has a consonantal text
but no surviving oral tradition of vowelling - whereas the early
Qur'anic text has."
"An historical circumstance so public cannot have been invented."
R. B. Sergeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.
So I can accuse you of not telling the complete truth, and page number
volume number etc, you ask those I mentioned earlier.
And Wansbrough makes fun of Hagarism:
" . . . The juxtaposition muhajir: Hagar, even if it were
etymologically sound, cannot really support the messianic and
irredentist superstructure erected here to explain the Arab expansion
into the Fertile Crescent. The material is upon occasion misleadingly
presented, e.g. Ephrem certainly did not prophesy an exodus of
Hagarenes from the desert (p.13), nor did Levond report Leo's
description of Hajjaj destroying old Hagarene writings (p.18)."
Wansbrough, BSOAS, Vol. XLI, pp.155-156: 1978.
There you go, all the page numbers you need!
More on Sergeant again:
"After plodding through this tiresome travesty of history one finds on
the dust-cover the authors' self assured assertion, 'This challenging
book will be of interest to all those concerned with the study of
Islamic history and civilisation . . . It is also a major contribution
to the history of religion and history of ideas.' Scholars of mark -
Lyall, Browne, Nicholson, Arberry - have published with the Cambridge
Press. The more the pity that it has been so ill advised as to be
'conned' into giving its imprimatur to this pretentious humbug."
R. B. Sergeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.
>
> > Regarding the "plurality of sources":
> >
> > "When they speak of 'the belated and imperfect editing of materials
> > from a plurality of traditions' they are begging the question of where
> > this plurality came from. A lot of revelations? A lot of prophets? One
> > fact that needs to be taken into account with other facts is that the
> > Koran has given profound satisfaction to millions of people over
> > fourteen centuries. Are we to fall back on the notion that just anyone
> > could have written any of it?"
> >
> > N. Daniel, Journal of Semitic Studies.
>
> This is a weak argument, and I have said in the past that Daniel's
> work is quite naive. He begins with a rhetorical question that is
> unrelated, and ends off with an ad-numerum fallacy. Indeed, *BILLIONS*
> of people have loved the Bible... could it really have been written by
> man? If you want evidence corroborating the multiple sources theory,
> just consider the numerous variant passages.
No, you haven't produced any evidence, the only thing you did was to
make a silly statement about "repetition" which does not prove any of
what your saying. Danies has written in detail exposing Crone/Crook.
"It is easier to believe that Muslims are better witnesses to Islam
than Christian or Jewish who may more naturally be supposed to have
known very little about it. Even after living among Muslims for a
millennium they often knew very little; and they do not make more
acceptable witnesses for the earliest days. But the authors are happy
to take evidence from Christians and Jews in the eighth century,
though without explaining why this now becomes acceptable evidence for
'religious events in the seventh century'".
N. Daniel, Journal of Semitic Studies.
>
> > "Unsurprisingly, the Crone-Cook interpretation has failed to win
> > general acceptance among Western Orientalists, let alone Muslim
> > scholars . . . The rhetoric of these authors may be an obstacle for
> > many readers, for their argument is conveyed through a dizzying and
> > unrelenting array of allusions, metaphors, and analogies. More
> > substantively, their use (or abuse) of the Greek and Syriac sources
> > has been sharply criticised. In the end, perhaps we ought to use
> > Hagarism more as a 'what-if' exercise than as a research monograph."
> >
> > R. S. Humphreys, Islamic History - Revised Edition, p.85. Princeton
> > University Press: 1995
>
> Note again the three dots ("...") ommitting text.
Please throw another "surprise" at us as you did the last time:
>this is fine (I do
> it myself, and have done it in this post) when one is paraphrasing,
> but this is a form a deception when favorable comments are being
> deliberately removed.
No it is NOT DECEPTION. The point I made is that the MAJORITY of
scholars have REJECTED the work of Crone/Cook. So it makes NO
DIFFERENCE AT ALL if SOME accept the works of crone/cook, the point
being made is that the MAJORITY HAVE REJECTED their work (which
LOGICALLY implies there are SOME with "favourable" statements for
thiese sorry little people.):
"Unsurprisingly, the Crone-Cook interpretation has failed to win >
general acceptance among Western Orientalists, let alone Muslim
scholars..."
Thats all. So what does it prove if lets say one so called "scholar"
here or there has something "favourable" to say about cronie/crook?
NOTHING, it does not contradict my original statement that the
MAJORITY of YOUR OWN scholars have REJECTED crone/cook. I really
don't have a clue what sort of weird "logic" your using. Anyway its
an extremely desperate attempt.
>The part that was taken out was the following:
>
> "However, their account does squarely confront the disparities between
> early Arabic tradition on the Conquest period and the accounts given
> by Eastern Christian and Jewish sources."
> [Humphreys, Islamic History, (Princeton, 1991) p. 85]
What on earth has this got to do with ANYTHING?? To let the readers
know again: "Unsurprisingly, the Crone-Cook interpretation has >failed
to win general acceptance among Western Orientalists, let alone Muslim
scholars... The rhetoric of these authors may be an obstacle for many
readers, for their argument is conveyed through a dizzying and
unrelenting array of allusions, metaphors, and analogies. More
substantively, their use (or abuse) of the Greek and Syriac sources
has been sharply criticised. In the end, perhaps we ought to use
Hagarism more as a 'what-if' exercise than as a research monograph."
So there we go!
And N. Daniel responds in detail to this extremely silly method used
by Cronie/Crook to decorate their theories. Why should we expect Jews
and Christians to know more about Islam than Muslims? Wasn't it the
Christians who believed that the Muslims worshipped 3 idols? So is
was that allegation really true just because it came from Christians?
N. Daniel says:
"It is easier to believe that Muslims are better witnesses to Islam
than Christian or Jewish who may more naturally be supposed to have
known very little about it. Even after living among Muslims for a
millennium they often knew very little; and they do not make more
acceptable witnesses for the earliest days. But the authors are happy
to take evidence from Christians and Jews in the eighth century,
though without explaining why this now becomes acceptable evidence for
'religious events in the seventh century'".
N. Daniel, Journal of Semitic Studies.
This crone/cook material is just nonsense.
>
> After that, Johnny demonstrated another deceptive
Hold on einstien, you have not shown us my FIRST alleged form of
"deception". Don't keep it a secret to yourself, show it to us...
>form of editing with
> the last sentence, placing a period where it does not belong. The last
> sentence of the passage actually read:
>
> "In the end, perhaps we ought to use Hagarism more as a 'what-if'
> exercise than as a research monograph, *BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE
> IGNORED*."
> [Ibid. Emphasis mine.]
Yes, and so what are you talking about?? MORE OF A WHAT IFA
EXCERCISE...but it should not be ignored. ye, so what?
>
> Stephen Humphreys actually was quite favorable towards Hagarism,
It does not matter how "favourable" he is towards Hagarism when we
KNOW that the MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS have rejected Hagarism.
>and
> the way Johnny has put forth this quote is rather poor.
No its not, your just making irrelevant points making arguments which
do not disprove anything I had to say, namely that the MAJORITY of
YOUR OWN SCHOLARS have rejected Hagarism. Now you must PROVE to us
that the MAJORITY OF your scholars do indeed accept hagarism with open
arms and highly regard it. Untill you do that, you have not proven me
wrong in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER.
>The reality is
> that Humphreys was very much impressed with Cook and Crone's ability
> to show the weakness of the traditional sources from which we derive
> our understanding of Islamic history.
And Humphery was "so impressed" that he said that the MAJORITY of
scholars have rejected Crone/Cook's stuff and that: "The >rhetoric of
these authors may be an obstacle for many readers, for their argument
is conveyed through a dizzying and
>unrelenting array of allusions, metaphors, and analogies. More
substantively, >their use (or abuse) of the Greek and Syriac sources
has been sharply criticised."
And then Mr Denis finally comes to line and admits what he hates
admitting and has been playing around so much in the desperate hope of
avoiding acknoledging the simple fact that:
>Humphreys' main criticism was
> that numerous people disagreed with the authors' conclusions as to
> what really happened.
So Mr. Denis, you go to these "numerous people" and try to convince
them that almight cronie/crook are all correct and accurate, only then
you should turn towards the Muslims to bother them.
Oh and Humpreheys also says that: >"More substantively, their use (or
abuse) of the Greek and Syriac sources has been sharply criticised."
"Good" "scholar" abusing his/her sources is not a "good" scholar. We
call this DECEPTION. The guy has to audacity to call me "deceptive"
when his own two favourite scholars are the MASTERS of DECEPTION!
[deleting more irrelevant stuff...does not make a differnece or prove
anything if Humpherey is a fan of racists]
The Mr Denis presents a long quote of Humpherey, what matters is:
"the Crone-Cook interpretation has failed to win
> general acceptance among Western Orientalists, let alone Muslim
> scholars. However, their account does squarely confront the
> disparities between early Arabic tradition on the Conquest period and
> the accounts given by Eastern Christian and Jewish sources. The
> rhetoric of these authors may be an obstacle for many readers, for
> their argument is conveyed through a dizzying and unrelenting array of
> allusions, metaphors, and analogies. More substantively, their use (or
> abuse) of the Greek and Syriac sources has been sharply criticised."
Thats all what I was saying, that the MAJORITY of denis's n Heger's
OWN SCHOLARS have rejected the works of these DECEPTIVE indivisuals,
Crone and Cook. So it makes no difference at all of Humpherey is a
"fan" of these two decievers or if he says SOME agree with these
decievers. Its as simple as that, and requires the brain of no rocket
scientist.
>
> Johnny:
> > let me say again, no point coming to the Muslims when the majority of
> > your own scholars reject the theories of your favourite authors.
>
> Let also say that you have not really shown these texts to be as
> frowned upon as you claim.
I have shown that these texts (Hagarism) is NOT ACCEPTED scholarship.
What part of this sentence didn't you understand? This is the
statement I made and this is WHAT I HAVE INDEED SHOWN. I cannot help
it if your in your DENIAL mode and playing some silly games here,
making irrelevant comments to try to avoid the reall issue at hand,
that is that the MAJORITY of western scholars have rejected the
theories of crone/cook. yes, you may not like to know that, but it is
the simple TRUTH and FACT. As to how much "loved" and "adored" these
"texts" are, the Sergeant expresses that well:
>"After plodding through this tiresome travesty of history one finds
on the dust-cover the authors' self assured assertion, 'This
challenging book will be of interest to all those concerned with the
study of Islamic history and civilisation . . . It is also a major
contribution to the history of religion and history of ideas.'
Scholars of mark - Lyall, Browne, Nicholson, Arberry - have published
with the Cambridge Press. The more the pity that it has been so ill
advised >as to be 'conned' into giving its imprimatur to this
pretentious humbug."
R. B. Sergeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.
>I will admit that some have given Hagarism
> a tough time (but others have really enjoyed it),
Very good sentence structure. Folks, what Mr Denis was *really*
trying to say was that MOST have rejected Hagarism wherese SOME have
"really enjoyed it".
[more stuff deleted.]
>
> > > I still don't see why such analysis cannot be applied to the Qur'an
> > > (save for some sort of appeal to dogma).
> >
> > The Quran and the Bible are two different books. There transmission
> > is not the same. We have the NT which is dependant upon loads of MSS
> > wherese the Qurans transmission is and always has been oral.
>
> Yes, but now that we can observe this oral text in written form, we
> see some problems. the same is the case with Judaism, where for
> centuries the Rabbis have memorized the Torah... however, once Western
> scholars (like the aforementioned Wellhausen) have observed the
> written text, problems arise.
No, no problems arise. "Qur'ānic Orthography: The Written
Representation Of The Recited Text Of The Qur'ān" by M A S Abdel
Haleem, to be found here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Scribal/haleem.html
Muslims still pay more emphasis to the ORAL recitation of the Quran
and STILL Muslim MEMORISE the Quran, either completely or major parts
of it. The above article is by a REAL SCHOLAR. And ofcourse more
articles here on the QIRAA of the Quran:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/
>
> Regarding the conversation between Iblees and Allaah:
> > As mentioned by Br Omar "In both cases, the Quran is giving a
> > paraphrased summary of the communications between Allah and Iblis."
>
> And I gave my response to Omar:
>
> "So then when the Qur'an says Allah said XYZ, Allah didn't really say
> XYZ, correct? So when the Qur'an quotes God, it is not always an exact
> quote? If so, how do we know when it is ever an exact quote? Is there
> a set logic in Islamic hermaneutics?"
15:32 says:
32.
(Allāh) said: "O Iblīs (Satan)! What is your reason for not being
among the prostrators?"
33.
[Iblīs (Satan)] said: "I am not the one to prostrate myself to a human
being, whom You created from sounding clay of altered black smooth
mud."
34.
(Allāh) said: "Then, get out from here, for verily, you are Rajīm (an
outcast or a cursed one)." [Tafsīr At-Tabarī]
38:75 says:
73.
So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them:
74.
Except Iblīs (Satan) he was proud[] and was one of the disbelievers.
75.
(Allāh) said: "O Iblīs (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating
yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands[]. Are you too
proud (to fall prostrate to Adam) or are you one of the high exalted?"
76.
[Iblīs (Satan)] said: "I am better than he, You created me from fire,
and You created him from clay."
77.
(Allāh) said: "Then get out from here, for verily, you are outcast.
In the first set of verses Allah tells the dialogue between Him and
Iblis briefly, wherese more details of the dialogue have been added in
the second set of verses.
>
> This is just using the Christian method of saying that the
> contradiction doesn't matter, as long as we acknowledge the general
> message.
No, there is NO contradiction between the verses in question.
>
> Regardless, thanks for a fun post... please pardon all my grammatical
> errors.
No problem, same here.
Johnny.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/
Denis Giron
remark made by me in a previous post... my apologies to the moderators
for the trouble caused by that original quote, if any). The thread
grows more interesting. This reply is to Dr. Saifullah, Shibli Zaman,
and Johnny. Enjoy.
"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<9m86m2$5bd$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> Contrary to the claim of Freethought alias Denis alias whatever, Neal
> Robinson has shown that the Surah al-Israa' is in fact structure.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this, but indeed I will
take your advice and check Robinson's "Discovering The Qur'an: A
Contemporary Approach To A Veiled Text." However, in the past I have
been disappointed by the little I've read from this book (I've only
read the chapter which is more or less dedicated to Hagarism).
Robinson, like Serjeant, seemed mainly hostile to Hagarism because of
his acceptance of the traditional account. I disagree with such, and
found Robinson's analogies to the state of the New Testament as a
reliable historical source to be some what naive. Maybe he sould read
George A. Wells' "The Historical Evidence for Jesus." If the ahadeeth
collections are as reliable as the Bible, I'd say then "not at all."
School starts tommorow (yes, I'm still an undergrad punk, inches away
>from beginning masters work, and a decade away from being Dr. Dionisio
:) so I wont really look until Friday... expect a post on the subject
by Saturday...
In a separate post from dr. Saifullah:
"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<9m86mh$5bk$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>
> Much of the Hebrew linguistics and grammar is based on Arabic
Indeed, this is true in many respects... and both (I believe) get alot
>from Aramaic; I never claimed otherwise. However, a lot of Hebrew
grammatical rules used today began in Baghdad, when Jewish scholars
were influenced by Muslim intellectuals (I remember learning this in a
class, but I may be wrong). I think Hebrew used before the advent of
Islam (which I admit is still very close to modern Hebrew) drew less
>from Arabic than did Hebrew after, though I could be wrong (an Israeli
friend of mine was recently explaining how many Hebrew words in the
Bible are actually of an Arabic or Aramaic origin). I'm far from an
expert.
> It is quite well-known but people like Denis Giron would still like
> to push about the "loan words".
No, I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. That is a polemic that I'm not
interested in at all. While indeed I have pushed stuff about words
like Sabt, that was more to try and lead into a discussion about
theology that develops rather rapidly. I don't assume that any
language is borne in a vacuum... every single modern language has
adopted words from other languages.
> It does not follow from a source that has repetition to mean that it was
> drawn from plurality of sources. Poor logic! Some of the English poetry is
> repetitive. Does that mean it was drawn from plural sources?
No, but I think your analogy sort of misrepresents the argument, thus
becoming a straw man (in my opinion). Forget a poem or a song that may
repeat... think of a major work (of several chapters) that repeats
stories in an unnecessary and contradictory fashion. That isn't
absolute proof of the work being from a plurality of sources, but it
can be seen as evidence to corroborate a given theory. Again, this is
all reached via abduction, and of course in a pure logic sense there
is always an implicit fallacy being committed when using abduction. I
believe this 100% (though others in the philosophy department here
tell me that this aversion to abduction is "post-modernist
foolishness").
> The same story with slight modification can be repeated at different places
> to generate different themes.
Indeed that is the theological view, but I find that hard to believe,
as it makes the text seem disorganized (or hastily thrown together).
Of course a believer like you would dispute this (as did the Rabbis
when commenting on the higher literary criticism of Wellhausen et al,
claiming each variant was deliberate). While there is no set logic in
hermaneutics, I wonder why God would give different quotes for Himself
and those with whom he talks to. With regards to the issue of Iblees
and Allaah, even the believer has to admit that at least *ONE* of
those discussions misquotes God and Iblees. So, if there is one
misquote, how can we assume any of it is exact? It opens the whole
floodgate of questions about how exact and precise the stories are.
Are you sure it is a case of paraphrasing done by God, and not by
scribes? How could we know for sure either way? I suppose this becomes
a matter of faith (as you know, I have none), and this is where the
Christian-style response of "only the general message is important" is
invoked in order to ignore contradictions.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Now, moving along, I'd like to make another comment on some of the
passages cited by Johnny in his post from August 21st. Particularly of
interest was the following from the discussion on Wansbrough...
> "Qur'anic Studies is so radical in its basic hypotheses as to ensure
> that many will reject its conclusions out of hand".
>
> William. A. Graham, Journal of the American Oriental Society.
I am troubled by the poor citations that many posters offer when
giving references, and I commented on how I could not check the work
for myself if I didn't know what page, edition, etc, it came from.
Well, I found this quote, and it comes from the April-June 1980 issue
(Vol. 100, No. 2) of the Journal of the American Oriental Society, p.
140. Let us see what else William A. Graham said about this work
[Wansbrough's "Quranic Studies"], just so readers could get an
accurate picture...
"One measure of the importance of the publication of this book is the
influence that its author has exercised in recent years upon British
scholarship in the field of early Islamic and Arabic studies."
[JAOS, Vol. 100, no. 2, Apr-Jun 1980, p. 137]
"Whatever one may think of the results of this approach (and the
present reviewer has some serious reservations about them), their
presentation in a single volume is an event of considerable importance
for classical-Islamic studies."
[ibid. p. 138]
After noting the difficulties in getting through the turgid reading
and Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, German, and Latin that appears on every
page, Graham writes what might be considered a good follow up to the
similar comments made by Juynboll in an unreferenced passage cited by
Johnny. Graham states it as follows:
"None of the preceding obviates, however, the fundamental fact that no
Qur'anic scholar or historian of early Islam can ignore the ideas and
methods that emerge in this volume. The author engages here in in a
serious confrontation over the very nature of classical-Islamic
studies with the entire company of previous giants in the field, from
Noldeke to Blachere."
[ibid.]
To truly make note of how a misquote can misrepresent what an author
truly thinks, let us take another look at the small quote offered by
Johnny, combined with the words that immediately follow it...
"Qur'anic Studies is so radical in its basic hypotheses as to ensure
that many will reject its conclusions out of hand. The present
reviewer cannot subscribe to such an assessment[.]"
[ibid. pp. 140-141]
In other words, there will be those who will try to reject it, but
Graham does not agree with such a view. The reasons he gave were that
(A) the work is "monumentally complex," and thus difficult to just
brush off with a single read, and (B) this is a work of considerable
importance with strong arguments, but is still in the rough stages of
forming its hypothesis/theory (thus it is more subject to discussion
than simple rejection).
Oh, I'd also like to apologize to Johnny... he quoted the following:
> "Wansbrough appears to set out to convince us of his learning."
>
> R. B. Sergeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.
I asked for a citation, when in fact I had it right in front of my
face! I sincerely apologize. The same work (JRAS, 1978, no. 1, pp.
76-78) was cited in reference to Cook and Crone's "Hagarism," and I
didn't realize the two were one in the same. That being said, I must
admit that Sergeant was hostile towards the conclusions of "Quranic
Studies". However, he was very respectful of Wansbrough's erudition. I
think a more hostile quote than the above could have been found... as
the sentence that immediately follows kind of made it seem like he
liked Wansbrough:
"Wansbrough appears to set out to convince us of his learning. This he
has achieved. Clearly beyond possibility of doubt, he is acquainted
with the vocabulary of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin[.]"
[JRAS, 1978, no. 1, p. 77]
That being said, I must again admit that Serjeant was very hostile
towards the work. Now, all we are left with is G. H. A. Juynboll's
quote from the Journal of Semitic Studies. I couldn't find it, and
would like Johnny to cite a year, volume, and page so I can check it
for myself. If not, I'll again try to comb through issues from the
late 70s and early 80s, but that is a tedious task...
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Moving on to Shibli Zaman's post...
Shibli Zaman <Shi...@Zaman.Net> wrote in message news:<9mb1au$lr8$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> Even funnier than this was Mr. Giron jumping on the bandwagon.
Huh? This I found simply shocking. I have not jumped on the bandwagon
in the least. In fact, I thought my comments would be considered
unduly abusive towards Dr. Heger (whom I do respect). Let me remind
you that I wrote the following:
{Begin Quote}
"Before I comment on this I must admit that I have no where near the
comprehension of Arabic and Aramaic needed to really take part [...]
Personally, I have been unable to follow the line of thought behind
this claim about certain loan-words obviously shows that the
traditional story is fabricated to cover the fact that the Qur'an was
originally in some form a Christian text that was tampered with to
make it look like an Arabic text, and made to fit in a Procrustean way
into the traditional biography of the Muhammad (i.e. the original text
must have belonged, according to this line of argumentation, to some
heretical Judaeo-Christian sect, and was probably originally in Syriac
with large dollops of Hebrew). I personally, though diligently trying
to follow the discussions, *HAVE SEEN NO EVIDENCE* [i.e. to convince
me of the claims of Heger, Luxenberg, et al]."
{End Quote}
I was merely taking part because of the way another poster recommended
your work so confidently when I am skeptical of his ability to truly
know for sure at this time. Shibli, you and I both know that you have
become somewhat of a legend among Muslims on the net, and because of
this there have been cases in the past where people have thrown your
work out there without understanding it in the least. In the past, if
I have disputed the claims of one who is using your research, they
suddenly shift into "let me go ask Shibli" mode. I'm referring to past
debates on Shir HaShirim or Eesho, and I am not claiming that Johnny
copy and pasted anything (rather he recommended a link).
I was only writing a response to Johnny. In short, I have not jumped
on this bandwagon, but I think you wrote the above because maybe you
were offended by my criticism of your comments on sources. If that is
the case, let me say that I still stand by that criticism when I see
you write things like the following:
> Do you recognize any of the sources? Neither do I. Neither does he.
> Even if what he says is actually in the sources he cites, where does
> it say that? Do you know? Neither do I. Even if the sources existed
> can you verify them? Neither can I.
With all due respect, you live in the United States of America, which
has some of the finest libraries in the world. There was no reason for
you to mock the sources and call them "Unt Ice Cream ish Guten Schtuff
- Haagen Daaz," et cetera. You are indeed quite confident about
Heger's weaknesses and your ability to expose them, thus there is no
reason to sink into sophomoric replies. It is a fact that some of his
sources were English, and either way you can't deny sources out of
existence via ridicule.
That being said, this doesn't mean Heger wins any special points, but
one is justified in criticizing those who ridicule rather than
consider sources that are accessible. However, I again acknowledge
your criticism that Heger has neither translated or cited any specific
passages from the references cited.
Now, I wanted to comment on your PART II (PART I was outside my
capabilities). While I have no skills in Arabic or Aramaic, I think
I'm able to hold a discussion on Hebrew with Shibli.
> So since Heger maintains that the meaning of "furqaan" is "salvation"
> then it must ALWAYS mean "salvation".
I hope you mean this in as sarcastic a tone as I assume you do (i.e.
to try and use the fact that words have multiple conjugations/uses as
a stick with which to beat Dr. Heger over the head with). That being
said, was not Heger talking about a very specific use, and not just
the root alone?
> "And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it
> shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt
> SALVATION/REDEEM his yoke from off thy neck." [Genesis 27:40]
With all due respect, this is becoming a rather over used (and
fallacious) method of argumentation, where you change only one word of
the King James translation. The root PARAQ (peh-reysh-qof) can indeed
mean "redeem," but in this sense the word is "ufaraqtaa" which means
to break. You've erected a bit of a straw man here with this claim,
and this would not happen if one did not rely only on a concordance.
> "And Aaron said unto them, SALVATION/REDEEM the golden earrings, which
> are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters,
> and bring them unto me."
> [Exodus 32:2]
And the fallacies continue... PARAQ can mean "redeem," as was stated
above, but in this instance it is "paaraqu." Once again you have
misrepresented the word by using a completely unrelated version of the
root.
However, when Sefer Tehelim says "Va*YIFRQENU* mitsaareinu, ki L'Olaam
chasdo," it means "and *RESCUED/SAVED/REDEEMED* us from our enemies,
because his love is forever." I don't need a concordance to tell me
this.
> I just cut and paste the above quotes from the refutation I wrote
> nearly two years ago. That should end the subject right there.
Actually, no, not in the least, as Heger was referring to a very
specific version of a word from that root and its various uses. Now,
this doesn't mean Heger wins, but the above sorts of misquotes does
not constitute a refutation in any sense. I'd like to invoke a quote
>from you found at the following site:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/name_of_jesus.htm
The quote was in response to a Christian, but I think it is quite
relevant regarding what you have written above:
"This word play is for school children and illiberal
people but has no place in any scholarly discussion."
How you conjugate or modify a root can make for *VERY* different
words. For example, I have read on the internet that he word Islaam is
derived from the infinitive salama (SLM root). So too is the word
salaam according to the site, and so is the verb salima which means
"to be saved or to escape from danger." One of the other derivations
of the infinitive salama means "the stinging of a snake" or "The
tanning of the leather." If this is true, this does not mean that the
Hebrew "Shalom" (from roughly the exact same root) has anything to do
with a snake bite.
> Now for the next point. Heger tries to allude to the fact that
> "Furqaan" is a loan word from the Aramaic language, thus, this shows
> the Qur'an borrowed from other sources
Is that what he's trying to do? If so, it is unfortunate... but I
thought he meant that the verses that use this word, in their
entirety, were originaly part of some sort of Judeo-Christian
sectarian milieu (at least that is, I believe, the argument of
Luxenberg).
> Ecclesiastes 2:5 says [...] "`Aashiyty-li g'nwt w'PARDAISIYM.."
I hate to pick bones about transliterations, but this is what(?), the
third or fourth time? "Aashiti li ganot ufardesim...". Regardless,
yes, you are right, that's of a foreign root/origin/cognate.
> So based on that should we say the Bible stole its ideas from the teachings
> of the Persian fire-worshipping prophet Zoroaster?! Of course not.
What is this? An attempt to play to Dr. Heger's (alleged) Christian
sentiments? He will drop any claims of borrowing in your book if you
drop similar claims about his? I think the above is an obvious sign
that around the time that sefer qohelet was written, it may have been
influenced by the mighty gardens up in heaven as found in Persian
belief. Many Biblical scholars have argued that the concept of
paradise does not originate with the Jews, but rather the Persians
(i.e. the Jews got it from them, and indeed even some ancient Jewish
sects thought belief in an afterlife was extracanonical, apocryphal,
and heretical).
I suppose this is all I have to say for now... I am enjoying this
thread, and look forward to replies.
Dr. Christoph Heger
Unfortunately, I was so busy that I had to postpone any comment on your
thoughtful contribution till this day.
You understood my previous contribution perfectly well and the replies
you got in fairly great number showed that your opponents had some hard
days.
> Second, Dr. Heger was referring to a "bad textual state" that is the
> opinion of some who have read it. He was, I believe, referring to what
> Salomon Reinach referred to as the "declamation, repetition,
> puerility, a lack of logic and coherence," that "strike[s] the
> unprepared reader at every turn." [Reinach, "Orpheus: A History of
> Religion," (New York, 1932), p. 176]
That is by far not a singular meaning of Reinach! The bad textual state
of the Koran is common knowledge in scholarship. For instance Dr. Puin,
the scholar who catalogued the Sanaa Korans, bluntly stated it in Toby
Lester's article "What is the Koran" in The Atlantic Monthly January
1999, that at least 20 percent of the Koran is not comprehensible. These
incomprehensible parts have been given their usual understanding by some
medieval commentators by "brutal force" in terms of Arabic grammar and
lexicography.
> It was this sort of textual analysis that led scholars like Wellhausen
> et al to postulate the existence of sources J/P/E/D for the Torah, and
> I still don't see why such analysis cannot be applied to the Qur'an
> (save for some sort of appeal to dogma).
Quite naturally such analysis can and must be applied to the Koran, too.
One may wonder why it is going on so lately, but it is going on.
> > > "Furqaan" is a Syriac word meaning "delivrance, redemption or
> > > salvation". You can check it in the standard dictionaries R. Payne
> > > Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, II, Oxford 1901, columns 3294-3298, and C.
> > > Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, Halle 1928, p. 605 f.
> >
> > Furqaan means criterion in Arabic which distinguishes truth from
> > falsehood. I believe that the Arabs know more about their own Arabic
> > language than you non-Arabs do.
The linguistic capacity of the Arabs in this newsgroup seems to testify
for the opposite
> That being said, I would like to note that there is a rumor (I heard
> it from Ibn Warraq) that there will soon be an English translation of
> Christoph Luxenberg's "Die Syro-Aramaische Lesart des Koran" by
> Prometheus Books. This may shed some light on the whole issue, or
> maybe just go down in flames. I wait anxiously, with baited breath. :)
The availability of this revolutionary book by Luxenberg for only
English speaking people surely would be a great advantage.
> Personally, I have been unable to follow the line of thought behind
> this claim about certain loan-words obviously shows that the
> traditional story is fabricated to cover the fact that the Qur'an was
> originally in some form a Christian text that was tampered with to
> make it look like an Arabic text, ...
Approximately correct.
> That being said, I must agree with Shibli's criticism that Heger has
> not typed/translated specific quotes from the sources cited
> (Geschichte des Qorans, Koranische Untersuchungen, Neue
> Beiträge zur Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, et cetera).
I gave the necessary bibliographic information, as it is used in
scholarship. The books I cited are practically all standard. Many of
these standard works in the past actually are written in German. People
interested in these matters are adviced to learn this language.
Shibli Zaman in his latest contribution topped his former ridiculous
replies by his extraordinary comment on my citation of two standard
works:
|>salvation". You can check it in the standard dictionaries R. Payne
|>Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, II, Oxford 1901, columns 3294-3298, and C.
|>Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, Halle 1928, p. 605 f.
|
|"BADA-BING!", *drum roll*, *cymbal splash*
He obviously has no knowledge of this two standard dictionaries of the
Syriac language.
Nevertheless, in the meantime I revised the article "Surah 25:1
Al-Furqân and 'the warner'" on my homepage adding two links where the
relevant pages of these dictionaries are shown. You are invited to
visit:
Johnny
>
> Now, moving along, I'd like to make another comment on some of the
> passages cited by Johnny in his post from August 21st. Particularly of
> interest was the following from the discussion on Wansbrough...
>
> > "Qur'anic Studies is so radical in its basic hypotheses as to ensure
> > that many will reject its conclusions out of hand".
> >
> > William. A. Graham, Journal of the American Oriental Society.
>
> I am troubled by the poor citations that many posters offer when
> giving references, and I commented on how I could not check the work
> for myself if I didn't know what page, edition, etc, it came from.
> Well, I found this quote, and it comes from the April-June 1980 issue
> (Vol. 100, No. 2) of the Journal of the American Oriental Society, p.
> 140. Let us see what else William A. Graham said about this work
> [Wansbrough's "Quranic Studies"], just so readers could get an
> accurate picture...
Like I said before, it does not matter "what else" someone has to say
when the CONCLUSION is "many will reject its conclusions out of hand".
And NONE of what you cite contradicts this or proves anything, if the
majority of your own scholars have rejected the theories of
Wansbrough, cronie and crook, then it really does not matter if
someone here or there may have "something" good to say about them. If
the conclusion of the majority of scholars is the rejection of a
certain theory, then "favourable" bits n pieces here and there become
worthless.
>
> "One measure of the importance of the publication of this book is the
> influence that its author has exercised in recent years upon British
> scholarship in the field of early Islamic and Arabic studies."
> [JAOS, Vol. 100, no. 2, Apr-Jun 1980, p. 137]
And so what? How does this disprove what I quoted earlier? The same
guy your quoting also says:
"His conclusion, based on literary and rhetorical analysis, but
unsupported by corroborating historical evidence, is that there was a
long process of 'canonisation' (at least two centuries) in the Islamic
as in the Jewish and Christian cases."
William A. Graham, Beyond the Written Word, p.207. Cambridge
University Press: 1987.
There you go, the page numbers etc to check up. Denis then goes on
making more irrelevant citations:
>
> "Whatever one may think of the results of this approach (and the
> present reviewer has some serious reservations about them), their
> presentation in a single volume is an event of considerable importance
> for classical-Islamic studies."
> [ibid. p. 138]
>
> After noting the difficulties in getting through the turgid reading
> and Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, German, and Latin that appears on every
> page, Graham writes what might be considered a good follow up to the
> similar comments made by Juynboll in an unreferenced passage cited by
> Johnny. Graham states it as follows:
>
> "None of the preceding obviates, however, the fundamental fact that no
> Qur'anic scholar or historian of early Islam can ignore the ideas and
> methods that emerge in this volume. The author engages here in in a
> serious confrontation over the very nature of classical-Islamic
> studies with the entire company of previous giants in the field, from
> Noldeke to Blachere."
> [ibid.]
And he then CONCLUDES that "many will reject its conclusions out of
hand"! And note his: >"the present reviewer has some serious
reservations about them."
>
> To truly make note of how a misquote can misrepresent what an author
> truly thinks, let us take another look at the small quote offered by
> Johnny, combined with the words that immediately follow it...
First of all, Denis has not shown us a single example of MISQUOTE, he
just makes a false allegation and then quotes passages which in no way
disprove what I quoted earlier. He has most certainly not produced a
single shred of evidence to show I "misquoted" this or that. His only
complaint is that I "did not quote the favourable" bits and pieces
here and there. But whats the need of doing that when the authors in
question CONCLUDE "many will reject its conclusions out of hand"?? I
was only quoting the conclusion. Then Denis goes on screaming
"misquote". Don't get desperate, let us see an example of the alleged
"misquote", no need to keep it a secret all to yourself.
>
> "Qur'anic Studies is so radical in its basic hypotheses as to ensure
> that many will reject its conclusions out of hand. The present
> reviewer cannot subscribe to such an assessment[.]"
> [ibid. pp. 140-141]
>
> In other words, there will be those who will try to reject it,
Actually he says **MANY** will reject its conclusions out of hand.
Wansbrough HIMSELF describes his THEORIES as "conjectural",
"provisional" and "tentative and emphatically provisional". Here is
what happens when you use Wansbrough's "conjectural", "provisional"
and "tentative and emphatically provisional" theories:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/nevo.html
What you get is a MESS.
>From the above we find another reference to Wansbrough: (commenting on
Nevo's work based on Wansbrough's "conjectural", "provisional" and
"tentative and emphatically provisional" theories):
"...The most recent analysis[6] of this phenomenon, however, suggests
that the disparities are "minor textual variations... introduced to
fit the sense," and >in no way lend support to Wansbrough's hypothesis
of a late date for the Qur'ân's codification; moreover, it argues that
broader patterns of inscriptional evidence suggest that the
traditional Muslim view, that the Qur'ân was codified during the
caliphate of cUthmân, is reliable."
[Fred M. Donner, Narratives Of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings Of
Islamic Historical Writing, 1998, Darwin Press, Inc., Princeton, New
Jersey, pp. 62-63.]
> but
> Graham does not agree with such a view.
>The reasons he gave were that
> (A) the work is "monumentally complex," and thus difficult to just
> brush off with a single read, and (B) this is a work of considerable
> importance with strong arguments, but is still in the rough stages of
> forming its hypothesis/theory (thus it is more subject to discussion
> than simple rejection).
As was mentioned before, according to Wansbrough himself, his theories
are "conjectural", "provisional" and "tentative and emphatically
provisional". And as far as Graham is concerned, he ALSO says:
"His conclusion, based on literary and rhetorical analysis, but
unsupported by corroborating historical evidence, is that there was a
long process of 'canonisation' (at least two centuries) in the Islamic
as in the Jewish and Christian cases."
William A. Graham, Beyond the Written Word, p.207. Cambridge
University Press: 1987.
So Graham admits that Wansbrough's "conjectural", "provisional" and
"tentative and emphatically provisional" theories lack "corroborating
historical evidence". If that is indeed the case, which it is, well
then it really does not matter what other "good words" Graham may have
to say about Wansbrough here are there.
>
> Oh, I'd also like to apologize to Johnny... he quoted the following:
>
> > "Wansbrough appears to set out to convince us of his learning."
> >
> > R. B. Sergeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.
>
> I asked for a citation, when in fact I had it right in front of my
> face! I sincerely apologize.
I accept your apology for wasting time and playing games. No I await
for your second apology, that being the false allegation against me of
"misquoting".
>The same work (JRAS, 1978, no. 1, pp.
> 76-78) was cited in reference to Cook and Crone's "Hagarism," and I
> didn't realize the two were one in the same. That being said, I must
> admit that Sergeant was hostile towards the conclusions of "Quranic
> Studies".
Ok...then Denis goes:
>However, he was very respectful of Wansbrough's erudition. I
> think a more hostile quote than the above could have been found... as
> the sentence that immediately follows kind of made it seem like he
> liked Wansbrough:
>
> "Wansbrough appears to set out to convince us of his learning. This he
> has achieved. Clearly beyond possibility of doubt, he is acquainted
> with the vocabulary of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin[.]"
> [JRAS, 1978, no. 1, p. 77]
Very good, Sergeant ALSO says:
Wansbrough avers (p.47) that in certain Qur'anic passages "ellipsis
and repetition are such as to suggest not the carefully executed
project of one or many more men, but rather the product of an organic
development from originally independent traditions during a long
period of transmission". In this he is of course attempting to fit the
process by which the canon of the Hebrew Bible was established, onto
the Qur'an, but it won't wash! J.Burton in his recent Collection of
the Qur'an (Cambridge 1976), argues vastly more cogently than
>Wansbrough's unsubstantiable assertions, that the consonantal text of
the Qur'an before us is the Prophet's own recension."
R. B. Sergeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society.
So after his "it seem like he liked Wansbrough" bit, Denis goes:
>
> That being said, I must again admit that Serjeant was very hostile
> towards the work.
There we go!
>Now, all we are left with is G. H. A. Juynboll's
> quote from the Journal of Semitic Studies. I couldn't find it, and
> would like Johnny to cite a year, volume, and page so I can check it
> for myself. If not, I'll again try to comb through issues from the
> late 70s and early 80s, but that is a tedious task...
I have answered this bit in my previous posting, if you require the
page number volumes etc, then either ask Dr MSM Saifullah who I
believe has access to them or Br Abdurahman Robert Squires at
muslim-answers.org. I am sure they will assist you in this regard.
Johnny.
Denis Giron
September 2nd, respectively. I apologize for taking so long, but the
Labor Day weekend deprived me of my school-provided internet access (I
only planned on visiting SRI on weekends). Let the fun begin...
johnny_b...@yahoo.com (Johnny) wrote in message news:<9mf45q$gup$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> No, it is totally relevant. If he refuses to accept what is said
> against the Bible, and refuses to acknowledge the fact that his book
> contains errors, parts are lost, contains interpolations and
> deletions, then really he has no right whatsoever to start launching
> attacks upon someone elses book whose state of preservation is far far
> better than his own books. The guys is simply a hypocrite for doing so
With all due respect, you yourself admit that you don't even know what
type of Christian Dr. Heger happens to be. When has he ever denied the
things you claim he has denied above? Are you familiar with Christians
who are not fundamentalists? Ever heard of Hans Kung? How about
Randolph Trumbach (a devout Roman Catholic who openly teaches theories
about the formation of the bible that closely resemble those of
Wellhausen or Strauss). I, personally, have never seen Dr. Heger deny
any of things you imply he denies. Furthermore, in your post from Aug
18th, you were the one who thrw out a red herring when you wrote:
The textual state of the Quran is very good indeed, much much
better compared to Hegger's New Testament which he refers as
"word of God", 62.9% for the entire NT and 54.5% for the
anonymous "Gospels".
I'm curious... can you produce a single post from SRI where Dr. Heger
refers to the Bible as the "word of God"? Furthermore, in light of the
venom with which you wrote the above, the implication seems to be that
you think Dr. Heger sees it as an inerrant word of God (not what many
Christians see as "God's perfect word in the imperfect form of human
language"). Not all Christians are fundamentalists, and you made
claims about Dr. Heger that you couldn't really be sure about. You
inferred such conclusions from your own preconceived notions of what a
Christian is. We were discussing the Qur'an, not the Bible. It doesn't
matter if the Bible is 100% false (I know you never claimed such), as
that has nothing to do with the Qur'an. Have you ever heard of the "tu
quoque" fallacy? It is indeed a type of ad-hominem (and a red herring
to boot!).
> > Whose throat shall I push it down?
>
> Your own.
>
> > I thought this was a board for
> > discussing Islam.
>
> It is.
Okay then, fine... what's the problem with discussing my theories here
then? As I've already said, when I'm in alt.atheism, I have no problem
with attempts to discredit Atheism. We should never fear the truth,
and therefore never fear the claims of others. If your opponant is
wrong, your beliefs have been corroborated; if you are proven wrong,
you've learned something new, which is always valuable!
> Just as your view that the Quran is all "bad" and "ugly" and every
> letter position to be "not deleberate" DOES NOT MEAN it is
> true...right?
Well, if someone tries to say the literary style of the Qur'an points
to multiple authors BECAUSE DENIS GIRON SAID SO, then yes, that would
be a fallacy. Let me set the analogy like this: In the past I've
engaged in ad-hoc debates with some of the Orthodox Jewish students
>from Yeshiva University. However, everytime I would demonstrate a
piece of evidence that supports my theories about the Bible, they
would yell "Ha! Stupid Kofer/Apiqoros/Naval!** Rashi already answered
that stupid question 900 years ago!" I never understood why some
Rabbi's claims that the Torah's textual style was deliberate were
assumed true just because the claim predated my existence. Of course,
this is a popular method among the theists, as even Christian
seminaries alert all students to the contradictions in the Bible, so
when an infidel brings it up they roll their eyes and fallaciously
brush it off while saying "been there, done that... do you have
anything new?" Do you understand the point of the analogy?
**Note: to translate the above Hebrew phrases, "Kofer" is the Hebrew
equivalent of "kaafir"... "Apiqoros" literally means "Epicurus," but
is meant in the sense of Epicurean, free thinker, atheist... and
"naval" means "fool."
> It does not matter what "comments" you made
> after citing your scholar called "Wansbrough".
Actually you're wrong, as the commentary makes up the gist of the
post. I wasn't resting everything on Wansbrough; rather I was using
each citation as a centerpiece for discussion. If you didn't read the
commentary, you essentially didn't read the post. This is why to harp
on about Wansbrough the way you have is to erect a straw man argument.
We were discussing my writings, not Wansbrough's writings, but I'm
more than willing to discuss Wansbrough as well. Oh, and yes, the
scholar is called "Wansbrough," as that is his last name.
> Since his theories have been rejected, well then it does not
> matter to me at all what comments you make,
First of all, you have yet to show that his theories have been
rejected. You have never read his book, nor have you read the articles
you pull quotes from. Furthermore, there are many theories in
Wansbrough's two works; maybe you'd like to point out which theories
appeared in my text and which of those have been rejected? Finally,
the commentary was not under the assumption that Wansbrough is
infallible. I'm an Atheist, and to me no text is infallible. For
example, imagine I say that the Bible says XYZ, and then add "and
that's interesting...." from there having a conversation on XYZ,
regardless of whether or not the Bible got it right. That is
completely different from saying "The Bible says XYZ and we know it's
true because the Bible said so..." that would be relying on the text.
Do you understand the difference?
> Like I said before, try to convince your own scholars that
> what wansbrough is saying is the truth, and only then worry about
> "saving" Muslims.
"Saving" Muslims?!? Why did you put "saving" in quotation marks? No
offense, but I think you are trapped within the paradigm of
Muslim-Christian polemical debate... I'm not here to "save" anyone
>from anything. Do yuo assume all the kuffaar are trying to preach
salvation through their ideology? I'm an Atheist, thus it doesn't
matter what you do or believe.... if I'm right, we're all going to the
same place anyway (nowhere really). For me this is quasi-intellectual
stimulation... a hobby of sorts. I enjoy discussing religion.
Moving on, we now get to Juynboll's review of Wansbrough's "Quranic
Studies." First, let me say that I found it on my own. I was not
willing to email Dr. Saifullaah, as you recommended, for two reasons:
(1) I figured he'd eventually chyme in on his own, and (2) I know that
posters to SRI are often deeply offended by private emails... one only
has to think about Surayya's hostile comments made about Shibli Zaman,
who is one of the more polite people over email (one can only imagine
if that private email was from a mulhid instead of a believer!). Also,
it should be noted that reviews are not easy to find by looking at
journals from that year. the work is such a difficult read that
reviews often come years later. the book hit the stands in 1977, but
the earliest review is Sergeant's from more than a year later.
Juynboll reviewed it two years later, and Graham reviewed it three
years later, in the eighties! I have even found a review from 1997
(TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE BOOK CAME OUT!). Fortunately, Juynboll's
review was in a 1979 issue of JSS.
> > This is what you consider a criticism?
>
> If Juynboll considers it a "criticism", then really who am I to deny
> its a criticism? Please carry on the discussion with Juynboll and
> tell him how "crap" his "criticism" was.
I wasn't saying that the criticism was "crap;" rather I was saying
that this was not even intended to be a criticism by the author of the
article! He was trying to point out that the book is not for beginners
due to the tough reading. Let us take another look at the quote:
"Readers who do not have a thorough knowledge of German, Latin, Greek
and Hebrew, apart from Arabic and English (the language in which the
book is written although that is not obvious in many instances!) will
probably find no use for it and are advised not to take it up."
[Gautier Juynboll, JSS, Vol. 24, Autumn 1979, p. 293]
Note that no theory is ever discussed; rather he is simply trying to
put forht a bit of a disclaimer on how the book is not for a novice.
In the sentences that followed the above, Juynboll futher noted that
the language barrier alone would make the book scarce among its
intended audience, and further added that "it is so daunting in its
complexity and vocabulary that it defies probably the vast majority of
experts as well." In other words, even the trained orientalists will
have trouble with this book. It is not a simple intro.
> It was relevant because the chap says:
>
> "...will probably find no use for it and are advised not to take it
> up."
Huh?!? That was a rather selective truncation, don't you think? Who
will find no use for it? Who is advised not to pick it up? Everyone or
just certain people? The answer is people who are not equiped to deal
with this book. Who was this statement for? "Readers who do not have a
thorough knowledge of German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew[.]" I myself
have very poor German, know no Latin or Greek, and I would hesitate to
call my knowledge of Hebrew "thorough" (I'm not even sure I have a
thorough knowledge of English!). Because of this, the book was indeed
a difficult read, and I had to have other books around to serve as a
supliment (including a dictionary). The book is not some simple
pamphlette, and that was Juynboll's point.
> There we go. If according to Juynboll Wansbrough's book is pretty
> much worthless, then hey thats it.
First of all, even if he was claiming such, and he's not, that's not
"it." Ever heard of argumentum ad verecundiam? Second, he never said
the book was "worthless," not in any sense whatsoever! You have badly
misunderstood what he was saying, and this misunderstanding may stem
>from the fact that you have not read the whole article over all. Are
you implying that Juynboll was discouraging everyone from reading the
book? I hope not, as Juynboll himself writes:
"With what I have said so far, it is not to be implied that I
discourage everyone who can muster the concentration and who has a
good knowledge of the languages mentioned above from reading W.'s
book. Within the framework of his main hypothesis he launches many
fascinating ideas concerning the structure of the Qur'anic text, ideas
that may lay claim to a certain validity even if one does not
subscribe to his main thesis."
[Ibid. p. 295]
In short, all Juynboll was saying was that the book is a very
difficult read. It is not titled "introduction to the Qur'an." In
reality, this is a book that is making light of some very powerful and
original theories, in order to shift the study of early Islam in a
certain direction. This is not a beginners book. Juynboll noted that
the work "comprises many years of research" and "makes very heavy
reading." Sergeant noted that the book is an exhibition of
"Wansbrough's undisputed learning," and Graham stated that the
appearance of this book "is an event of considerable importance for
classical-Islamic studies." So when Juynboll says that certain people
are advise to not take it up, he is referring to those who are merely
novices. Read Wansbrough's book, and you'll be able to appreciate this
better.
> Juynboll also says:
>
> "Since the earliest Arabic literary remains date from the second half
> of the second century onwards, he therefore assumes that there was
> nothing going before that time that warrants tracing back the origins
> of Arabic literary activity to an earlier period . . . Logic alone
> might preclude serious consideration of this version of Islamic
> history . . . Suffice it to say that Wansbrough's implication and
> logic are his, and his alone."
This is a bit of a garbled quote, which can be misleading. The actual
text had Juynboll criticising the logic behind Wansbrough's
revisionist dating methods. Funniest of all, when the text reads
"Logic alone might preclude serious consideration of this version of
Islamic history," these are *NOT* Juynboll's words; rather they come
>from an excised quote that somehow still managed to partially find its
way into the above citation. The actual passage reads as follows
[words originally in italics are placed between "/ /" in my citation]:
===============================
Since the earliest Arabic literary remains date from the second half
of the second century onwards, he therefore assumes that there was
nothing going before that time that warrants tracing back the origins
of Arabic literary activity to an earlier period. Again as a sample of
his style I quote W.'s own words: "For the document of the Islamic
revelation acceptance of the 'Uthmanic recension traditions has
entailed assent to a period of 150 to 200 years between textual
stabilization of the Qur'an and analysis of its contents in the
formulation of Arabic grammar. The /implication/ must be that the text
of scripture, like those of pre-Islamic poetry, was faithfully
transmitted and intelligently read/recited and heard for a very long
time indeed, without once provoking the questions about its meaning of
the third ninth century is filled. /Logic/ alone might preclude
serious consideration of this version of Islamic history. Examination,
moreover, of the Qur'anic exegesis which I have called masoretic
suggests that both the document of revelation and the corpus of
pre-Islamic poetry were being there assembled, juxtaposed, and studied
for the first time" (p. 101; italics mine). Suffice it to say that
W.'s /implication/ and /logic/ are his, and his alone.
[Ibid. p. 294]
===============================
Juynboll pretty much left it at that, without further explanation.
Wansbrough's main point was that he finds it hard to accept the
traditional story that the Qur'an appeared at time X, yet all the
commentaries on its grammar et cetera did not really take serious form
until more than three generations later! Furthermore, Wansbrough only
said the above in passing; he goes into variants as well as masoretic
exegesis in much greater detail on pp. 202-227 of "Quranic Studies."
Juynboll is strangely silent on this, ah but I think I know what
Johnny will say, "take this up with him, not me..." That being noted,
let me say that the above criticism had specifically to do with this
one argument in favor of scepticism regarding the historicity
traditional Islamic calendar. Nothing in post ever had anything to do
with the Islamic calendar (which works froma different direction from
which I choose to work), so I again wonder why Johnny felt a criticism
of a particular theory that I never touched on was relevant to my
article? He brought up Wansbrough to insinuate that I rested solely on
him... on the contrary, I was merely using very specific arguments of
Wansbrough's to move the discussion in a certain path. To cite a
criticism of a theory I never touched on makes it wholly irrelevant to
this thread!
Furthermore, Wansbrough's scepticism of the dating system that gives
us the chronology of Islamic history is wholly justified in light of
other works which expose its tendentious nature. I recommend in
particular the following two works:
(1) Lawrence Conrad, "Abraha and Muhammad," BSOAS, Vol. 50
(1987), pp. 225-240
(2) G.D. Newby "Abraha and Sennacherib: a Talmudic Parallel
to the Tafsir on Surat al-Fil," JAOS, Vol. 94 (1974)
pp. 431-437.
The calendar moves from Muhammad's birth, allegedly during 'Am
al-Feel, which was allegedly 570, and Muhammad was allegedly claeed to
prophethood at forty, thus placing us around 610CE, and after that
Hijra dates are derived and begin... knocking down the myth of the
elephant seems to cause much of the calendar to come into dispute, and
this is only one method of showing the weakness of the traditional
chronology. Lammens, Noldeke, and Wansbrough have all shown other
methods.
> > > "Wansbrough appears to set out to convince us of his learning."
> >
> > Again, this is not a criticism of his theories.
>
> And again it is talking about the book generally or AS A WHOLE.
Actually, not it's not! He was saying that he set out to convince us
of his learning, and he has succeeded! The same review speaks of
Wansbrough's "undisputed learning."
> "Wansbrough avers (p.47) that in certain Qur'anic passages "ellipsis
> and repetition are such as to suggest not the carefully executed
> project of one or many more men, but rather the product of an organic
> development from originally independent traditions during a long
> period of transmission". In this he is of course attempting to fit the
> process by which the canon of the Hebrew Bible was established, onto
> the Qur'an, but it won't wash! J.Burton in his recent Collection of
> the Qur'an (Cambridge 1976), argues vastly more cogently than
> Wansbrough's unsubstantiable assertions, that the consonantal text of
> the Qur'an before us is the Prophet's own recension."
First off, this is merely Sergeant's hostility towards the notion that
the Qur'an is not from Muhammad, and thus at the end he cited J.
Burton's belief that Muhammad wrote the Qur'an! This mainly stems from
the fact that he refuses to leave the scope of the traditions in favor
of Wansbrough's completely original approach. On this, Herbert Berg
writes:
"Both Rahman and Serjeant use a thinly veiled ad hominem argument,
but, because of th prevelance of the irenic approach to the study of
Islam, the argument seems to carry some weight. I do not believe this
aspect of the argument merits refutation, except to say that it has no
bearing on the validity of Wansbrough's methods and the veracity of
his conclusions."
[Hebert Berg, "The Implication of, and Opposition to, the Methods and
Theories of John Wansbrough," in "Method and Theory in the Study of
Religion," Vol 9-1 (1997), and also reprinted in Ibn Warraq (editor)
"Quest for the Historical Muhammad," (Prometheus, 2000), pp. 489-509.]
Berg further notes that this sort of argument is the "product of a
superficial reading of Wansbrough," and writes:
"The argument assumes the epistemological and chronological priority
of the events in Muhammad's life over the passages in the Koran. If,
as Wansbrough suggests, the biographt of Muhammad is the product of a
narrative exegesis of the prophetic logia, the priority should be
reversed."
[ibid, and Warraq, p. 498]
In other words, Sergeant (and Rahman, whom you did not cite) construct
an argument that reflects more of a straw man, where they work from a
totally different paradigm from which Wansbrough asks the reader to
view the subject being discussed. It is Sergeant's belief that
Muhammad wrote the Qur'an, and he seems to hold to this in a way that
is so dogmatic that it causes him to be unduly hostile towards
Wansbrough. Berg touches on the nature of such hostility later in the
work when he writes:
==================================
That Muslim scholars taek offense at Wansbrough's work is to be
expected. the more interesting question remains, why should non-Muslim
scholars feel likewise? What is at stake for them? Surely the threat
to faith is not the problem. Rippin has already suggested several
factors which seem to contribute to the reluctance of Islamicists to
accept Wansbrough's methods and theories [see JSS, Vol. 26 (1981) pp.
164-66 as well as Rippin's "Literary Analysis of the Qur'an, Tafsir,
and Sira: the Methodologies of John Wansbrough," in Richard Martin
(editor) "Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies," (1985) pp.
151-163].
First, historians are in the business od determining what really
happened and why it happened. Wansbrough has suggested that we may
never know what has really happened, and "to historians the factor of
ambiguity is not especially welcome" (1987, p. 15). Unfortunately, for
the first two centuries of Islam, the required material is not extant.
Without blind faith in the reliability of the sira, for example, there
is little of Muhammad in his early seventh-century Arabian context to
do or say.
Second, Schacht, while assessing Islamic studies and the impact of his
own work, said that Islamicists were characterized by an "intellectual
laziness" which gradually undermined the progress made in the field.
[...] This "intellectual laziness" manifests itself primarily in an
unwillingness to be sceptical and methodologically and theoretically
sophisticated.
[...]
Third, Islamicists have become too narrowly focused.
[...]
Fourth, today's islamicists seem on the whole very reluctant to say
anything which might be interpreted as critical of Islam, including
its own sacralized "origins" and "history." Prior to the publication
of Qur'anic Studies, Charles Adams noted that "[i]n the years since
World War II there has grown up a distinctive movement in the west,
represented in both religious circles and universities, whose purposes
is the greater appreciation of Islamic religiousness and the fostering
of a new attitude towards it." the works of such scholars as Wilfred
Cantwell Smith and W. Mongomery Watt exemplify this irenic approach to
the study of Islam. [...] the sins of our ancestors in the study of
Muslim peoples has made modern Islamicists wary of committing the "sin
of orientalism" and rightly so. However, if the result is a fear of
asking and asnwering potentially embarrassing questions - ones which
might upset Muslim sensibilities -this "restitutuion" is disturbing.
[...]
The response of many of today's anthropologists is described by
Lawson and McCauley as "throw[ing] the scientific baby out with the
colonialist bath water."
[...]
Islamicists, too, have failed to recognize the nature of this
connection. As a result, their scholarship remains narrowly focused
and antitheoretical, and, "in oder to remain true to the 'faith of
other men,' is doomed most of all to avoid asking the basic question:
How do we know?" (Rippin 1985, p. 159).
[All above from Berg's aforementioned work, and can be easily found in
Warraq, "Quest," 501-503]
======================================
> > > "Qur'anic Studies is so radical in its basic hypotheses as to ensure
> > > that many will reject its conclusions out of hand".
> > >
> > > William. A. Graham, Journal of the American Oriental Society.
> >
> > I actually agree 100% with the above.
>
> There we go! So now your job is to convince your own scholars and
> then worry about Muslims.
Ahhhh, but it is not a criticism really... it was mainly a point about
how the revisionist approach wont win many followers (though that
doesn't make it any less valid).
> > > http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html
> >
> > I made reference to this, though I admit in passing. I don't see why
> > we should assume the existence of any sort of rudimentary masjid on
> > the temple mount.
>
> Masjid, what it means etc etc is all explained in the above article
Hence my use of the word "RUDIMENTARY". Whether it had a minaret or
was a circle of stones, why should we assume it was there? Because a
text written more than 1oo years after the fact claims such?
> The site was not used as a Rubbish bin during the time of the Prophet
> was it? hence it does not matter if LATTER it was transformed into a
> rubbish dump by Christians.
No, it was precisely around that time that it was a rubbish dump...
trying reading about the temple mount in Graetz "History of the Jews,"
or any other source that covers its history between the Roman
destruction of the Temple and the building of the current structure.
> If you go to the above link you will read:
>
> "The priest who had gathered the coals entered the sanctuary first,
What sanctuary? Can't you see that you've got your chronology mixed
up? The structure being referred to here was already gone for more
than 500 years by the time that is traditionally given for Muhammad's
brith!
> For Allah all is possible,
If that's the case then never criticize any religion ever again. In
Hinduism we believe Hannuman jumped over the ocean... perfectly
reasonable as God can do anything, including give a monkey the power
to jump over the ocean... in Christianity we believe God came down in
the form of a man... perfectly reasonable, as God could do that if he
so chose... et cetera, et cetera...
When you make claims like the above, you put forth a statement that is
totally unfalsifiable... try to keep what you say within the realm of
contingent statements, else we cannot have a discussion by any
stretch.
> Response to Heger's claims have been answered by Br Shibli Zaman. You
> (and Heger) are free to carry on the discussion with him.
Oh? So are you removing yourself from a discussion you originally used
as a platform to deride Dr. Heger? Do you know longer want to take
part? Fair enough... I myself am not much for the discussion either...
> heger is simply making an extremely silly argument
I don't think the argument is so simple that it can be brushed off
with this statement. While Shibli Zaman may very well be competent
enough to discuss it, how farmiliar are you with the languages in
question?
And now to clear up a little confusion:
August 21st:
> > > Its not my fault if you are igorant regarding the sciences of the
> > > Hadeeth.
August 27th:
> Again, I don't see how this issue has suddenly popped up in your posts
> knowing full well that I did not make a single reference to the
> sciences of Hadeeth in my original postings.
The reason it came up is because you mentioned on August 21st! You did
make a single explicit reference, and many implicit references as
well!
> > When you say the Qur'an was the same that Muhammad was give, you can
> > only know this via the traditions.
>
> No, I know this because the transmission of the Quran is MUTAWATTIR
> ORAL, its a Book that has always been in the hands of the people,
This argument doesn't wash. This is the same sort of argument that
Christians use for the Old Testament, as there has always been Jews
who memorized the text! Regardless, this is irrelevant to the issue at
hand. For example, a friend of mine recently came back from Israel and
he had purchased a complete facsimilie of Sefer Yishayahu (scroll/book
of Isaiah) as found at the Qumran ("Dead Sea Scrolls") caves. The
Qumran version of the Scroll of Isaiah was nearly identical to the
version I have in my copy of the Qoren TaNaKh. I sat with my friend
last August for quite some time comparing the two word by word... the
differences came down to a few instances of different spelling on
certain words (and it was always a vav with a kholam vs just the
kholam by itself), and two occassions where a word appeared in the
Qumran version but not the Qoren version. So, talking about the scroll
of Isaiah alone, we have a text that has remained almost exactly the
same for the last 2,300 years! What does that tell us about the truth
of the text? Nothing at all, as fiction today is fiction tommorow, and
will be fiction 3,000 years from now.
The Qur'an was memorized from a given point, but that point of origin
is in dispute. Should I take the Islamic tradition at face value and
believe the current Qur'an originated with Uthman after he destroyed a
bunch of variants? If so, why? If so, what of the variants?
Regardless, I'm sceptical, as you know, of the traditional account...
I'm merely discussing the textual style and what it implies about the
formation of the text... I have never tried to predict a date for when
it appeared. And to tie this in with the above analogy, and variants
at all could be a problem (but I'm not concerned with such things any
more).... regardless, the Qur'an seems to be in the same state as
Sefer Yishayahu, generally the same save for a few variant spellings
and an extra word here or there. This was briefly hit on in a thread
>from last December:
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=3eff636da048fa7d
> > Hardly. I don't think you're familiar with Crone and Cook, as my work
> > had ver little to do with them
>
> Johnny is familiar enough to know this is not accepted scholarship and
> that Cronie and Crook are very deceptive orientalists and perhaps
> racists, here is a recent example of their deception:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html
You see, this is what I mean by "red herring." You make the accusation
that I rest my scholarship on Cook and Crone, and then cite a problem
I have never touched on. Let's say Cook and Crone were blatantly wrong
about the Qibla, does this mean they were blatantly wrong about
everything? If not, why bring up something that wasn't part of the
discussion? In fact, in my post from August 26th, I wrote the
following:
Many find their 'negative' results excellent (the many
inconsistent reports of orthodox Islamic historiography
which they expose, et cetera), while they find the duo's
'positive' assertions (Syria instead of Mecca being the
birthplace of Islam, et cetera) to be somewhat questionable.
The Qibla issue is related to the whole "birthplace in Syria" thing, a
Norther Kaaba, et cetera.... that all has to do with the
reconstructions, and for you to bring this up is baffling, being that
I never argued otherwise, nor did I even mention anything about this
issue. To settle the Qibla thing, it stems from masajeed (or maybe
only one? I forget) that have an orientation that is slightly off...
that has never been a big deal to me, as for example last April I went
to an Anti-Zionist rally here in New York City (and even met Dr.
Mohamed Ghounem there). Anyway, there were a couple spots set out in
Union Square Park for the Muslim marchers to pray. I noticed that the
very first group (whcih was very small) prayed in a direction that had
them pointing, essentially, straight up Park Avenue South, which means
they were facing due north, and somewhere in Canada! The much larger
and later groups all faced a direction that seemed more towards the
east. The moral of the story? The first small group apparently made an
error, thus it is conceivable that a mosque could be off as well, as
even Muslims may get something wrong! That being established, you
originally brought up Cook and Crone after looking at my article on
the Qur'an being a work of multiple hands. Regardless of what Crone
and Cook claim about the beginnings of Islam, this had *NOTHING* to do
with my article, thus your criticisms amount to a strawman and a red
herring.
> > I only used a passage from their book
> > to set the tone, and from there I presented evidence...
>
> You used poor source to set your "tone".
Oh really? Is there a set logic in setting the tone for a paper? Could
you explain this to me? I can cite the Bible, the Gita, Dr. Seuss,
"Godel Escher Bach," or whatever, and it is only relevant with regard
to the specific passage and how much weight I rest on the claim of
that passage! Do you understand?
> Abdurraheem Green in his debate with Jay Smith
> quoted all of these references, and not once, not even once did Jay
> Smith challenge these citations or even claim they are "misquoted" or
> erroneous,
Sigh.... this is a very common argument among many Muslims I have
corresponed with here in SRI, and it is a poor version of an
argumentum ex silentio. For an example in Hindu terms of this sort of
argument, we know Hannuman jumped over the ocean because when the
Ramayana said he did, nobody ever said it was untrue! Is it possible
that there are other options? What do I care about Jay Smith? Who is
he to me? Is he some Christian? Did you ever stop to think that maybe
he was silent because he was ignorant of these sources? Maybe he had
no access to these sources (maybe he didn't even know how to go about
checking them). An argument based on Jay Smith's silence is not very
impressive.
> And Wansbrough makes fun of Hagarism:
>
> " . . . The juxtaposition muhajir: Hagar, even if it were
> etymologically sound, cannot really support the messianic and
> irredentist superstructure erected here to explain the Arab expansion
> into the Fertile Crescent. The material is upon occasion misleadingly
> presented, e.g. Ephrem certainly did not prophesy an exodus of
> Hagarenes from the desert (p.13), nor did Levond report Leo's
> description of Hajjaj destroying old Hagarene writings (p.18)."
> Wansbrough, BSOAS, Vol. XLI, pp.155-156: 1978.
Let me again offer my quote from August 26th:
Many find their 'negative' results excellent (the many
inconsistent reports of orthodox Islamic historiography
which they expose, et cetera), while they find the duo's
'positive' assertions (Syria instead of Mecca being the
birthplace of Islam, et cetera) to be somewhat questionable.
The above is with reference to a very specific claim in the book, and
the claim is apparently wrong. Do you assume a text must be
infallible? what you cited above came from the final paragraph of the
review. The paragraph began with:
"More puzzling, however, is the non-halakhic scriptural period in
Syria: the reconstructed entity had, apparently, to be given a name,
but selection of 'Hagarism' might well be questioned."
[Wansbrough, BSOAS, Vol. 41, p. 1, (1978), p. 156]
So, what we see here is that Wansbrough had shifted gears and was now
criticizing the groups positive assertions. No suprise really to
anyone who is familiar with the margin of error present when one uses
abduction to reconstruct the past (is there any other method?). Since
you think it is releavnt to cite Wansbrough with regard to Hagarism,
let me say that like Humphreys, he too thought the work was
"brilliant." Wansbrough writes:
"The authors' erudition is quite extraordinary, their industry
everywhere evident, their prose ebullient. No simple description could
do it justice[.]"
[Ibid. p. 155]
> No it is NOT DECEPTION. The point I made is that the MAJORITY of
> scholars have REJECTED the work of Crone/Cook.
First of all, the point was to show that Humphreys was hostile towards
Crook and Crone, and text was deliberately excised to make it look
this way. In one case a period was place where one did not appear, so
as to end a sentence, sans remakrs that totally changed the tone!
Furthermore ti doesn't say that scholars reject the work, rather it
states: "the Crone-Cook interpretation has failed to win general
acceptance among Western Orientalists[.]" There's a big difference...
The "interpretations" of this "brilliant" work are referring to their
aforementioned "positive assertions," so still you have not given
anything new to the discussion.
Let me put it to you like this... when one uses abduction, they are
working backwards from effects to causes, and while this is the method
of all historians, there is an implicit fallacy rooted in the
methodology (namely, affirming the consequent, though many hostile to
my "post modernist foolishness" will argue otherwise). In short, there
are an infinite number of other possible scenarios that any person
could miss. Thus when a historian knocks down the traditional view,
and then tries to rebuild it via abduction, many who subscribe to a
more irenic outlook will disagree. I myself said that there was little
support for their positive assertions.
> Now you must PROVE to us that the MAJORITY OF your scholars
> do indeed accept hagarism with open arms and highly regard it.
When did I ever claim such? My claim was simple, their negative
assertions were great, but their positive assertions were criticized
(and rightly so). Show me where I ever said that the majority of
scholars "accept hagarism with open arms and highly regard it." It is,
as Humphreys called it, a "brilliant graduate-student essay."
> And Humphery was "so impressed" that he said that the MAJORITY of
> scholars have rejected Crone/Cook's stuff
Actually, he never said that... he said that their interpretations
(i.e. their positive assertions, their attempts to reconstruct
history) have failed to win favor. Do you understand the difference?
> > Humphreys' main criticism was
> > that numerous people disagreed with the authors' conclusions as to
> > what really happened.
>
> So Mr. Denis, you go to these "numerous people" and try to convince
> them that almight cronie/crook are all correct and accurate, only then
> you should turn towards the Muslims to bother them.
Ummm... you seem to fail to realize that I never claimed that "almight
cronie/crook are all correct and accurate"; no abductive inference is
"all correct and accurate." I have no reason to convince anything...
the positive assertions were never touched on in my original essay,
the work on multiple hands, so you're trying to dispute my essay by
attacking a sector I did not venture into... that is a straw man.
> [deleting more irrelevant stuff...does not make a differnece or prove
> anything if Humpherey is a fan of racists]
Please explain how Cook and Crone are racists? Because one critic said
their tone seemed "anti-Arabian"? Maybe you can cite one "racist"
remark made by Cook and Crone? If not, such a statement is totally
uncalled for.
> Muslims still pay more emphasis to the ORAL recitation of the Quran
> and STILL Muslim MEMORISE the Quran, either completely or major parts
> of it.
As do the Rabbis still memorize the Torah and go by that... but does
this make it any more valid or tell us anything about its origin? No.
Regarding 15:32-33 vs 38:75-76:
> In the first set of verses Allah tells the dialogue between Him and
> Iblis briefly, wherese more details of the dialogue have been added in
> the second set of verses.
More details? So, which one is the accurate one? Or are both
paraphrased snippets as you claimed before? And if so, how do we know
when something is an exact quote and when it is not? You have yet to
answer this question.
> No, there is NO contradiction between the verses in question.
If there's no contradiction you should be able to produce the exact
conversation... if not, why?
Regarding the quote:
"Qur'anic Studies is so radical in its basic hypotheses as to ensure
that many will reject its conclusions out of hand".
> Like I said before, it does not matter "what else" someone has to say
> when the CONCLUSION is "many will reject its conclusions out of hand".
Fine, but do you know *WHY* many will reject it out of hand? Because
it is "radical." This has nothing to do with the validity of the
claims, rather only that it is hard to swallow for some... understand
the difference?
> And NONE of what you cite contradicts this or proves anything, if the
> majority of your own scholars have rejected the theories of
> Wansbrough, cronie and crook,
Who rejected the theories of Wansbrough aside from Sergeant? Why do
you cite Wansbrough side by side with Cook and Crone? With regards to
Wansbrough, you only showed small snippets of criticism against very
specific arguments. I have shown that over all, Wansbrough's book is
acknowledged as ground breaking and extremely important by nearly all
the scholars.
With regard to the following quote from Graham:
"Whatever one may think of the results of this approach (and the
present reviewer has some serious reservations about them), their
presentation in a single volume is an event of considerable importance
for classical-Islamic studies. [...] None of the preceding obviates,
however, the fundamental fact that no Qur'anic scholar or historian of
early Islam can ignore the ideas and methods that emerge in this
volume. The author engages here in in a serious confrontation over the
very nature of classical-Islamic studies with the entire company of
previous giants in the field, from Noldeke to Blachere."
Johnny wrote:
> And he then CONCLUDES that "many will reject its conclusions out of
> hand"!
Because of how radical his methods are. This has nothing to do with
the soundness of his conclusions... I can tell you know that for the
last 1400 years people have come into contact with Muslims, yet were
not convinced of Islam's truth... does this disprove Islam?
> Wansbrough HIMSELF describes his THEORIES as "conjectural",
> "provisional" and "tentative and emphatically provisional".
That's absolutely right. So, is it a mark against someone to be
intellectually honest? You also criticized me for calling ym theories
"theories," et cetera. Please Johnny, cite one example of an abductive
inference that is *NOT* "conjectural", "provisional" and "tentative
and emphatically provisional".
> Here is
> what happens when you use Wansbrough's "conjectural", "provisional"
> and "tentative and emphatically provisional" theories:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/nevo.html
This has to do with Yehudaah Nevo. So Nevo attempted to draw futher
conclusions or assumptions after reading Wansbrough's works... whether
Nevo was blatantly wrong or absolutely right, it has nothing to do
with Wansbrough. It doesn't matter if they're based on Wansbrough's
thoughts, these are Nevo's conclusions, and not Wansbroughs. This is a
red herring.
> "...The most recent analysis[6] of this phenomenon, however, suggests
> that the disparities are "minor textual variations... introduced to
> fit the sense," and >in no way lend support to Wansbrough's hypothesis
> of a late date for the Qur'ân's codification; moreover, it argues that
> broader patterns of inscriptional evidence suggest that the
> traditional Muslim view, that the Qur'ân was codified during the
> caliphate of cUthmân, is reliable."
Fred Donner badly misunderstood Wansbrough and misrepresented simple
parts of his argumentation... First of all, the hypothesis that the
Qur'anic material was taken from Judeo-Christian sources is not just
an assumption. the Qur'an mentions many of the mythological characters
of the Bible, such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, often citing very similar
and fantastic stories. Now obviously it is abduction that leads us to
believe one comes from the other, and as I have said several dozen
times above, abduction leaves room for error. that being said, for a
historian, it is unthinkable to reject this stance in favor of a
stance where the same stories appeared in the same approximate region
because it essentially fell from the sky. To postulate divine origin
in historical discourse is to remove science from the discussion. The
above quote is part of a truncated discussion on what variant passages
>from the Qur'an tell us. Donner merely uses abduction to support his
leaning with the traditional view. Hist statement is itself an
assumption.
> And as far as Graham is concerned, he ALSO says:
>
> "His conclusion, based on literary and rhetorical analysis, but
> unsupported by corroborating historical evidence, is that there was a
> long process of 'canonisation' (at least two centuries) in the Islamic
> as in the Jewish and Christian cases."
That's correct, and it is the same case with Wellhausen's theories
about the J-source, P-source, D-source of the Torah, or the Q-source
hypothesis for the gospels... it is textual analysis, not
interpretation of an archeological dig or the claims of the believers.
What's the problem?
> So Graham admits that Wansbrough's "conjectural", "provisional" and
> "tentative and emphatically provisional" theories lack "corroborating
> historical evidence".
A lot of theories lack corroborating historical evidence... the
historical evidence (i.e. physical evidence) is always open to
speculation (as interpretations of those too are based on abductive
reasoning). This is a known fact. Wansbrough's main point was literary
analysis, where you work *ONLY* with the texts. the same was the case
with Wellhausen's theories about the Torah... he worked ONLY with the
text... now suppose Wellhausen placed a date on the formation of the
Torah that was later disproven by the discovery of earlier texts
(which has sort of happened). The theory itself still stands, only the
date falls away. Do you understand the difference?
-Denis Giron
Dr. Christoph Heger
Time and again we read such brave statements like that which
johnny_b...@yahoo.com (Johnny) made on 17 Aug 2001 00:34:58 GMT
> First of all, the Quran that we have in our hands today *is* the
> *original* Quran revealed by Allah and recited by prophet Muhammed
> (PBUH) and all the Sahabis.
Unfortunately there is no evidence for this view that the transmitted
Koran is the Koran which Muhammad recited to his audience. On the
contrary, the opposite is evident.
Concerning the special view that the transmitted Koran is what "all the
Sahabis" recited: That view is even contradicted explicitly by the
Islamic tradition itself. Don't you know the reports that one of the
most respected Sahabis, Abdullah b. Mas'ud, opposed the recognition of
surahs 113 and 114 as part of the Koran and refused to destroy his own
Koran, as Caliph `Uthman had ordered.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/Internal/contexinter.html
>
> This doesn't seem to be at all related to the discussion (particularly
> anything having to do with repetition in variant forms). Furthermore,
> I'm not surprised that the believers of a religious text would
> reinterpret every nook and cranny of the text they love to be rather
> beautiful. To draw an analogy to Orthodox Judaism, I've read Rashi's
Now our "dajjal" has some serious problem in understanding the text of the
Qur'an. He says that the content in the above link is not related with
discussion. On the contrary, the above link discusses one aspect of
understanding the Qur'an with respect to the context of the situation as
expounded in various verses.
Further we are not surprised to see that the likes of self-proclaimed
"dajjal" would always go the way which is not supposed to make any sense
as well as logic.
> beautiful, and every letter's position is deliberate, does not mean it
> is true. On the same token, I'm sure Dr. M S M Saifullah, Jason
> Hannan, and Dr. Muhammad Ghoniem all consider the Qur'an beautiful and
> consider every letter positition to be deliberate, but this does not
> mean it si true.
What makes "dajjal" to believe that whatever Crone and Cook and Wansbrough
say is true then? What is the evidence for the claim of Crone and Cook
about the Qur'an? Will "dajjal" show it to all of us?
Wassalam
Saifullah
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
I am not sure if I had sent this reply.. but anyway..
> "M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<9m86m2$5bd$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> > Contrary to the claim of Freethought alias Denis alias whatever, Neal
> > Robinson has shown that the Surah al-Israa' is in fact structure.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this, but indeed I will
> take your advice and check Robinson's "Discovering The Qur'an: A
> Contemporary Approach To A Veiled Text." However, in the past I have
> been disappointed by the little I've read from this book (I've only
> read the chapter which is more or less dedicated to Hagarism).
> Robinson, like Serjeant, seemed mainly hostile to Hagarism because of
> his acceptance of the traditional account. I disagree with such, and
> found Robinson's analogies to the state of the New Testament as a
> reliable historical source to be some what naive.... [dots are mine]
Denis the self-proclaimed "dajjal" (meaning a liar, cheat or deceiver in
Arabic) and a "kaafir" (meaning who is covered [from truth]) is really
worth not replying as he himself has stated his kind and worthy
credentials. So, the self-proclaimed "dajjal" for some reason has been
"disappointed" after reading Neal Robinson's book perhaps because it did
not suit his agenda. He would be even more disappointed if he had read
Wansbrough's review of "Hagarism" in BSOAS, where Wansbrough makes a
mockery of Crone and Cook's appraoch. "Hagarism" unacceptance is not due
to the fact that it rejects "traditional account". It is due to the fact
that it uses its sources selectively and sometimes deceptively. Crone and
Cook have no problems in "accepting" Islamic literary sources when it
"suits" their theory and vice versa [See the reviews of N. Daniel in JSS
and Seargent in JRAS]. A good example of the use of Islamic literary
sources is on the issue of Qibla of early mosques in Iraq and Egypt being
oriented somewhere in northern Arabia and not towards Makkah. For the
mosques in Iraq they had used "Futuh" of al-Baladhuri and for Egypt it was
al-Maqrizi. The issue of Qibla has been refuted at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html
So, our "dajjal" has not simply understood the approach adopted by Crone
and Cook. Crone and Cook *have* Islamic sources when it suited them; they
did not reject them outhand. In the preface to the book Hagarism, Crone
and Cook tell us that they intend to ignore a rock inscription dated from
the mid 600's with the phrase "AHL AL ISLAM". They then carry on in the
book to inform that the words MUSLIM and ISLAM appeared in the late
700's! The inscription can be seen at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/abasa.html
It is quite clear why our "dajjal" is so eager to join hands with other
deceivers. We can go on further but this dose is good enough for today.
> Robinson, like Serjeant, seemed mainly hostile to Hagarism because of
> his acceptance of the traditional account. I disagree with such, and
> found Robinson's analogies to the state of the New Testament as a
> reliable historical source to be some what naive. Maybe he sould read
> George A. Wells' "The Historical Evidence for Jesus." If the ahadeeth
> collections are as reliable as the Bible, I'd say then "not at all."
By the way, the issue is of the structure of surah al-Isra' not about
acceptance or rejection of traditional accounts. So, come to the point.
> > Much of the Hebrew linguistics and grammar is based on Arabic
>
> Indeed, this is true in many respects... and both (I believe) get alot
> >from Aramaic; I never claimed otherwise. However, a lot of Hebrew
> grammatical rules used today began in Baghdad, when Jewish scholars
> were influenced by Muslim intellectuals (I remember learning this in a
> class, but I may be wrong). I think Hebrew used before the advent of
> Islam (which I admit is still very close to modern Hebrew) drew less
> >from Arabic than did Hebrew after, though I could be wrong (an Israeli
> friend of mine was recently explaining how many Hebrew words in the
> Bible are actually of an Arabic or Aramaic origin). I'm far from an
> expert.
Well, couple of months ago a Jew who attended a lecture by a Muslim said
that there is no way of knowing the clear pronunciation of Hebrew words
except by using the Arabic linguistic tools. We are talking about
classical Hebrew, btw.
> > It is quite well-known but people like Denis Giron would still like
> > to push about the "loan words".
>
> No, I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. That is a polemic that I'm not
> interested in at all. While indeed I have pushed stuff about words
> like Sabt, that was more to try and lead into a discussion about
> theology that develops rather rapidly. I don't assume that any
> language is borne in a vacuum... every single modern language has
> adopted words from other languages.
Did we ever say that a language is borne in vacuum? Neither did the Arab
linguists. They clearly knew that there existed foreign vocabulary in the
Qur'an and it is evident by the fact there there are compilations of such
words by Arab linguists of the past.
> No, but I think your analogy sort of misrepresents the argument, thus
> becoming a straw man (in my opinion). Forget a poem or a song that may
> repeat... think of a major work (of several chapters) that repeats
> stories in an unnecessary and contradictory fashion. That isn't
> absolute proof of the work being from a plurality of sources, but it
> can be seen as evidence to corroborate a given theory. Again, this is
> all reached via abduction, and of course in a pure logic sense there
> is always an implicit fallacy being committed when using abduction. I
> believe this 100% (though others in the philosophy department here
> tell me that this aversion to abduction is "post-modernist
> foolishness").
Perhaps, we should say that a "pre-conceived theory". If you have a
theory, you can fit any data to "prove" it. It is not hard at all. So,
what our "dajjal" is saying is with a given theory one can "logically" use
evidence to show that it is true. In fact, logic demands that you have
data first and you construct a theory around it. People who have done
higher secondary curve fitting exercise know that given a few points on
the graph one can't straight away fit a line; it can be a parabola or a
exponential curve.
> Indeed that is the theological view, but I find that hard to believe,
> as it makes the text seem disorganized (or hastily thrown together).
Why is that the scholars who are more knowledgeable that "dajjal" are able
to show structure in the Qur'an? Perhaps for "dajjal" it is hard to
believe that the Qur'an has a structure. By the way, there is no point of
invoking the blessing of high criticism when one can't even criticise the
"lower" criticism so to say.
<Nothing much to do in "dajjal"'s reply to Johnny and Shibli>
Wassalam
Saifullah
Omar
>
> Regarding the conversation between Iblees and Allaah:
> > As mentioned by Br Omar "In both cases, the Quran is giving a
> > paraphrased summary of the communications between Allah and Iblis."
>
> And I gave my response to Omar:
>
> "So then when the Qur'an says Allah said XYZ, Allah didn't really say
> XYZ, correct?
When the Koran says "Allah said XYZ", Allah really communicated the
meaning of XYZ on the occasion in question. However, the words Allah
used may have been different. For example, they may not even have been
in the language of the Koran (as in the case of the speech to Moses at
the Burning Bush, or the speeches to other non-Arab prophets), or in
any human language at all (as was probably the case at the Creation of
the world).
>So when the Qur'an quotes God, it is not always an exact
> quote?
How CAN it *always* be an exact quote, when it quotes God's
communication with nonhuman beings and people who didn't even speak
Arabic?.....DOHHHHH!
>If so, how do we know when it is ever an exact quote?
>Is there
> a set logic in Islamic hermaneutics?"
*sigh*
The "set logic in Islamic hermeneutics" is that the text is to be
interpreted according to the norms of the language in which it is
written.
Now, those norms allow for the quotation of a person's speech in the
form of a paraphrased summary of the original (Think how hard it would
be to quote others' words exactly all the time! Think how inefficient
conversations would be!) They do not allow for a misrepresentation of
the meaning conveyed. This is hence presumed to be completely
accurate. And this is all that matters for trying to find a
contradiction, in which task Denis has rather spectacularly failed.
*sigh*
Omar
Omar
We were discussing the Qur'an, not the Bible. It doesn't
> matter if the Bible is 100% false (I know you never claimed such), as
> that has nothing to do with the Qur'an. Have you ever heard of the "tu
> quoque" fallacy? It is indeed a type of ad-hominem (and a red herring
> to boot!).
The "tu quoque" form of response is perfectly legitimate. For
example, in Muslim-Christian debate, very often a Christian missionary
will try to cause the Muslim to have doubts about the authenticity of
the text of the Quran. Now, the underlying aim is obviously to make
converts to Christianity. Hence, *as a response to the missionary's
attempts to do this* (which are obvious, even if they deny them), it
is perfectly proper to point out that the latter's own views are
subject to the same objections. No "fallacy" in doing that.
Moreover, many objections to Islam are attempts to psychologically
coerce or bully a person into having doubts about their faith. The
basic device is to implicitly put down a person's intelligence or
rationality for holding his religious beliefs. Again, it's pretty
obvious despite all of the sweet-sounding "We're just searching for
truth" expressions with which the attempts at bullying are
embroidered. Here too, the objector should be smacked with a "tu
quoque" from time to time.
> Okay then, fine... what's the problem with discussing my theories here
> then? As I've already said, when I'm in alt.atheism, I have no problem
> with attempts to discredit Atheism. We should never fear the truth,
> and therefore never fear the claims of others. If your opponant is
> wrong, your beliefs have been corroborated; if you are proven wrong,
> you've learned something new, which is always valuable!
A noble attitude!! Do you really mean that, or are you just saying it?
Do you really think we "should never fear the truth"?
If so, then I recommend you read up on one of the most fascinating
and compelling arguments in the philosophy of religion of recent
times. This is the "Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism" put
forward by Alvin Plantinga in his "Warrant and Proper Function"
(Oxford University Press) a modern classic of epistemology (it's in
the final chapter). Since you like discussing religion, this one's for
you, baby!
Plantinga argues that a contemporary atheist who understands a
certain elementary argument will realise that evolution is unlikely to
give us reliable belief-producing cognitive faculties, and will then
be irrational in accepting the deliverances of those faculties. This
means he will have to give up ALL of his beliefs, including atheism
(on pain of irrationality). Atheism is thus self-refuting, and cannot
be rationally held. (In later books he shows that the same argument
works for agnostics as well.)
It's a subtle and bold argument from one of the best contemporary
philosophers -- ENJOY!! We know you won't be scared that your views
might be shown to be irrational after reading it :)
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
I would like to deal with some of the issues raised by self-proclaimed
"dajjal".
> willing to email Dr. Saifullaah, as you recommended, for two reasons:
> (1) I figured he'd eventually chyme in on his own, and (2) I know that
> posters to SRI are often deeply offended by private emails... one only
Well, what does "dajjal" do in this newgroup? Chyme, right? It seems he is
unable to get over his repetitive arguments for something really original.
> > > > http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html
> > >
> > > I made reference to this, though I admit in passing. I don't see why
> > > we should assume the existence of any sort of rudimentary masjid on
> > > the temple mount.
> >
> > Masjid, what it means etc etc is all explained in the above article
>
> Hence my use of the word "RUDIMENTARY". Whether it had a minaret or
> was a circle of stones, why should we assume it was there? Because a
> text written more than 1oo years after the fact claims such?
The eye-witnesses Frankish Bishop Arculf described the argument between a
believing and non-believing Jew over an alleged funeral shroud of Jesus,
which was settled by the Saracen King Mavias, meaning of course the Caliph
Mu'awiya, and he goes on to say:
"But in the renowned place where once the Temple had been magnificently
constructed, placed in the neighbourhood of the wall from the east, the
Saracens now frequent a quadrangular place of prayer, which the have built
rudely, constructing if by setting great beams on some remains of ruins;
this house can, it is said, hold three thousand men at once."
This was around 48 AH (670 CE). It is mentioned in the book of Creswell
(Early Islamic Architecture) and Alistar Duncan (The Noble Sanctuary). So,
we are not talking about text written more than 100 years old. The first
rudimentary structure to house people at al-Aqsa Mosque was made during
the period of 'Umar.
The earliest structure of al-Aqsa mosque was neither consisting of circle
of stones or minaret, btw.
> > http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html
>
> You see, this is what I mean by "red herring." You make the accusation
> that I rest my scholarship on Cook and Crone, and then cite a problem
> I have never touched on. Let's say Cook and Crone were blatantly wrong
> about the Qibla, does this mean they were blatantly wrong about
> everything? If not, why bring up something that wasn't part of the
> discussion? In fact, in my post from August 26th, I wrote the
> following:
>
> Many find their 'negative' results excellent (the many
> inconsistent reports of orthodox Islamic historiography
> which they expose, et cetera), while they find the duo's
> 'positive' assertions (Syria instead of Mecca being the
> birthplace of Islam, et cetera) to be somewhat questionable.
Well, Crone and Cook got their Qibla issue wrong. There is no doubt about
it. This "negative result" would not make anything excellent for their
thesis. It actually shows that they have not done their homework properly.
So, in any case one of the pillars of their argument has crashed. Now for
the "positive assertions" like Syria being the birth place of Islam,
perhaps we should add that Muslims did not conquer Syria, it was given to
them on a silver platter.
> The Qibla issue is related to the whole "birthplace in Syria" thing, a
> Norther Kaaba, et cetera.... that all has to do with the
> reconstructions, and for you to bring this up is baffling, being that
> I never argued otherwise, nor did I even mention anything about this
> issue. To settle the Qibla thing, it stems from masajeed (or maybe
> only one? I forget) that have an orientation that is slightly off...
Now our "dajjal" wants an easy route to escape from this issue. The Qibla
issue os not related to "reconstruction" btw; the argument stems from
Muslim and non-Muslims sources used by Crone and Cook. I wonder whether
"dajjal" has ever managed to read the book "Hagarism" carefully enough.
The argument of Qibla is used by Crone in three of her works that I know
of and the argument is along the similar lines. So, for Crone it was such
an important issue to drum about.
> that has never been a big deal to me, as for example last April I went
> to an Anti-Zionist rally here in New York City (and even met Dr.
> Mohamed Ghounem there). Anyway, there were a couple spots set out in
> Union Square Park for the Muslim marchers to pray. I noticed that the
> very first group (whcih was very small) prayed in a direction that had
> them pointing, essentially, straight up Park Avenue South, which means
> they were facing due north, and somewhere in Canada! The much larger
> and later groups all faced a direction that seemed more towards the
> east. The moral of the story? The first small group apparently made an
> error, thus it is conceivable that a mosque could be off as well, as
> even Muslims may get something wrong! That being established, you
The Qibla azimuth in New York is 58.5 degrees (east of north, i.e.). If
Muslims prayed roughly between north and east. It is not really an error.
The basic condition for prayer is that a person should face Qibla where
Ka'bah can be anywhere between 180 degrees.
On Wansbrough's review of "Hagarism"
> "The authors' erudition is quite extraordinary, their industry
> everywhere evident, their prose ebullient. No simple description could
> do it justice[.]"
> [Ibid. p. 155]
And what else did Wansbrough say about the work?
" . . . The juxtaposition muhajir: Hagar, even if it were etymologically
sound, cannot really support the messianic and irredentist superstructure
erected here to explain the Arab expansion into the Fertile Crescent. The
material is upon occasion misleadingly presented, e.g. Ephrem certainly
did not prophesy an exodus of Hagarenes from the desert, nor did
Levond report Leo's description of Hajjaj destroying old Hagarene writings."
John Wansbrough, Review of Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World, P
Crone & M Cook, Bulletin Of The School Of Oriental And African Studies,
1978, Volume 41, p. 156.
There is more to it but this is good enough.
So, Ephrem did not prophesy an exodus of Hagarenes from the desert nor did
Levond report Leo's description of Hajjaj destroying old Hagarene
writings. The Qibla issue is refuted and what else Crone and Cook are left
with. Perhaps "dajjal" with his "scholarly" credentials can kindly inform
us.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Johnny
> Greetings to all,
>
> Time and again we read such brave statements like that which
> johnny_b...@yahoo.com (Johnny) made on 17 Aug 2001 00:34:58 GMT
And time and time again we have Heger and his "brave" little comments.
For example:
>
> > First of all, the Quran that we have in our hands today *is* the
> > *original* Quran revealed by Allah and recited by prophet Muhammed
> > (PBUH) and all the Sahabis.
>
> Unfortunately there is no evidence for this view that the transmitted
> Koran is the Koran which Muhammad recited to his audience.
Fortunately there is tremendous evidence for this view that the
transmitted Quran is the Quran which Muhammed (PBUH) and his Sahabis
recited to the "audience"
>On the
> contrary, the opposite is evident.
On the contrary, the opposite of my statement is absolutely not true.
>
> Concerning the special view that the transmitted Koran is what "all the
> Sahabis" recited:
And that is the eternal truth indeed.
>That view is even contradicted explicitly by the
> Islamic tradition itself.
No, "that view" is not explicitly contradicted by the Islamic
tradition itself.
> Don't you know the reports that one of the
> most respected Sahabis, Abdullah b. Mas'ud, opposed the recognition of
> surahs 113 and 114 as part of the Koran and refused to destroy his own
> Koran, as Caliph `Uthman had ordered.
And don't you know that Ibn Masud (RTA) was ashamed of his behaviour
and apologised for it:
"..... As for 'Abdullah's initial objection to hand over his codex to
'Uthman, and his anger of assigning the compilation of the codices to
Zayd
rather than him to the extent that 'Uthman said: "Who can make
'Abdullah
excuse me? He is angry at me as I didn't put him in charge of copying
the
Qur'an. Why didn't he complain of Abu Bakr and 'Umar since they are
the
ones who put Zayd in charge?
It was also narrated in that report that the Companions didn't approve
Ibn
Mas'ud when he said: "How can I be isolated from the Codices [i.e.
from
their copy] while I received 70 surahs from the Prophet and Zayd was
still
a kid playing with kids. It was also narrated that 'Abdullah
eventually
agreed with 'Uthman and approved the opinion of the community and
regretted
his previous sayings and was ashamed from them. Indeed Abu Waael
narrated
that report and ended with: "'Abdullah was ashamed of his attitude and
said
'I am not the best among them'" and he stepped down the minbar."
[Arthur Jeffery, Muqaddimatan Fi 'Ulum al-Qur'an (Two Muqaddimas To
The
Qur'anic Sciences), 1954, Makhtabat al-Khanji, p. 94-95.]
It was Ibn Masud's (RTA) PERSONAL copy which obviously contained the
Quran and material besides it such as Dua's, Hadeeths etc, it was his
PERSONAL AND PRIVATE copy mean't for his use only and it is therefore
understandable why Ibn Masud (RTA) would not be willing to hand over
his PERSONAL COPY so easily.
Don't you even know that Ibn Masud (RTA) was not at Medina at the
time:
"The reason 'Uthman did not include Ibn Mas'ud is discussed by
al'Asqalani, who points out that Ibn Mas'ud was not in Medina at the
time when 'Uthman urgently appointed the committee. He was in Kufah,
Furthermore, 'Uthman did nothing more than reproduce the pages
compiled by the command of Abu Bakr into one mushaf. In the times of
Abu Bakr and of 'Uthman, Zayd Ibn Thabit had the previlege of being
the scribe in charge of compilation. 46"
[Ahmad 'Ali al Imam "Variant Readings Of The Qur'an: A CRITICAL STUDY
OF THEIR HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC ORIGINS." pg. 29]
In the same page, we read that Ibn Masud (RYA) felt ignored or
insulted because he was not asked to join the committee, BUT Ibn
Masud(RTA) latter RECONSIDERED and gave his mushaf back to Uthman
(RTA). Why Ibn Masud (RTA) was not included in the committee is
explained above, we know he latter apologised for his behaviour and
felt sorry over what he had done, and it is very understandable why he
would not be willing to hand over his mushaf, his PERSONAL PRIVATE
COPY which contained Quran as well as Hadeeth's and Dua's taught by
Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), and which he had with him for many years.
Any sane person would be attached to such an item. In footnote number
45 on the same page we read: "...Muhamnmad Ibn Yahya Ibn Abi Bakr,
adds: "but the FOLLOWERS of Ibn Mas'ud DID NOT AGREE with him. Then
Ibn Mas'ud asked 'Uthman for permission to return to Medina as he did
not wish to stay in Kufah. He was given permission and came to Medina
some months before he passed away."" -- emphasis added.
Now coming to suras 113 and 114. It is hard to imagine that Ibn Masud
(RTA) refused to accept these surahs as part of the Quran because
these are amongst the most commonst, shortest of verses of the Holy
Quran which every Muslim is expected to memorise when a kid. Ahmad
'Ali al Imam in his above mentioned book, page 81, discusses many
points of views regarding this, let me just quote his conclusion:
"Furthermore, Ibn al Baqillani states that all these riwayahs are
isolated reports that should not be regarded as reliable. In
addition, he considers all differences attributed to Ibn Mas'ud as
false and related by ignorant (people), although he does not deny that
Ibn Mas'ud, like any other hafiz, might fall into error in certain
huruf. He adds that if Ibn Mas'ud had denied these two sealing
surahs, the Companions would have disagreed with him, and that this
would have become widely known, since lesser quarrels have been
reported to us, Also he says that the consensus of the Companions on
the compilation of the mushaf cannot be impugned by these anomalous
invented narrations. 18
Finally, a considerable number of ahadith refer to the position of
these surahs, 19 the story behind their revelation, 20 and, above all,
to the recitation of them , by the Prophet while at home and
travelling, 21 which indicate that Ibn Mas'ud was aware of them.
Thus, these narrations attributed to Ubay Ibn Ka'b and 'Abd Allah Ibn
Mas'ud cannot be regarded as authentic."
On the same page we also read:
"The alleged exclusion of these surahs from the mushaf of Ibn Mas'ud
does not mean that they were not memorized by him for, as is well
known, they are among the shortest and the easiest surahs of the
Qur'an."
Johnny
Denis Giron
be Dr. Omar Mirza. This response is coming nearly three weeks since
they left their respective posts. I apologize for the delay, but I was
caught up in my studies (while I recognize that that a man with his
doctorate and a man working on his dissertation have faced far more
academic pile-ups than some kid just starting grad school, I'm sure
they can look back on past experiences and know that sometimes the
school work slows us down). Also, the recent sad events on Sept 11th
further slowed me down (being that the bulk of the deaths took place
about 20 blocks from where I live), thus my posting to usenet as been
soft (I spend more time arguing with right-wingers in Union Square
Park). Regardless, let the fun begin!
================================
I will begin with Dr. Saifullah's posts...
"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<9nfopu$g0r$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>
> Denis the self-proclaimed "dajjal" (meaning a liar, cheat or deceiver in
> Arabic) and a "kaafir" (meaning who is covered [from truth]) is really
> worth not replying
Well, not exactly the friendliest of responses :D. Not that I assume
for a second that anyone is required to be friendly (just trying to
lighten the mood). Regardless, I'm happy to know that despite the fact
that my posts are "really worth not replying," I still got a healthy
number of responses to keep me on my toes. I'm not being sarcastic
either; I truly learn from every exchange, thus I'm grateful.
> So, the self-proclaimed "dajjal" for some reason has been
> "disappointed" after reading Neal Robinson's book perhaps because it did
> not suit his agenda.
Well, that may be one possibility; however, I would personally argue
that my dislike for Robinson's arguments stems from the fact that I
consider his methodology somewhat naive. When I originally wrote my
criticism of Robinson, it was with reference to his critique of
Hagarism (which Dr. Saifullaah actually correctly pointed out below,
was a bit of a red herring on my part). Robinson is, I believe, an
Anglican Priest (correct me if I'm wrong), and I found his analogies
to the historical nature of the Bible to be a sign of a naive view.
> He would be even more disappointed if he had read
> Wansbrough's review of "Hagarism" in BSOAS, where Wansbrough makes a
> mockery of Crone and Cook's appraoch.
Actually, I've read the review (I think I quoted it a few weeks back).
Indeed Dr. Wansbrough began by praising the duo's work, but after that
came out attacking a large number of its conclusions, and even some
preliminary claims. Quite healthy for intellectual growth I would say
(I recently read in BSOAS or JSS, an article by Cook, and in it he
indirectly implied that he himself has since dropped many of the
claims originally made by him when he was a grad student).
> "Hagarism" unacceptance is not due to the fact that it rejects
> "traditional account". It is due to the fact
> that it uses its sources selectively and sometimes deceptively.
Indeed, Humphreys himself mentioned that some scholars (particularly
Robinson, and in brief passing glimpses, Dr. Wansbrough) made note of
an apparent abuse of the sources. I find it fascinating, and I admit
that I have not quite grasped the whole situation (even Humphreys
himself seems to sit on the fence regarding the ultimate value of the
non-Muslim sources, but I suppose that is slightly unrelated at this
time).
> Crone and Cook have no problems in "accepting" Islamic literary sources
> when it "suits" their theory and vice versa
Hmmm... well, to be fair, I think it should be noted that this is the
argument lobbed at all revisionist historians. For example, with the
Bible, people like GA Wells declare it to be wholly unhistorical, yet
then try to use this discredited document as a source of evidence for
other theories. I suppose that when one is looking for the hidden
clues, reading between the lines can cause you to cross into another
boundary and come up with "clues" that aren't really legitemate.
> So, our "dajjal" has not simply understood the approach adopted by Crone
> and Cook.
I disagree... however, I would concede two things: (1) I obviously
have taken a far less critical (maybe wrongly so) approach towards the
book than Dr. Saifullaah; and (2) I'm quickly gaining a better
understanding of the book's stance from these discussions
(particularly when certain comments send me off to the library to
check sources).
> In the preface to the book Hagarism, Crone
> and Cook tell us that they intend to ignore a rock inscription dated
> from the mid 600's with the phrase "AHL AL ISLAM". They then carry on
> in the book to inform that the words MUSLIM and ISLAM appeared in the
> late 700's!
This is a highly unfair misrepresentation of what actually took place.
They never said they intend to ignore anything; rather they were
actually making readers aware of an error on their part (which is
honorably in line with intellectual honesty). I think we should look
at what they say. At the end of the preface we find the following:
"/Postscript/: [...] For an occurrence of the phrase /ahl al-islam/ in
an inscription dated A.H. 71 which we overlooked at page 8, see H. M.
el-Hawary, 'The Second Oldest Islamic Monument Known,' /Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society/, 1932 p. 290."
[P. Crone & M. Cook, "Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World,"
(Cambridge, 1977) p. ix; {"//" marks are mine and imply text in
italics}]
This was an admission of error after the book had been formed. Why
would an author openly say "okay, now I'm going to lie to you on
pg..."? For an example, John Remsberg wrote "The Christ," a harsh
critique of the New Testament, at the start of the 20th century. In
the book Remsberg claims the 12 disciples were not historical
characters, but rather part of a story based on 12 Babylonian kings.
The claim turned out to be false, but rather than change the scope and
layout of the book (which can be costly), there is a postscript in
later editions that says something like "recent archeological evidence
has proven this to be false". The postscript is an opportunity to warn
readers about an error made during the writing of the book.
> By the way, the issue is of the structure of surah al-Isra' not about
> acceptance or rejection of traditional accounts. So, come to the point.
You're right... my apologies; you have exposed the above-mentioned red
herring (straw man too?) put forth by me. My major objections with
Robinson, however, still stand. I think his arguments for the
structure of soorat al-Israa' were at best naive, and at worst
misleading. The only way his arguments work is if one presupposes the
structure is deliberate, and I see no reason to start from that
presupposition. Even Kate Zebiri, who was very much impressed with
Robinson's work, criticized what seems like a tautological methodology
on the part of Robinson. While discussions on the structure of soorat
al-Israa' are found throughout his book, a large portion of this
discussion appears in chapter nine. Regarding this chapter (and his
arguments for structure of al-Israa' and other chapters, touching on
iltifaat, etc.), Zebiri writes:
"One of Robinson's main concerns in this chapter is to show the
underlying reasons for some of the abrupt, and to the Westerner,
disconcerting changes of pronoun which are characteristic of the
Qur'an. Here there is an element of circularity in that cause and
effect are sometimes assumed to be identical."
[Kate Zebiri, BSOAS, Vol. 61, 1998, p. 540]
Again, this was one of the few remarks that Zebiri wrote that did not
contain high praise for the book (the above was preceded by favorable
remarks, and was followed by such as well). That being said, I agree
with her sole criticism of the chapter, and (true to my nature :D)
take it a bit further. It reminds me of the sort of arguments the
Rabbis come up for the structure of the Torah in that both are wholly
unfalsifiable. More thoughts on this can be found at:
http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/hermeneutics.html
> Well, couple of months ago a Jew who attended a lecture by a Muslim said
> that there is no way of knowing the clear pronunciation of Hebrew words
> except by using the Arabic linguistic tools.
Again, I never disputed this (simply because I am not capable of doing
so), but if I did... I would wonder about this source. If I had made a
claim based on what "a Muslim who attended a lecture" had said, I
firmly believe Dr. Saifullaah would take full advantage of the
vulnerable qualities of my statement, and from there the ridicule
would flow quite heavily (not that I'm complaining). With all due
respect, please give me something more than just an anonymous Jew.
> Did we ever say that a language is borne in vacuum?
Did I ever say that you had said language is borne in a vacuum? I was
merely trying to explain that I am *NOT* a supporter of this old
"foreign words" polemic (save for two very specific words, Sabt and
Jahannam, which have other theological implications). My point was
that I don't care for the polemic, and the only people who do are the
types who would assume languages were borne in vacuums (I was
implicating your opponents, not you!).
> Perhaps, we should say that a "pre-conceived theory". If you have a
> theory, you can fit any data to "prove" it.
Indeed the relationship between theory and evidence can become
muddled, and that's a problem. However, that was not what I was doing,
IMHO. I started with a hypothesis that was based on some things that I
noticed about the text, and then searched for more examples to
corroborate my original assumption (that the multiple stories implies
a compilation of sources brought together via fissiparous production).
Not exactly fool proof, but that's my method.
> Why is that the scholars who are more knowledgeable that "dajjal" are able
> to show structure in the Qur'an?
Is this an ad-verecundiam argument of sorts? When a Christian says
something in favor of the Qur'an, he wins over the atheist critic by
default? If Robinson were more hostile towards the Qur'an, would he
then have been demoted from "scholar" to "missionary"? I gave my
reasons above; Robinson's claims are based on a certain
presupposition, and I see no reason to start from that angle (maybe
Dr. Saifullaah can enlighten me). Furthermore, to make an analogy, I
wonder why Dr. Saifullah doesn't believe the Torah is the infallible
word of God, when Rabbis who are fluent in Hebrew have read it over
thousands of times, memorized its text, and concluded that it is in
fact the infallible word of God.
> What makes "dajjal" to believe that whatever Crone and Cook and Wansbrough
> say is true then?
When did I ever say that whatever these scholars say is true? With all
due respect, I think I am being confused with the Christians... unlike
them, I don't have any book that I consider infallible. There is no
being I consider to be always right and from there conclude that
whatever they say is true.
> What is the evidence for the claim of Crone and Cook
> about the Qur'an?
You mean the evidence that it is a work of multiple hands? My
preliminary evidence is as follows:
http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/quranmulti.html
Moving on, we get Dr. Saifullah's comments regarding al-Masjeed
al-Aqsa:
> The eye-witnesses Frankish Bishop Arculf described the argument between a
> believing and non-believing Jew over an alleged funeral shroud of Jesus,
> which was settled by the Saracen King Mavias, meaning of course the Caliph
> Mu'awiya, and he goes on to say:
>
> "But in the renowned place where once the Temple had been magnificently
> constructed, placed in the neighbourhood of the wall from the east, the
> Saracens now frequent a quadrangular place of prayer, which the have built
> rudely, constructing if by setting great beams on some remains of ruins;
> this house can, it is said, hold three thousand men at once."
>
> This was around 48 AH (670 CE). It is mentioned in the book of Creswell
> (Early Islamic Architecture) and Alistar Duncan (The Noble Sanctuary). So,
> we are not talking about text written more than 100 years old. The first
> rudimentary structure to house people at al-Aqsa Mosque was made during
> the period of 'Umar.
What this ultimately comes down to is an attempt to show a discrepancy
in my arrogant and haphazard dating of evidence (i.e. obviously there
was something written about Jerusalem less than 100 years after
Muhammad's death). However, the above has nothing to do with the
actual discussion aside from its value of refuting my claim about
numbers. The actual argument was with regard to the evidence for a
masjeed being there during the time Muhammad allegedly went there
during his miraculous journey on al-Buraaq. The testimony above is
speaking about a structure commissioned by 'Umar *AFTER* Muhammad was
already dead, thus it does not relate to the issue of evidence of the
israa/miraaj tradition (which I consider highly suspicious).
The problem still stands, and it is a problem that Dr. Saifullah is
aware of (as he cites related sources on his web site). The temple
mount was covered with refuse (including human waste). Dr. Saifullah,
on his page, avoided this problem, and instead focused on who actually
made it that way (as part of a polemic against the Christians). Karen
Armstrong describes the state of the mount as follows:
"Ever since the Persian occupation, when the Jews had resumed worship
on the platform, the Christians had used the place as the city rubbish
dump. When 'Umar reached the old ruined gates of the Temple, says the
Muslim historian Mujir al-Din, he was horrified to see the filth,
"which was then all about the holy sanctuary, had settled on the steps
of the gates so that it even came out into the streets in which the
gate opened, and it had accumulated so greatly as almost to reach up
the ceiling of the gateway." The only way to get up to the platform
was to crawl on hands and knees. Sophronius went first and the Muslims
struggled up behind. When they arrived at the top, the Muslims must
have gazed appalled at the vast and desolate expanse of Herod's
platform, still covered with piles of fallen masonry and garbage. The
shock of this sad encounter with the holy place whose fame had reached
them in far-off Arabia was never forgotten: Muslims claimed that they
called Anastasis /al-qumamah/, "the Dungheap," in retaliation for the
impious of the Christians on the Temple Mount. 'Umar does not seem to
have spent any time on this occasion examining the rock, which would
later play such an important part in Islamic piety. Once he had taken
stock of the situation, he threw handfuls of dung and rubble into his
cloak and then hurled it over the city wall into the Valley of Hinnom.
Immediately his followers did the same."
[Karen Armstrong, "Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths," (Ballantine,
1997) pp.229-230]
So, the point remains that the spot was covered in refuse and human
waste, and one wonders what sort of place of prostration that is!
Again, there is no evidence to back up the tradition about Muhammad
going to Jerusalem on the back of al-Buraaq and leading prayer in a
masjid with Jesus, Adam, et cetera. The story reads as a sort of
midrashic build.
Oh, and on a side note, Armstrong states that this dates back to the
time of the Persian invasion, but I dispute that. The place was
already besmattered with all manner of refuse back before Julian the
Apostate took power. The massive clean up ordered by Julian in March
of 363 is briefly alluded to by Armstrong (p. 195).
As for the passage from the testimony of Arculfus, Dr. Saifullaah
dates it at 670 CE. He should know that first, Arculfus' testimony was
preserved by Saint Adamnan, second the manuscripts recording this
event contradict one another, and third, even liberal scholars of the
texts of Adamnan do not date it that early. As one scholar puts it:
"The date of Arculf's sojourn in the east, and the duration of his
stay, while not determinable with exactitude, can be conjectured
within reasonable limits. The date usually suggested, 670-674, is
certainly too early."
[Dennis Meehan (ed.), "Adamnan's /De Locis Santis/," (Dublin, 1958) p.
9]
The dating of the event relies on internal evidence (which I consider
a naive methodology) and the known chronology of Adamnan's life (who
died in 704CE). Meehan, one of the leading scholars on the subject,
places it after 686 (p.9) but before 697 (p.5). Regardless, the
/quadrangulam orationis domum/ ("quadrangular place of prayer")
mentioned by Arculfus was the masjeed put together by 'Umar, and was
not standing during the rough time period given for Muhammad's life.
> The earliest structure of al-Aqsa mosque was neither consisting of circle
> of stones or minaret, btw.
And how do you know this? What are your sources for determining what
the masjeed was like?
> The Qibla azimuth in New York is 58.5 degrees (east of north, i.e.). If
> Muslims prayed roughly between north and east. It is not really an error.
> The basic condition for prayer is that a person should face Qibla where
> Ka'bah can be anywhere between 180 degrees.
I didn't know that. Thank you, I've learned something new.
=====================================
Moving on, I'd now like to comment on Omar's posts.
oam...@hotmail.com (Omar) wrote in message news:<9njt0t$b6b$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> The "tu quoque" form of response is perfectly legitimate. For
> example, in Muslim-Christian debate, very often a Christian missionary
> will try to cause the Muslim to have doubts about the authenticity of
> the text of the Quran. Now, the underlying aim is obviously to make
> converts to Christianity. Hence, *as a response to the missionary's
> attempts to do this* (which are obvious, even if they deny them), it
> is perfectly proper to point out that the latter's own views are
> subject to the same objections. No "fallacy" in doing that.
I *STRONGLY* disagree. Whatever your impressions are about Dr. Heger's
motivations for writing the posts he writes, this is still not a
justification for bringing in unrelated subjects (like the Bible).
Here's the way I see it: Dr. Heger was talking about the status of the
Qur'an, and those whom he was debating tried to bring up the Bible. I
have said time and time again that the status of the Bible does not
have anything to do with the status of the Qur'an. What is the
ultimate point of bringing up the Bible? Is it to get the Christian to
stay silent? If so, this is essentially an implicit deal for a mutual
silence, along the lines of "don't criticize my book if you don't want
me to criticize yours." The hoped-for result can only be silence on
the issue until an Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, Pantheist, or other
person without scripture comes along. Personally, I see it as the
groundwork for an atmosphere of intellectual dishonesty, as there are
certain realms the Christians and Muslims wont go into as part of a
silent agreement.
Regarding my stance towards criticism of atheism, Omar wrote:
> I recommend you read up on one of the most fascinating
> and compelling arguments in the philosophy of religion of recent
> times. This is the "Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism" put
> forward by Alvin Plantinga in his "Warrant and Proper Function"
> (Oxford University Press) a modern classic of epistemology (it's in
> the final chapter). Since you like discussing religion, this one's for
> you, baby!
> [...]
> It's a subtle and bold argument
With all due respect, I did not consider the argument to be compelling
or fascinating. At best I would call it "cute." However, before I go
into my objections, I will concede that though I'm pursuing an
education in analytical philosophy, I have only take one graduate
level class to date, and that was my only introduction to the sort of
Bayesian framework of probability arguments put forth by Plantinga.
First of all, I have trouble with his leaning toward an "objective"
interpretation of his formula, as I have never seen how Bayes' theorem
can be used to formulate any "objective" probability prior to
collecting empirical evidence. Maybe this is due to some ignorance on
my part (who knows!).
Another major objection I have is the whole leap in logic regarding
the issue of evolution via natural means ("E&N"). While I don't assume
for a second that he truly demonstrated via Bayes' theorem that the
probability is absolutely low, I think there is another argument to be
made here. For example, suppose I throw 100 dice up in the air. The
chances of them landing the way that they do are one in trillions!
Now, suppose I turn my back after throwing them, and only look after
they have landed. I believe they landed the way they did by chance,
yet what is the probability that they would have landed the way they
did? The chance that they would land as they did was 1 in 6^100 (which
is a massive number), thus the probability is *EXTREMELY* low.
Plantinga would have us believe that we have a defeater for the belief
that they landed the way they did. In truth, every outcome is
improbable (what were the odds that you'd have the exact number of
scars you have, in those precise shapes?), but this is not a reason to
assume the outcome never took place.
Furthermore, even if we accept Plantinga's argument, at best it comes
off as a sophisticated "brain in a vat" sort of mental exercise. It is
like asking "what if we really are in the Matrix?" or "what if we
really were deceived by Descarte's naughty demon?" I think Plantinga
did a good job of showing how false beliefs can lead you to still
survive (like the cave man named Paul who believes tigers are
friendly, but falsely assumes running away from them is a way of
cuddling with them; obviously his false belief would allow him to
survive and pass on his genes). As Plantinga puts it:
"First, perhaps it is likely that their /behavior/ is adaptive; but
nothing follows about their /beliefs/."
[A. Plantinga, "Warrant and Proper Function," (Oxford, 1993), p. 223]
That makes perfect sense, as we have Jews, Christians, Muslims,
Atheists, Agnostics, Pantheists, Deists, Hindus, et cetera... at least
some of these people have to be holding to blatantly false beliefs,
yet their behavior (even if it based on these beliefs) allows them to
survive and reproduce.
But let's say the probability of us evolving a reliable ability to
know anything truthfully is extremely low (as low as Plantinga implies
it is). This doesn't mean we didn't evolve or that any particular
belief is wrong. It simply means that we have a "defeater" for any
belief. But if it is true, and we have not evolved an ability to come
to reliable or versimilitudious conclusions, can't this just as well
mean we're all wrong? From the standpoint of the person who accepts
E&N, any and every belief could be wrong, thus not only could Atheism
be wrong, but so could Islam! We get nowhere! In fact, maybe I'm
misinformed in thinking that Plantinga even wrote this argument! We
get sucked into this same sort of vicious circle that we could've just
as easily gotten into if we were asked by high frat boys "what if the
Matrix is real?" If the Matrix is real, all our belief systems are
probably false, et cetera...
So, in short, Plantinga's argument doesn't tell us anything about
Atheism. At best, all it tells us is that if we evolved via natural
selection (sans deity), there is a chance (in his mind, a high chance)
that we developed a serious inability to know true from false. This
doesn't demonstrate atheism to be false; rather it simply states that
if E&N is true, then there is a probability that any and every belief
system, regardless of who holds it or what it is, is wrong. Belief in
E&N is a defeater for everything. The same is the case if we're just a
brain in a vat.
-Denis Giron
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> > Denis the self-proclaimed "dajjal" (meaning a liar, cheat or deceiver in
> > Arabic) and a "kaafir" (meaning who is covered [from truth]) is really
> > worth not replying
>
> Well, not exactly the friendliest of responses :D. Not that I assume
> for a second that anyone is required to be friendly (just trying to
> lighten the mood). Regardless, I'm happy to know that despite the fact
> that my posts are "really worth not replying," I still got a healthy
> number of responses to keep me on my toes. I'm not being sarcastic
> either; I truly learn from every exchange, thus I'm grateful.
The cruncline here is that we judge people by what they are and what they
claim. If Denis claims that he is dajjal meaning a "liar", "cheat", then
so be it. If a self-proclaimed dajjal comes and say that he is telling the
truth, do we believe him or do we not? Did he say the truth ir not? It is
an interesting paradox.
> Well, that may be one possibility; however, I would personally argue
> that my dislike for Robinson's arguments stems from the fact that I
> consider his methodology somewhat naive. When I originally wrote my
> criticism of Robinson, it was with reference to his critique of
> Hagarism (which Dr. Saifullaah actually correctly pointed out below,
> was a bit of a red herring on my part). Robinson is, I believe, an
> Anglican Priest (correct me if I'm wrong), and I found his analogies
> to the historical nature of the Bible to be a sign of a naive view.
If Mr. Dajjal thinks that it is a distinct possibility that Robinson's
argument does not suit his agenda then we have nothing to discuss with
people who are opinionated yet claim themselves to be freethinkers (yet
another lie!).
Robinson's approach is not "naive". What he showed is that using the
methodology adopted by Crone and Cook Christianity would easily fall apart
(for that matter any belief system!).
Neal Robinson has been a Muslim for long time but he declared his shahadah
in the last Qur'an conference at School of Oriental & African Studies,
London, UK, in front of many Muslims and non-Muslim scholars. I think the
conference was held two years ago and Robinson was there at the Qur'an
conference held at the same venue.
> > He would be even more disappointed if he had read
> > Wansbrough's review of "Hagarism" in BSOAS, where Wansbrough makes a
> > mockery of Crone and Cook's appraoch.
>
> Actually, I've read the review (I think I quoted it a few weeks back).
> Indeed Dr. Wansbrough began by praising the duo's work, but after that
> came out attacking a large number of its conclusions, and even some
> preliminary claims. Quite healthy for intellectual growth I would say
> (I recently read in BSOAS or JSS, an article by Cook, and in it he
> indirectly implied that he himself has since dropped many of the
> claims originally made by him when he was a grad student).
So.... what are you trying to get at?
> > "Hagarism" unacceptance is not due to the fact that it rejects
> > "traditional account". It is due to the fact
> > that it uses its sources selectively and sometimes deceptively.
>
> Indeed, Humphreys himself mentioned that some scholars (particularly
> Robinson, and in brief passing glimpses, Dr. Wansbrough) made note of
> an apparent abuse of the sources. I find it fascinating, and I admit
> that I have not quite grasped the whole situation (even Humphreys
> himself seems to sit on the fence regarding the ultimate value of the
> non-Muslim sources, but I suppose that is slightly unrelated at this
> time).
Abuse of the source is fascinating? It is like saying that wife-abuse or
child-abuse is fascinating. Where are we going now?
> > Crone and Cook have no problems in "accepting" Islamic literary sources
> > when it "suits" their theory and vice versa
>
> Hmmm... well, to be fair, I think it should be noted that this is the
> argument lobbed at all revisionist historians. For example, with the
> Bible, people like GA Wells declare it to be wholly unhistorical, yet
> then try to use this discredited document as a source of evidence for
> other theories. I suppose that when one is looking for the hidden
> clues, reading between the lines can cause you to cross into another
> boundary and come up with "clues" that aren't really legitemate.
Let us get a few things straight. Abusing of the sources is unacceptable.
What is acceptable is to do a scholarly analysis and reach the conclusion
determined by the analysis and evidences. A good approach taken along this
line is by Robert Hoyland of University of Oxford, UK, in his book "Seeing
Islam As Others Saw It". This book surveys and evaluates Christian,
Jewish and Zoroastrian sources on early Islam. He has couple of chapters
towards the end dealing with the use of non-Muslim sources to describe
early Islam. They make interesting reading. His conclusions are in line
with Wansbrough's conclusion that non-Muslim sources can't provide a
complete picture of early Islam. He adds that:
"But what I have hoped to have achieved in this book is to demonstrate
that the testimony of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian writers can be
used alongside that of Muslim authors to furnish us with an enriched and
explained vision of the history of the Middle East in Early Islamic times,
to offer us new perspectives on its character and to suggest to us new
directions for its study" [p. 598].
> This is a highly unfair misrepresentation of what actually took place.
> They never said they intend to ignore anything; rather they were
> actually making readers aware of an error on their part (which is
> honorably in line with intellectual honesty). I think we should look
> at what they say. At the end of the preface we find the following:
>
> "/Postscript/: [...] For an occurrence of the phrase /ahl al-islam/ in
> an inscription dated A.H. 71 which we overlooked at page 8, see H. M.
> el-Hawary, 'The Second Oldest Islamic Monument Known,' /Journal of the
> Royal Asiatic Society/, 1932 p. 290."
> [P. Crone & M. Cook, "Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World,"
> (Cambridge, 1977) p. ix; {"//" marks are mine and imply text in
> italics}]
Well, why overlook then? That actually destroys a major part of their
thesis, is it not!
> You're right... my apologies; you have exposed the above-mentioned red
> herring (straw man too?) put forth by me. My major objections with
> Robinson, however, still stand. I think his arguments for the
> structure of soorat al-Israa' were at best naive, and at worst
> misleading. The only way his arguments work is if one presupposes the
> structure is deliberate, and I see no reason to start from that
> presupposition. Even Kate Zebiri, who was very much impressed with
> Robinson's work, criticized what seems like a tautological methodology
> on the part of Robinson. While discussions on the structure of soorat
> al-Israa' are found throughout his book, a large portion of this
> discussion appears in chapter nine. Regarding this chapter (and his
> arguments for structure of al-Israa' and other chapters, touching on
> iltifaat, etc.), Zebiri writes:
>
> "One of Robinson's main concerns in this chapter is to show the
> underlying reasons for some of the abrupt, and to the Westerner,
> disconcerting changes of pronoun which are characteristic of the
> Qur'an. Here there is an element of circularity in that cause and
> effect are sometimes assumed to be identical."
> [Kate Zebiri, BSOAS, Vol. 61, 1998, p. 540]
There are more competent people than Kate Zebri to comment upon the issue
like iltifaat at SOAS such as M. A. S. Abdel Haleem who spent most of his
life studying Arabic and the finer points of the language. He has a
complete article in BSOAS on iltifaat which can be seen at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/iltifaat.html
It is not that this feature in the Qur'an was "invented" by Abdel Haleem.
He has pointed out that the scholars of Arabic in thye past have long
recognized this feature in the Qur'an and in Arabic poetry.
Neal Robinson uses the example to show some of the feature of iltifaat in
the Qur'an.
The above quote deals with the shift in the pronoun in the Qur'an and has
nothing to do with Sura al-Israa' and its structure. Kate Zebri may have
some reservations about the shift in the pronoun; but they are not of any
value as long as there is no evidence shown.
> Again, I never disputed this (simply because I am not capable of doing
> so), but if I did... I would wonder about this source. If I had made a
> claim based on what "a Muslim who attended a lecture" had said, I
> firmly believe Dr. Saifullaah would take full advantage of the
> vulnerable qualities of my statement, and from there the ridicule
> would flow quite heavily (not that I'm complaining). With all due
> respect, please give me something more than just an anonymous Jew.
Well, it is very well-known. Try checking some "known" authors at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz1.html#2
> Indeed the relationship between theory and evidence can become
> muddled, and that's a problem. However, that was not what I was doing,
Let me be more clear. Theoretically I can claim that I have a device which
can convert gold into coppper. To show that evidence is a different
matter. The line between theory and evidence is very clear. It is only
that one has to see the lines of demarcation.
> > Why is that the scholars who are more knowledgeable that "dajjal" are able
> > to show structure in the Qur'an?
>
> Is this an ad-verecundiam argument of sorts? When a Christian says
> something in favor of the Qur'an, he wins over the atheist critic by
> default? If Robinson were more hostile towards the Qur'an, would he
> then have been demoted from "scholar" to "missionary"? I gave my
> reasons above; Robinson's claims are based on a certain
> presupposition, and I see no reason to start from that angle (maybe
> Dr. Saifullaah can enlighten me). Furthermore, to make an analogy, I
> wonder why Dr. Saifullah doesn't believe the Torah is the infallible
> word of God, when Rabbis who are fluent in Hebrew have read it over
> thousands of times, memorized its text, and concluded that it is in
> fact the infallible word of God.
We always look for evidence backed up with series of arguments. We do not
hope to win over self-proclaimed liar and an opinionated atheist critic as
there is not much to talk about.
Everybody starts with a pre-supposition anyway... Is our dajjal trying to
say that he starts without a bias? Certainly not!
> You mean the evidence that it is a work of multiple hands? My
> preliminary evidence is as follows:
>
> http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/quranmulti.html
Been there done that. But Mr. dajjal, you are still very slow to
understand the concept of proof and evidence. We had asked you to show the
proof of Crone and Cook that the Qur'an is the book belated and written by
multiple hands. What you have ended up showing is a statement from Crone
and Cook which has no proof dangling to it.
As for the Qur'an being "belated book" there are a large number of Mss
dated from 1st century of hijra at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
Further Christie's the auction house had auctioned a Mss of the Qur'an
dated from the mid-seventh century in this year. They added:
"This Qur'an leaf is one of the earliest fragments of the Qur'an ever
produced. It was almost certainly written in the second half of the 1st
century hijra (second half 7th century AD) in Madina. It may well be part
of the codices of Uthman, the first officially written copies of the Holy
Book that were sent to the main cities of the fledgling Islamic state and
may even be copied by one of the companions of the Prophet. It is a relic
of the utmost religious and artistic significance."
May be you are not aware of it... just in case. Crone and Cook did not do
their home work well. It is well known that Adolf Grohmann writing in 1958
mentions that a dated copy of Qur'an exists from first century hijra and
two from second [Der Islam, p. 216].
Also one can see first century Mss of Qur'an at Austrian National Museum.
One such example is that of Mss A. Perg 2. If I remember correctly, it is
written in Makkan script.
Let us go further down...
> What this ultimately comes down to is an attempt to show a discrepancy
> in my arrogant and haphazard dating of evidence (i.e. obviously there
> was something written about Jerusalem less than 100 years after
> Muhammad's death). However, the above has nothing to do with the
> actual discussion aside from its value of refuting my claim about
> numbers. The actual argument was with regard to the evidence for a
> masjeed being there during the time Muhammad allegedly went there
> during his miraculous journey on al-Buraaq. The testimony above is
> speaking about a structure commissioned by 'Umar *AFTER* Muhammad was
> already dead, thus it does not relate to the issue of evidence of the
> israa/miraaj tradition (which I consider highly suspicious).
Well, dajjal asked for something else last time and he got it. Now the
issue that he has raised is that of masjid whether it being there or not.
Well, masjid is a place of prostration whether we have a structure present
or absent. This has been dealt with at great length at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html
> So, the point remains that the spot was covered in refuse and human
> waste, and one wonders what sort of place of prostration that is!
Well, what is your evidence that the whole of Temple Mount and its
surrounding (mentioned in the Qur'an as "blessed") was covered with filth?
> Again, there is no evidence to back up the tradition about Muhammad
> going to Jerusalem on the back of al-Buraaq and leading prayer in a
> masjid with Jesus, Adam, et cetera. The story reads as a sort of
> midrashic build.
So, what is your evidence contrary to the one stated in Islamic sources?
Cheap excuses like Midrashic built? So, get a good evidence next time to
back up whatever you are claiming.
> places it after 686 (p.9) but before 697 (p.5). Regardless, the
> /quadrangulam orationis domum/ ("quadrangular place of prayer")
> mentioned by Arculfus was the masjeed put together by 'Umar, and was
> not standing during the rough time period given for Muhammad's life.
Get to the point. We have no time to waste on dajjal's long winding
arguments that lead nowhere.
> > The earliest structure of al-Aqsa mosque was neither consisting of circle
> > of stones or minaret, btw.
>
> And how do you know this? What are your sources for determining what
> the masjeed was like?
Well, it was dajjal's statemnt about al-Aqsa mosque was commented upon. He
did not show his proof then. To show him that it was not circle of stones
we discussed the earliest al-Aqsa mosque as described by Arculf. It is
interesting how dajjal shifts the burden of proof.
Wassalam
Saifullah
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Denis Giron
> ...
A while back (in this thread) Dr. Heger wrote a passing remark about
how one can tell how bad an individual's reading experience has been
in light of their response. At times, I got the feeling that these
sentiments expressed by Dr. Heger have been corroborated.
Dr. Saifullah wrote:
> If Mr. Dajjal thinks that it is a distinct possibility that Robinson's
> argument does not suit his agenda then we have nothing to discuss with
> people who are opinionated yet claim themselves to be freethinkers
One wonders how Dr. Saifullah was able to come to the conclusion that
I was rejecting Robinson's "Discovering the Qur'an" on the grounds
that it doesn't fit my Ilhaadic agenda. I never made any such claim. I
actually found Robinson's book rather good, and his criticisms on the
interpretations of Hagarism were quite strong at times. Nevertheless,
I still stand by the stance that his analogies comparing Islamic
traditions to the gospels could be considered exhibitions of a naive
view. More below.
Dr. Saifullah:
> Robinson's approach is not "naive". What he showed is that using the
> methodology adopted by Crone and Cook Christianity would easily fall apart
And whom is Dr. Saifullaah writing this for? It would seem that such
an argument would only appeal to the sentiments of Christians. The
argument seems to go as follows:
A certain form of criticism brings aspects of Islamic historicity into
question; Dr. Saifullah's response is that this methodology would also
do damage to aspects of Christianity (and numerous other ideologies).
So be it. This says nothing about the methodology itself. Consider
this simple syllogistic reconstruction:
Premise: Methodology X brings Islam into question.
Premise: Methodology X brings Christianity into question.
Conclusion: Methodology X is faulty.
The argument is invalid. While methodology X may indeed have problems,
making a note of how much damage it causes to other religions does not
demonstrate this in any sense.
As for what I was talking about originally with regard to Robinson's
analogies to the gospels, here is how I saw it. Robison makes note of
how the gospels, in many respects, are not 100% reliable for gleaning
an accurate understanding of the origins of Christianity, but then
writes:
"Nevertheless, it is generally held that they contain some reliable
information about Jesus and his followers which is based on earlier
traditions, and few would reject them in toto in favor of the very
fragmentary pieces of evidence furnished by early non-Christian
sources."
[Robinson, "Discovering the Qur'an," (SCM press, 1996) p. 52]
This passage served as an analogy for the kind of radical revisionist
methodology that was used by Cook and Crone in "Hagarism." It was Cook
and Crone who rejected nearly the whole swath of Islamic history as
found in the traditional Muslim accounts, and attempted to rebuild by
using hostile Christian and Jewish sources. To be fair, any abduction
is problematic, but the margin of error possibly present in Cook and
Crone's reconstruction (in light of their sources) is *TREMENDOUS*!
Anyone who would try to claim otherwise is simply uninformed.
That being established, Robinson's analogy exhibits a naive innocence
regarding the sources, or a deliberate attempt to make an appeal to
Christian sentiments (to set up an air of intellectual dishonesty,
where the believers sign a mutual and silent social contract that
keeps them from questioning each other's traditions).
First, Robinson's analogy is touching on two mutually exclusive
points, and the blending of the two makes for a hidden argument of
questionable validity. He claims that the Christian sources are weak,
but to rely on hostile non-Christian sources would be worse. The
hidden agenda here is the assumption that the traditional stance
somehow wins by default (the "only game in town" fallacy) in light of
the apparent weakness of the opposing sources. While relying on the
hostile sources can indeed be disastrous for your reconstruction, this
tells us nothing about the reliability of the original source.
For example, suppose I don't go to class tomorrow. One person asks why
I didn't show up. I lie and say that I had a doctor's appointment
(when I was actually sleeping). Another student says I was actually at
a bar. If I demonstrate that I was not at a bar during class time,
does this mean I was really at a doctor's appointment? Of course not.
Furthermore, Robinson states that most scholars would not reject the
gospels in toto. This is true, but what does it say about their
reliability as historical documents? Nothing whatsoever. Robinson
thinks he is setting an analogy for the Islamic traditions. However,
if he is trying to state that the ahaadeeth have a historical accuracy
that roughly parallels the gospels, I'd think of scholars like John
Remsberg and G.A. Wells who have demonstrated rather strongly that the
gospels contain practically NO historical evidence. Robinson only
offers a mild ad-verecundiam/ad-numerum combination, and that is
indeed naive.
However, Robinson's attack on the reconstruction found in "Hagarism"
is strong. Indeed, if he left it simply at a criticism of the sources,
it would still be powerful. That being said, it does not tell us about
the book as a whole. Maybe he should've taken van Ess' review into
account, which pointed out that "one's verdict on the first half of
the book does not necessarily affect the second part" ["Times Literary
Supplement," Sep. 8 1978, p. 998]
This is the whole issue of knocking down one stance, and rebuilding
another (this whole "negative" vs "positive" scholarship dichotomy
that I keep referring to). Humphreys summed up this aspect of
"Hagarism" (a book he referred to as "the brilliant graduate-student
essay of Patricia Crone and Michael Cook") best by writing:
"Unsurprisingly, the Crone-Cook interpretation has failed to win
general acceptance among Western Orientalists [...] However, their
account does squarely confront the disparities between early Arabic
tradition on the Conquest period and the accounts given by Eastern
Christian and Jewish sources. [...] More substantively, their use (or
abuse) of the Greek and Syriac sources has been sharply criticised. In
the end, perhaps we ought to use Hagarism more as a 'what-if' exercise
than as a research monograph, but it should not be ignored."
[Humphreys, "Islamic History," (Princeton, 1991) pp. 84-85]
This "brilliant graduate-student essay" serves as a "what-if exercise"
in that the authors pioneered a new way of attempting to navigate
through Islamic history. While there are problems with aspects of
their methodology (particularly the use of certain sources) and huge
margins of error present in their reconstruction (the above-mentioned
"interpretation") of what "really" happened, it set the groundwork for
a new approach. To think that mere graduate students could write a
monograph that would cause such a stir is what makes it "brilliant."
Furthermore, the fact that it serves as a tool for looking at Islam in
a way that is strikingly different from what Berg calls the "irenic"
approach is the reason it should not be ignored.
> Neal Robinson has been a Muslim for long time but he declared his shahadah
> in the last Qur'an conference at School of Oriental & African Studies,
> London, UK, in front of many Muslims and non-Muslim scholars.
Fascinating! That really brings a lot of what he wrote into
perspective. I assumed that he was an Anglican Priest because this is
what was said in BSOAS and Orientalia Christiana Periodica, and I
figured he was like Watt, a Christian who has a deep respect (and
love?) for Islam (not that there's anything wrong with that, though I
can hear more intolerant types getting ready to attack Watt and call
him a "missionary" or "orientalist"). Knowing this now makes me look
at the following comments on Robinson and his book in a new light
(some of these I didn't understand previously):
"Robinson's researches on the phenomenology, chronology, and structure
of the Qur'an have their benefit, but is this really what 'discovering
the Qur'an' is all about?"
[Yasin Dutton, "Journal of Islamic Studies," Vol. 9, No. 1, Jan. 1998,
p. 62]
"Robinson states 'the case for considering the Qur'an as revelation is
a very strong one' (p. 286), an extraordinary concession from a
Western scholar."
[David Waines, "British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies," Vol. 25,
1998, p. 328]
And afterwards, I found the following:
"'The case for considering the Qur'an as revelation,' the author
continues, 'is a very strong one' (p. 286). We are, then, in the realm
not of history of even of literary criticism, but of theology."
[F.E. Peters, "International Journal of Middle East Studies," Vol. 30,
1998, p. 612]
"This is an intelligent, sophisticated, and provocative book on a
perplexing subject *WRITTEN FROM A FAITH PERSPECTIVE*[.]"
[ibid., p. 613, emphasis mine]
Moving along, when I wrote in a previous post that even Cook has come
to criticize some of the methods found in "Hagarism," Dr. Saifullah
wrote:
> So.... what are you trying to get at?
I'm sure Dr. Saifullah finds my posts a bit too long, and thinks I
waste his time, but the point of this is to paint an accurate picture
for the readers in general, most of whom don't have access to the
sources Dr. Saifullah and I do. What I'm getting at is what I've been
getting at for months (since a certain Christian asked about Hagarism
last summer): establishing what the scholarly community thinks of
"Hagarism." The book is not revelation, nor is it infallible. It is a
brilliant graduate-student monograph that pioneered new avenues of
scholarship; though some methods were flawed, it is a "what-if
exercise" that should not be ignored. So, when I was discussing the
fact that Cook has also gone against certain claims made by him when
he was a graduate student, I was adding to the real picture.
Scholarship evolves.
> Abuse of the source is fascinating?
If it were intentional, absolutely not. What is fascinating is the
quest to find a place for this "brilliant graduate-student essay" in
the realm of scholarly approaches to the history of Islam. Sort of
like putting spider webs on cuts before the discovery of penicillin,
this book's method should not be ignored, as there is still fruit it
can bare (assuming it is tweaked here and there). Again, scholarship
evolves precisely because we learn from our mistakes and remove the
problematic aspects of previous methods.
> It is like saying that wife-abuse or child-abuse is fascinating.
I think this analogy is very sad, and does not apply at all.
Moving on, there was a dispute over the following passage from the
postscript of "Hagarism":
"/Postscript/: [...] For an occurrence of the phrase /ahl al-islam/ in
an inscription dated A.H. 71 which we overlooked at page 8, see H. M.
el-Hawary, 'The Second Oldest Islamic Monument Known,' /Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society/, 1932 p. 290."
[P. Crone & M. Cook, "Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World,"
(Cambridge, 1977) p. ix; {"//" marks are mine and imply text in
italics}]
Dr. Saifullah claimed Cook and Crone were saying they were going to
ignore a certain piece of evidence that contradicts an aspect of their
book. In reality, the postscript is ALERTING readers to this error on
the part of the authors. It is something for the reader to keep in
mind while reading the book. This is intellectual and academic
honesty. Dr. Saifullah writes:
> Well, why overlook then?
Did you not catch the context? Suppose your child or nephew cleans his
room, but fails to pick up a sock. You point out the sock and say
"what about that sock," to which he replies "I missed that." Did he
intentionally miss it, or is "missing" and "overlooking" something
that is a form of mistake? They're telling you that they made a
mistake, and put their mistake at the front of their book. What's the
problem?
> That actually destroys a major part of their thesis,
They may have to seriously reconsider where they date certain aspects
of Islamic history, and I think that was their point. However, if the
evolution of Islamic history is set back a century, this does not
really tell us about the truth of traditional claims about that
history.
Moving back to Robinson, I wrote that one of his chapters received
some mild criticism in a BSOAS review:
"One of Robinson's main concerns in this chapter is to show the
underlying reasons for some of the abrupt, and to the Westerner,
disconcerting changes of pronoun which are characteristic of the
Qur'an. Here there is an element of circularity in that cause and
effect are sometimes assumed to be identical."
[Kate Zebiri, BSOAS, Vol. 61, 1998, p. 540]
In response, Dr. Saifullah writes:
> There are more competent people than Kate Zebri to comment upon the issue
> like iltifaat at SOAS such as M. A. S. Abdel Haleem
This is a bit of an ad-hominem, and a red herring. To set an analogy,
consider that in this post, above, I put forth the following
syllogism:
Premise: Methodology X brings Islam into question.
Premise: Methodology X brings Christianity into question.
Conclusion: Methodology X is faulty.
A person doesn't have to know anything about "methodology X" to know
that the argument itself is invalid. Just the same, Zebiri's comment
was that Robinson, at times, put forth a circular argument. One does
not have to know anything about iltifaat to know that an argument is
circular. It seems that Dr. Saifullah is trying to change the subject.
Indeed, the real issue is that while all reviews of Robinson's
"Discovering the Qur'an" have been filled with glowing praise, some
still question his arguments in later parts of the book. Zebiri's
criticism was of chapter nine, which appears in the third part of his
book. In this part (and the part before it), there is an air of heavy
research, strong scientific arguments, and a thorough knowledge of the
subject, but upon further reflection the scientific or logical aspect
of his arguments come up wanting at times. Commenting on parts two and
three of the book, scholars have said the following:
"Parts two and three, the major section of the work, would seem to
resemble much more a scientific discussion of some of the major
problems which the text of the Qur'an poses to various contemporary
specialists in the field. As such these chapters are valuable,
although they would carry more weight if they would provide the
scientific details and employ the rigour of argumentation scholarly
rival positions demand."
[W. Troll, "Orientalia Christiana Periodica," Vol. 63, 1997, p. 550]
"[W]hen he examines the interrelation between structure, sound and
meaning of three Meccan surahs, the author at times indulges
(especially for surahs 78, /Al-Naba'/ and 79, /An-Nazi'at/) in flights
of fancy which not only detract from other valid points, but also give
his analysis (and by extension the whole Qur'anic text) a distressing
mechanistic quality. [...] It is easy to mock such effort, however
seriously meant, and this is not my intention."
[Waines, "British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies," 1998, p. 328]
> [Haleem] spent most of his life studying Arabic and the finer
> points of the language. He has a complete article in BSOAS on
> iltifaat which can be seen at:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/iltifaat.html
Indeed I've read the article (pp. 407-432 btw), and I made a passing
reference to it in my article at:
http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/hermeneutics.html
> It is not that this feature in the Qur'an was "invented" by Abdel Haleem.
I never claimed it was invented by Mr. Haleem.
> He has pointed out that the scholars of Arabic in thye past have long
> recognized this feature in the Qur'an and in Arabic poetry.
As have Rabbis long found patterns in the Torah, and from them drawn
conclusions about the text being the deliberate word of God, et
cetera. The argument is still circular, as Zebiri herself pointed out.
Regarding Hebrew Grammarians benefiting from a study of Arabic,
Saifullah offered the following:
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz1.html#2
I am only commenting so that he does not assume I brushed it off. I
read it through, checked the sources and I indeed learned a lot.
Regarding my theory of multiple hands, and evidence that allegedly
corroborates it, I wrote the following:
"Indeed the relationship between theory and evidence can become
muddled, and that's a problem. However, that was not what I was doing,
IMHO. I started with a hypothesis that was based on some things that I
noticed about the text, and then searched for more examples to
corroborate my original assumption (that the multiple stories implies
a compilation of sources brought together via fissiparous production).
Not exactly fool proof, but that's my method."
Dr. Saifullah responded:
> Let me be more clear. Theoretically I can claim that I have a device which
> can convert gold into coppper. To show that evidence is a different
> matter. The line between theory and evidence is very clear. It is only
> that one has to see the lines of demarcation.
This doesn't seem to relate at all. First of all, one can form a
hypothesis about how it is possible to convert gold into copper (or
vice versa), and corroborating evidence could be empirical or even
conceptual. However, to claim that one has a device that does this is
not a theory. That's a claim. You can either produce the device or
not. If I claimed the machine was in the other room, went in alone
with some gold and came out with some copper, it would not prove the
machine exists. Dr. Saifullah seems unfamiliar with what's a theory
and what is not.
In very simple terms I stated my (admittedly fallible) method above.
Dr. Saifullah seems to have brushed it off (maybe because he has a low
opinion of me and thus assumes that I don't understand the
relationship between theory, hypothesis, and evidence). Since he
doesn't trust my own description of hypothesis, theory, evidence, I'll
cite someone else. The following is from an English translation of Sir
Karl Popper's "Alles Leben ist Problemlösen":
"Our quest for truth always proceeds as follows. We invent - a priori
- our theories, our generalizations, including our gestalt
perceptions. A gestalt perception is a hypothesis: it is our
interpretation of what we see; and as an interpretation, the gestalt
perception is a hypothesis. In general, we deal only with conjectures
or (what is the same thing) with hypotheses. We keep trying somehow to
compare these conjectures with reality, and in this way to improve
them and bring them closer to reality."
[Popper, "All Life if Problem Solving" (Routledge, 1999), p. 55]
The line between what is evidence and what is a circular argument is
always blurry when we are discussing something on conceptual grounds.
We all see this is the amateur arguments found in Christian-Islamic
debates. Consider the following (admittedly simple) example:
FACT: There are apocryphal gospels from the fourth century CE and
earlier that claim Jesus spoke when he was a newborn. This is
something that is not found in the traditional Christian cannon (four
gospels), but is found in the Qur'an.
NON-MUSLIM: "This is proof of earlier sources from which the stories
in the Qur'an were taken, thus further confirming the already obvious
hypothesis that the Qur'an is a work of wholly human origins, and not
from any God."
MUSLIM: "This is proof that the Qur'an is from God, as earlier sources
confirm something which is in the Qur'an, but not in the Bible. How
could an illiterate seventh century Arab know about this?"
Which stance is the aforementioned "FACT" evidence for? It seems to me
that it is quite difficult for either side to prove their position
beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason that "evidence" can at times be
unsure is because it may be affected by the paradigm from which one
interprets it. Of course we can always delve deeper into the argument
and pick it apart (isn't that the point of these discussions?), but
the point is that at times one's evidence could actually be a circular
argument.
> > You mean the evidence that it is a work of multiple hands? My
> > preliminary evidence is as follows:
> >
> > http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/quranmulti.html
>
> Been there done that. But Mr. dajjal, you are still very slow to
> understand the concept of proof and evidence. We had asked you to show the
> proof of Crone and Cook that the Qur'an is the book belated and written by
> multiple hands. What you have ended up showing is a statement from Crone
> and Cook which has no proof dangling to it.
It seems that Dr. Saifullah has not read the article, though he claims
that he has "[b]een there[, and] done that." The article does not rest
on the strength of Cook and Crone; rather the article puts forth a
claim made by Cook and Crone (in passing), and attempts to offer
preliminary evidence. The article offers no evidence that the Qur'an
is "belated" (whatever that means), though it does offer evidence from
the literary structure of the text that the book may have been a work
of multiple hands.
Now we get back to the issue of "al-Masjid al-Aqsa," and whether this
means there was an actual masjid there when Muhammad allegedly went on
his night journey. It seems that Dr. Saifullah entered the
conversation with information that was not relevant, and then became
angry with me for pointing this out.
> Well, dajjal asked for something else last time and he got it.
I'm not so sure Dr. Saifullah knows what it is exactly that I asked
for. I will reconstruct the history of this thread.
I originally wrote a post that wondered aloud about evidence for an
actual masjid. It was Johnny who offered the following article from
Dr. Saifullah's page as evidence:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html
Johnny then asked the following rhetorical question:
"What is the defination of a Masjid? Huge dome, towering minaret
etc?"
The site he cited shows examples of masaajeed that are just circles of
stones or less. My response was that the structure was irrelevant, and
I wrote:
"Whether it had a minaret or was a circle of stones, why should we
assume it was there? Because a text written more than 1oo years after
the fact claims such?"
This is where Dr. Saifullah chimed in. The question was why should we
assume *ANY* masjid (regardless of the structure) was there at the
rough time traditionally given for Muhammad's night journey. Dr.
Saifullah offered a quote that mentioned a masjid built by 'Umar after
Muhammad had died. Obviously this is not a relevant piece of evidence.
We aren't discussing masaajeed built after Muhammad's death; rather I
was asking about evidence for the existence of a masjid being there
while he was alive. Quoting Arculfus does not solve this problem
whatsoever.
> Now the issue that he has raised is that of masjid whether it being
> there or not. Well, masjid is a place of prostration whether we have
> a structure present or absent. This has been dealt with at great
> length at:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html
And now we're back to this article, which is the spot we were at back
on August 21st in this thread. Agreed, a masjid could be a building
with towering minarets, a simple circle of stones, a line drawn in the
sand, or any spot of prostration. So, by that estimation, there
*COULD'VE* been a very simple masjid in my apartment, but that does
not prove that there *WAS* a masjid in my apartment. If one claims
there was a masjid in my apartment in a specific decade, I would like
to ask for evidence. As for this case, the question is whether or not
there was any sort of masjid in that spot during Muhammad's lifetime.
In light of how simple a masjid can be, there could've been a masjid
on any spot on earth, but this is not evidence of a masjid being at
any particular spot. So, what is the evidence?
> > So, the point remains that the spot was covered in refuse and human
> > waste, and one wonders what sort of place of prostration that is!
>
> Well, what is your evidence that the whole of Temple Mount and its
> surrounding (mentioned in the Qur'an as "blessed") was covered with filth?
Round and round we go... Here is my evidence that the temple mount was
covered in refuse (including human waste):
"When 'Umar reached the old ruined gates of the Temple, says the
Muslim historian Mujir al-Din, he was horrified to see the filth,
"which was then all about the holy sanctuary, had settled on the steps
of the gates so that it even came out into the streets in which the
gate opened, and it had accumulated so greatly as almost to reach up
the ceiling of the gateway." The only way to get up to the platform
was to crawl on hands and knees. Sophronius went first and the Muslims
struggled up behind. When they arrived at the top, the Muslims must
have gazed appalled at the vast and desolate expanse of Herod's
platform, still covered with piles of fallen masonry and garbage. The
shock of this sad encounter with the holy place whose fame had reached
them in far-off Arabia was never forgotten: Muslims claimed that they
called Anastasis /al-qumamah/, "the Dungheap," in retaliation for the
impious of the Christians on the Temple Mount. 'Umar does not seem to
have spent any time on this occasion examining the rock, which would
later play such an important part in Islamic piety. Once he had taken
stock of the situation, he threw handfuls of dung and rubble into his
cloak and then hurled it over the city wall into the Valley of Hinnom.
Immediately his followers did the same."
[Karen Armstrong, "Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths," (Ballantine,
1997) pp.229-230]
The piles of filth were so large that they poured out of the Temple
Mount and onto the street. The piles nearly reached the ceiling of the
gateway, which means these piles were taller than your average man.
Maybe Dr. Saifullah would like to place this masjid in a different
spot? Fair enough, it could've been anywhere. However, no matter which
spot he picks, the question is still "what is your evidence that it
was in *THAT* spot?" On a side note, I think I recall Ibn Ishaaq
saying that the masjidul-aqsa was the temple of Aelia... maybe we
could discuss that (unless Saifullah disagree with Ishaaq, which is
very possible).
> > Again, there is no evidence to back up the tradition about Muhammad
> > going to Jerusalem on the back of al-Buraaq and leading prayer in a
> > masjid with Jesus, Adam, et cetera.
>
> So, what is your evidence contrary to the one stated in Islamic sources?
It is amazing how Dr. Saifullah shifts the burden of proof. I state
that there is (as far as I know) no evidence to back up the tradition.
Dr. Saifullah wants to know if there is evidence to the contrary. How
might I go about proving that this didn't happen? Should I say that no
one else claims to have seen a flying horse land in the refuse? Should
I say there are no Christian/Jewish reports of Jesus or Adam being
there? Or should Dr. Saifullah be the one who presents evidence for
the claim (unless he no longer believes it)? Dr. Saifullah wants
evidence to the contrary? Does he assume that this will allow his
version to win by default despite the lack of evidence?
And now for the final exchange of the post...
Dr. Saifullah:
> > > The earliest structure of al-Aqsa mosque was neither consisting of circle
> > > of stones or minaret, btw.
Denis Giron:
> > And how do you know this? What are your sources for determining what
> > the masjeed was like?
Dr. Saifullah:
> Well, it was dajjal's statemnt about al-Aqsa mosque was commented upon. He
> did not show his proof then. To show him that it was not circle of stones
> we discussed the earliest al-Aqsa mosque as described by Arculf. It is
> interesting how dajjal shifts the burden of proof.
Dr. Saifullah seems to have misunderstood the history of this thread.
We were discussing a masjid that was allegedly there during Muhammad's
time, possibly on the temple mount. It seems hard to believe that the
temple mount was the spot in light of its state at that time.
Regardless, anything is possible. The question was, what is the
evidence that there was a masjid on the temple mount in Muhammad's
lifetime? What is the evidence that he got there on al-Buraaq? Whether
the masjid had a towering minaret, was just a circle of stones, or
just a blank spot, what was the evidence that this spot was there?
Dr. Saifullah above says that the earliest version al-Masjid al-Aqsa
consisted of neither a minaret nor a circle of stones. He is the one
who made this claim. The question then, is how does he know this.
Arculf was not referring to the earliest masjid as per Islamic
tradition; rather he was referring to one built after Muhammad's death
(thus St. Arculfus' testimony is not relevant). However, if Dr.
Saifullah would like to claim that Arculf's masjid *WAS* the earliest
masjid al-Aqsa, that would be a different story (as that would imply
that the earliest one was the one built by 'Umar, thus negating the
possibility of an actual one before). It is Dr. Saifullah who made a
claim and then shifted the burden of proof. It is incumbent upon Dr.
Saifullah to present evidence or admit that he accepts such things on
faith.
-Denis Giron
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> A while back (in this thread) Dr. Heger wrote a passing remark about
> how one can tell how bad an individual's reading experience has been
> in light of their response. At times, I got the feeling that these
> sentiments expressed by Dr. Heger have been corroborated.
A while ago Mr. Giron showed his expertise in writing under assumed names
only to get caught. Around the same time he assumed his title "Dajjal",
meaning a cheat and a liar. And now this Dajjal wants us to believe
what he says. We are actually into an interesting paradox. Do we believe
what he is saying or do we reject what he is saying, especially in the
light when a self-proclaimed liar says that what he is saying is true! We
definitely do not need *corroboration*.
He calls upon Heger who is a well known polemicist on SRI whose expertise
for rabid anti-Islamic polemics is well-known.
> One wonders how Dr. Saifullah was able to come to the conclusion that
> I was rejecting Robinson's "Discovering the Qur'an" on the grounds
> that it doesn't fit my Ilhaadic agenda. I never made any such claim. I
> actually found Robinson's book rather good, and his criticisms on the
> interpretations of Hagarism were quite strong at times. Nevertheless,
> I still stand by the stance that his analogies comparing Islamic
> traditions to the gospels could be considered exhibitions of a naive
> view. More below.
That is an interesting change of tune. Mr. Dajjal intially did not like
Robinson's approach and all of a sudden he makes a complete U turn. The
analogy of Islamic tradition being equivalent to Gospels is nearly correct
even with some faults. We do not know who the Gospel writers were, but we
know who the transmitters of Islamic traditions were. This is because Islamic
traditions usually come with isnad, or chain of transmitters. So,
Robinson's approach is not "naive", rather this approach has been taken by
Muslim theologians such as Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah, who use arguments
against the Gospels by using the analogy of Islamic traditions.
> Dr. Saifullah:
> > Robinson's approach is not "naive". What he showed is that using the
> > methodology adopted by Crone and Cook Christianity would easily fall apart
>
> And whom is Dr. Saifullaah writing this for? It would seem that such
> an argument would only appeal to the sentiments of Christians. The
> argument seems to go as follows:
>
> A certain form of criticism brings aspects of Islamic historicity into
> question; Dr. Saifullah's response is that this methodology would also
> do damage to aspects of Christianity (and numerous other ideologies).
> So be it. This says nothing about the methodology itself. Consider
> this simple syllogistic reconstruction:
>
> Premise: Methodology X brings Islam into question.
> Premise: Methodology X brings Christianity into question.
> Conclusion: Methodology X is faulty.
I do not see any reason who I should even bother to discuss such a faulty
syllogistic reconstruction. The methodology of Crone and Cook when
applied to any religion would lead to similar conclusions. What is the methodlogy
of Crone and Cook anyway? Oh! we can't trust Islamic traditions and
historiography because they are biased but we should use Islamic
traditions whenever it suits our agenda. But there is no need to blink
when using non-Muslim sources talking about Islam. They *must* be
authentic! Now replace "Islamic" or "Muslim" with any other religion and
see what the results are. The issue goes back to methodlogy. If Islamic
sources are biased then what is the reason to believe that non-Islamic
sources are unbiased? This is the principal argument against Crone and
Cook's hypothesis. Mr. Dajjal has wasted his time and our time in
constructing silly syllogistic reconstructions which do not even deal with
what we are talking about. We are talking about justification of a
methodology. We are not talking about the end results of such a
methodology. End do not justify the means. This simply invalidates Mr.
Dajjal's long winding and straw man type arguments.
> This passage served as an analogy for the kind of radical revisionist
> methodology that was used by Cook and Crone in "Hagarism." It was Cook
> and Crone who rejected nearly the whole swath of Islamic history as
> found in the traditional Muslim accounts, and attempted to rebuild by
> using hostile Christian and Jewish sources. To be fair, any abduction
> is problematic, but the margin of error possibly present in Cook and
> Crone's reconstruction (in light of their sources) is *TREMENDOUS*!
> Anyone who would try to claim otherwise is simply uninformed.
If the error margin of Crone and Cook's hypothesis is *tremendous*, then
we really do not have any argument to discuss. I am glad that Mr. Dajjal
in a stroke has reduced his arsenal. So, what is the deal with the Qur'an
being the source of multiple hands now that the error margin is
*tremendous*?
> That being established, Robinson's analogy exhibits a naive innocence
> regarding the sources, or a deliberate attempt to make an appeal to
> Christian sentiments (to set up an air of intellectual dishonesty,
> where the believers sign a mutual and silent social contract that
> keeps them from questioning each other's traditions).
What is Dajjal's evidence that Robinson is making an appeal to Christian
sentiment? It did not occur to Dajjal that Crone and Cook may be doing the
same thing for their fellow believers! I find this a very interesting
argument. Robinson is naive and appealing to Christian sentiment but Crone
and Cook are original, forceful and stoic. Shall we remind ourselves of
the *tremendous* error margin once again...
> First, Robinson's analogy is touching on two mutually exclusive
> points, and the blending of the two makes for a hidden argument of
> questionable validity. He claims that the Christian sources are weak,
> but to rely on hostile non-Christian sources would be worse. The
> hidden agenda here is the assumption that the traditional stance
> somehow wins by default (the "only game in town" fallacy) in light of
> the apparent weakness of the opposing sources. While relying on the
> hostile sources can indeed be disastrous for your reconstruction, this
> tells us nothing about the reliability of the original source.
Sure, it does not tell anything about the original sources' veracity but
then non-Christian source is not going to say anything about their
veracity anyway. So, we are in a dilemma. Should we accept Christian and
non-Christian sources or should we leave them altogether? Should we use
them to suit our desires or should we leave them to suit our desires?
Perhaps Dajjal has some good ideas to take us out of this dilemma.
> Furthermore, Robinson states that most scholars would not reject the
> gospels in toto. This is true, but what does it say about their
> reliability as historical documents? Nothing whatsoever. Robinson
> thinks he is setting an analogy for the Islamic traditions. However,
> if he is trying to state that the ahaadeeth have a historical accuracy
> that roughly parallels the gospels, I'd think of scholars like John
> Remsberg and G.A. Wells who have demonstrated rather strongly that the
> gospels contain practically NO historical evidence. Robinson only
> offers a mild ad-verecundiam/ad-numerum combination, and that is
> indeed naive.
When we talk about evidence, we have to show an evidence of existence (or
its non-existence). Negative evidence is no evidence. We would like to see
what evidence do Remsberg and Wells have to offer of non-historicity.
> "This is an intelligent, sophisticated, and provocative book on a
> perplexing subject *WRITTEN FROM A FAITH PERSPECTIVE*[.]"
> [ibid., p. 613, emphasis mine]
So.... ?
<a long snip>
> Did you not catch the context? Suppose your child or nephew cleans his
> room, but fails to pick up a sock. You point out the sock and say
> "what about that sock," to which he replies "I missed that." Did he
> intentionally miss it, or is "missing" and "overlooking" something
> that is a form of mistake? They're telling you that they made a
> mistake, and put their mistake at the front of their book. What's the
> problem?
And then say that the origins of Islam are very late! That is a strange
kind of honesty. That is nothing but a classical double-speak.
> > There are more competent people than Kate Zebri to comment upon the issue
> > like iltifaat at SOAS such as M. A. S. Abdel Haleem
>
> This is a bit of an ad-hominem, and a red herring. To set an analogy,
> consider that in this post, above, I put forth the following
> syllogism:
>
> Premise: Methodology X brings Islam into question.
> Premise: Methodology X brings Christianity into question.
> Conclusion: Methodology X is faulty.
What we simply asked is the evidence shown by Kate Zebri. Dajjal, please
bring us the evidence of Kate Zebri before constructing your useless
syllogism. The fact is that Kate Zebri (and hence Dajjal!) has no evidence
to back up her (his) claims. She just made a statement and our Dajjal has
simply parroted it believing that we would just accept it. And then he
starts to blame us for pursuing ad-hominem attacks and red-herrings!
> A person doesn't have to know anything about "methodology X" to know
> that the argument itself is invalid. Just the same, Zebiri's comment
> was that Robinson, at times, put forth a circular argument. One does
> not have to know anything about iltifaat to know that an argument is
> circular. It seems that Dr. Saifullah is trying to change the subject.
Now that we do not have the evidence from either Zebri or Dajjal, we
should perhaps reject the issue of "circular evidence". Actually Abdel
Haleem has shown that iltifaat was being used in the Arabic poetry and
that the Qur'an uses it more than Arabic poetry. So, it is not about using
a circular argument; it is about pointing people of its frequent usage in
the Qur'an. Certainly neither Abdel Haleem nor Robinson invented iltifaat.
That is another blow to the issue of "circular argument".
> "[W]hen he examines the interrelation between structure, sound and
> meaning of three Meccan surahs, the author at times indulges
> (especially for surahs 78, /Al-Naba'/ and 79, /An-Nazi'at/) in flights
> of fancy which not only detract from other valid points, but also give
> his analysis (and by extension the whole Qur'anic text) a distressing
> mechanistic quality. [...] It is easy to mock such effort, however
> seriously meant, and this is not my intention."
> [Waines, "British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies," 1998, p. 328]
Criticism is the part of scholarship whether one likes it or not. And
there is nothing offensive in Waines review of Robinson's book.
> > He has pointed out that the scholars of Arabic in thye past have long
> > recognized this feature in the Qur'an and in Arabic poetry.
>
> As have Rabbis long found patterns in the Torah, and from them drawn
> conclusions about the text being the deliberate word of God, et
> cetera. The argument is still circular, as Zebiri herself pointed out.
By the way, the discussion is about stylistic features of the Qur'an and
its frequent use than the Arabic poetry. It is not about finding a
pattern in the Qur'an. I wonder why Mr. Dajjal is so desparate to
introduce a red-herring in his already defunct argument. Further iltifaat
is not "pattern", it is the usage of language which is well document in
Arabic poetry of Imru'l Qays before the advent of Islam. So, it was not
Muslims who "invented" it; either circularly or originally. Hence one can
clearly see through Dajjal's false analogy with Rabbi's founding a
pattern in Torah. Obviously Dajjal does not know what he is talking about.
<big snip of irrelevent argumentation about "theory, hypothesis and
evidence">
> FACT: There are apocryphal gospels from the fourth century CE and
> earlier that claim Jesus spoke when he was a newborn. This is
> something that is not found in the traditional Christian cannon (four
> gospels), but is found in the Qur'an.
It is worthwhile reminding Mr. Dajjal that there is nothing like a concept
of "traditional" Christian canon in the first 4 centuries of Christianity.
The early Church did not believe that the books of the New Testaments were
inspired and hence they did not have the "traditional" canon. The concept
of canon came about only towards the second century CE. Different books
were crystallised as "authoritative" and "inspired". In other words, we
still do not know how the crystallisation of various books occurred in
various parts of Middle East. One can clearly say (even today!) that
one man's apocrypha is other man's "inspired" scripture. So, Mr.
Dajjal's FACT is obviously a FICTION. To increase his knowledge about the
Christian scripture, he is welcome to study a little bit at:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/BibleTex.html#Bible
> NON-MUSLIM: "This is proof of earlier sources from which the stories
> in the Qur'an were taken, thus further confirming the already obvious
> hypothesis that the Qur'an is a work of wholly human origins, and not
> from any God."
Since we have already shown that Dajjal FACT is already a FICTION, there
is no point arguing about this "proof". Jochen Katz was asked to show
which books of the Bible are inspired (and so the readings!) and why, we
are still waiting to hear from him. At least we can be sure that we have
got our FACTS right.
> MUSLIM: "This is proof that the Qur'an is from God, as earlier sources
> confirm something which is in the Qur'an, but not in the Bible. How
> could an illiterate seventh century Arab know about this?"
I wonder why we should be even bother to consider this non-argument!
> It seems that Dr. Saifullah has not read the article, though he claims
> that he has "[b]een there[, and] done that." The article does not rest
> on the strength of Cook and Crone; rather the article puts forth a
> claim made by Cook and Crone (in passing), and attempts to offer
> preliminary evidence. The article offers no evidence that the Qur'an
> is "belated" (whatever that means), though it does offer evidence from
> the literary structure of the text that the book may have been a work
> of multiple hands.
And this alleged article with "preliminary evidence" is being brandished
all over SRI by Dajjal to suggest the work of multiple hands hypothesis.
> The site he cited shows examples of masaajeed that are just circles of
> stones or less. My response was that the structure was irrelevant, and
> I wrote:
>
> "Whether it had a minaret or was a circle of stones, why should we
> assume it was there? Because a text written more than 1oo years after
> the fact claims such?"
The word Masjid in Arabic simply renders the structure (of the Masjid)
irrelevent. The word Masjid is simply as place of prostration, it does not
have to be a circle of stones or towering minaret etc.
And a text written more than 100 years after the facts claim such and such
is not suppose to mean that the facts were wrong unless otherwise shown.
> This is where Dr. Saifullah chimed in. The question was why should we
> assume *ANY* masjid (regardless of the structure) was there at the
> rough time traditionally given for Muhammad's night journey. Dr.
> Saifullah offered a quote that mentioned a masjid built by 'Umar after
> Muhammad had died. Obviously this is not a relevant piece of evidence.
> We aren't discussing masaajeed built after Muhammad's death; rather I
> was asking about evidence for the existence of a masjid being there
> while he was alive. Quoting Arculfus does not solve this problem
> whatsoever.
Now Dajjal wants to hold on to his ground like an obstinate donkey even
though he has been shown that masjid does not mean a structure but simply
a place of prostration.
Masjid al-Aqsa during the time of the Prophet, SAW, was nothing but a
place of desolation and refuse. This was the place when the Temple of the
Jews once stood. Now if there was no building situated during the time of
Prophet's, SAW, visit, it is not suppose to prove or disprove anything.
This is because the masjid by definition is a place of prostration.
<big snip of useless argumentation>
> Round and round we go... Here is my evidence that the temple mount was
> covered in refuse (including human waste):
>
> "When 'Umar reached the old ruined gates of the Temple, says the
> Muslim historian Mujir al-Din, he was horrified to see the filth,
Now a few sentences earlier, Dajjal was complaining about the sources that
were written 100 years after the events. Now he uses the references that
uses a quote from Muslim historian Mujir al-Din who wrote a few centuries
later than the actual event. We wonder if Dajjal would ever be consistent
in his use of resources. He has already informed us about his credentials
that he find abuse of sources interesting.
> The piles of filth were so large that they poured out of the Temple
> Mount and onto the street. The piles nearly reached the ceiling of the
> gateway, which means these piles were taller than your average man.
> Maybe Dr. Saifullah would like to place this masjid in a different
> spot? Fair enough, it could've been anywhere. However, no matter which
> spot he picks, the question is still "what is your evidence that it
> was in *THAT* spot?" On a side note, I think I recall Ibn Ishaaq
> saying that the masjidul-aqsa was the temple of Aelia... maybe we
> could discuss that (unless Saifullah disagree with Ishaaq, which is
> very possible).
The Qur'an mentions the the Prophet, SAW was taken to al-Masjid al-Aqsa
and that its surrounding are blessed. The question now is what constitutes
the boundaries of al-Masjid al-Aqsa? Does it include only the
Temple Mount? Or is it Temple Mount and its surrounding? Honestly, I do
not know the answer. But I can say for sure that the boundaries of
al-Masjid al-Haraam does constitute the whole of Makkah and is dilineated
by well-known places outside it. See for example Encyclopaedia of Islam
under "Makkah".
> > So, what is your evidence contrary to the one stated in Islamic sources?
>
> It is amazing how Dr. Saifullah shifts the burden of proof. I state
> that there is (as far as I know) no evidence to back up the tradition.
If there is no evidence to back up the tradition then it does not qualify
for the tradition to be false or suspect. This is one of the fundamentals of
proofs and evidences.
> Dr. Saifullah wants to know if there is evidence to the contrary. How
> might I go about proving that this didn't happen? Should I say that no
> one else claims to have seen a flying horse land in the refuse? Should
> I say there are no Christian/Jewish reports of Jesus or Adam being
> there? Or should Dr. Saifullah be the one who presents evidence for
> the claim (unless he no longer believes it)? Dr. Saifullah wants
> evidence to the contrary? Does he assume that this will allow his
> version to win by default despite the lack of evidence?
Talk is cheap... If no one claimed to have seen a flying horse land in the
refuse then it does not mean that the seen a flying horse did not land in
the refuse. By extending the analogy, if I did not hear about a place
called "Kunduz" it does not actually lead to the conclusion that it did
not exist.
Wassalam
Saifullah
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Denis Giron
> ...
This is a response to Dr. Saifullah's valuable post from November
13th. Unfortunately, I have once again made him wait (assuming he was
waiting at all) several weeks for my answer, and I apologize for
constantly letting large time spans elapse during the discussion.
Anyway, while I gained much from his response (as usual), I got the
feeling that he really didn't understand what I was saying at
different times. I've come to the conclusion that Dr. Saifullah
interprets my posts in light of my older rants, and thus assumes
everything I say is part of a polemic or an attack. We'll see that
below.
Before we get into the meat of the post I'd like to comment on the
more sophomoric exchanges that have begun many of these discussions.
When I mentioned how Dr. Heger had made an interesting point about
what one can discern from the amount of hostility one finds in
another's response, Dr. Saifullah wrote:
> He calls upon Heger who is a well known polemicist on SRI whose expertise
> for rabid anti-Islamic polemics is well-known.
Maybe this is a very accurate description of Dr. Heger, and even of
myself. However, what does it have to do with what was said? Nothing
really.
> That is an interesting change of tune. Mr. Dajjal intially did not like
> Robinson's approach and all of a sudden he makes a complete U turn.
I'm glad Dr. Saifullah has at least acknowledged that my "tune" has
been changing over the last few posts. As I have said before, the
first goal is to find the "truth" (whatever that means), and I don't
fear a good argument, as I can learn from it. After engaging in these
month-long debates about Hagarism and Robinson, I've learned a great
deal, and my views are indeed changing. If there is an argument I
agree with, I wont hesitate to change my proverbial tune, and drop a
previous stance. There's no place for dogma in discussions like these.
> The analogy of Islamic tradition being equivalent to Gospels is nearly
> correct even with some faults.
This is where the vagueness of language becomes a problem. I would
agree 100% with the above statement (that the ahaadeeth are roughly as
historically reliable as are the gospels). However, what this means to
Dr. Saifullah and what this means to me are two completely different
things. If we rated each on a scale of 1 - 10, I'm going to guess that
Dr. Saifullah would give the Islamic traditions a 9, and the gospels a
7 or 8 (hence the closeness). I would be more inclined to give them
each a 1 or a 0 (possibly a dogmatic stance I admit, but that's what
this discussion is supposed to deal with).
> We do not know who the Gospel writers were, but we
> know who the transmitters of Islamic traditions were.
Actually, no you don't. You have traditions about who those
transmitters were (much like the Catholic Church *USED* to have all
kinds of official information on the authors of the gospels). How
reliable these traditions, meta-traditions, and meta-meta-traditions
are is up for debate.
> This is because Islamic traditions usually come with isnad, or
> chain of transmitters.
This is understood, but the value of any given isnaad has alot to do
with whom you are speaking to.
> So, Robinson's approach is not "naive", rather this approach has been taken by
> Muslim theologians such as Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyyah, who use arguments
> against the Gospels by using the analogy of Islamic traditions.
I'm not sure we have the same understanding of what Robinson's stance
was. He used the gospels as an analogy to justify the reliability of
the Islamic traditions. He wasn't making any arguments against the
gospels from within the paradigm of Islamic isnaad-science. This is
what I consider naive. He thinks their historical reliability are
roughly similar; he believes that while neither is inerrant, they can
tell you a great deal about what actually happened. This is where I
disagree. If he's willing to place the gospels and the ahaadeeth on
equal levels of historical reliability, I'll agree with him, but, as
was stated above, this is where the disagreement begins.
It was, as has been said before, an appeal to Christian sentiments.
Liberal Christians are the only ones who will nod their head to such
an argument. Even the rather liberal scholars at the Jesus Seminar
would have raised eyebrows after seeing such a thing. The literary
style of the gospels implies very little historical reliability, thus
Robinson's analogy hurts his attempt to support the use of ahaadeeth
as a source for figuring out what really happened. The analogy only
works as an attack on the Islamic traditions. In both cases, this is
theology, not history. It is what the authors thought happened, or
wanted to think happened, but not necessarily what actually happened.
Earlier in the thread, I offered the following syllogistic
reconstruction to demonstrate what I thought was an invalid argument
being put forth by Dr. Saifullah and Mr. Robinson:
Premise: Methodology X brings Islam into question.
Premise: Methodology X brings Christianity into question.
Conclusion: Methodology X is faulty.
Dr. Saifullah responded:
> I do not see any reason who I should even bother to discuss such a faulty
> syllogistic reconstruction. The methodology of Crone and Cook when
> applied to any religion would lead to similar conclusions.
So be it! What is the argument? It seems that Dr. Saifullah wants to
tap into our deep desire to have some sort of reliable history to hold
onto, and invoke a collective appeal to emotion. Maybe he can ask
rhetorical questions about reliable sources on ancient Japan, ancient
Greece, et cetera. The problem is, the argument is STILL invalid.
A certain method of critical analysis causes one to have serious
doubts about the reliability of the Islamic sources. Dr. Saifullah's
objection is that this method of criticism, "when applied to any
religion[,] would lead to similar conclusions." While Dr. Saifullah
may indeed have other objections, I must again state that this
argument in particular is invalid. It doesn't take anything away from
the methodology. Dr. Saifullah should know that Dr. Wansbrough was
even *MORE* skeptical of historical sources (his writings on Judaism,
sometimes found in a handful of reviews in BSOAS, demonstrated an
equally radical position toward that religion). On page 15 of his 27
page 1987 A.E. Memorial lecture "Res Ipsa Loquitur: History and
Mimesis," Wansbrough notes that we can never know what really
happened, and then concedes that "to historians the factor of
ambiguity is not especially welcome."
Referring to the sources used by Cook and Crone, Dr. Saifullah writes:
> But there is no need to blink when using non-Muslim sources talking
> about Islam. They *must* be authentic!
As we all know, this is the most common objection to "Hagarism." Even
Wansbrough himself noted in his review, the authors either failed to
realize or neglected to mention that these sources would have to be as
equally unreliable as the Islamic traditions in light of their bias
and position in the "sectarian milieu" [btw, I have neither my notes
nor the reference in front of me, so this is paraphrasing off the top
of my head]. I'm not arguing with Dr. Saifullah here. I agree that
this is a real problem with "Hagarism."
However, after that, Dr. Saifullah has written:
> Mr. Dajjal has wasted his time and our time in
> constructing silly syllogistic reconstructions which do not even deal with
> what we are talking about.
As was shown above, when speaking about that objection specifically
(i.e. the objection that they're too skeptical), the argument is quite
invalid. The syllogistic reconstruction was quite accurate (see
above).
> We are talking about justification of a methodology.
Agreed, and the duplicitous atmosphere towards different sources that
one finds in "Hagarism" is a real problem. However, that does not
negate the skepticism in the first place. It seems that Dr. Saifullah
has not realized that this is what I have been saying all along with
the whole "negative-positive scholarship" dichotomy. It was more than
three months ago in this thread that I wrote:
"Many find their 'negative' results excellent [....] while they find
the duo's 'positive' assertions [...] to be somewhat questionable. "
[August 26th]
And I have repeated this several times since. I have been saying that
the skepticism had a pioneering approach. However, while they were
quite strong in knocking down sources, what they replaced those
sources with has been very problematic. This was my stance three
months ago, and it is my stance now.
> If the error margin of Crone and Cook's hypothesis is *tremendous*, then
> we really do not have any argument to discuss.
Well, we have nothing to discuss about their RECONSTRUCTION if both of
us agree that the margin of error that is present there is tremendous.
> I am glad that Mr. Dajjal in a stroke has reduced his arsenal. So,
> what is the deal with the Qur'an being the source of multiple hands
> now that the error margin is *tremendous*?
I have not reduced anything in my "arsenal," simply because Cook and
Crone were never a part of my "arsenal." In case Dr. Saifullah has
forgotten, on more than one occasion in this thread I have said that
the solitary passage from Cook and Crone that appears in my article on
multiple hands served solely as a way to set the tone. Let us look
back at some of the things I have said previously in this thread...
First, in response to Johnny I wrote:
"[M]y work had ver[y] little to do with them. I only used a passage
>from their book to set the tone, and from there I presented evidence
[...]. My article did not rest on the strength or weakness of Cook and
Crone's scholarship, thus your attacks on them are unrelated."
[August 26th]
Then, in my last post to Dr. Saifullah I wrote:
"It seems that Dr. Saifullah has not read the article, though he
claims that he has "[b]een there[, and] done that." The article does
not rest on the strength of Cook and Crone; rather the article puts
forth a claim made by Cook and Crone (in passing), and attempts to
offer preliminary evidence. The article offers no evidence that the
Qur'an is "belated" (whatever that means), though it does offer
evidence from the literary structure of the text that the book may
have been a work of multiple hands."
[November 5th]
I could have used ANY quote. For example, suppose Dr. Seuss, talking
about some fictional book, had a line like the following:
"The snoozels say the book was written by just one gag-janny,
but honest scholars know that the authors of it are many."
Dr. Seuss has never written any such thing, but if he did, and I began
my article with that sole quote (to set the tone), would Dr. Saifullah
fight me on the fact that Dr. Seuss was talking about a fictional book
and not the Qur'an? Is Dr. Saifullah now going to celebrate my
comparing of Cook/Crone to Dr. Seuss and proclaim that I have further
cut my "arsenal"? However, even if we, for argument's sake, put Cook
and Crone's scholarship on par with that of the late Dr. Seuss, it
doesn't hurt my article one bit.
So again, Dr. Saifullah wants to know what my evidence is. Well, here
is my preliminary evidence (admittedly derived solely via abduction
which is wholly fallible and conjectural):
http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/quranmulti.html
> What is Dajjal's evidence that Robinson is making an appeal to Christian
> sentiment?
He is making an argument for the reliability of the Islamic traditions
that uses the alleged reliability of the gospels as a supporting
premise. What value does such an argument have to those who do not
consider the gospels very reliable? It only appeals to Christian
sentiments.
> Robinson is naive and appealing to Christian sentiment but Crone
> and Cook are original, forceful and stoic.
Not once did I call Cook and Crone "original, forceful and stoic." I
have acquired a great amount of respect for Dr. Saifullah during these
discussions (as I am constantly learning), and thus I feel that such a
straw man is quite inappropriate.
> Sure, it does not tell anything about the original sources' veracity but
> then non-Christian source is not going to say anything about their
> veracity anyway. So, we are in a dilemma. Should we accept Christian and
> non-Christian sources or should we leave them altogether? Should we use
> them to suit our desires or should we leave them to suit our desires?
> Perhaps Dajjal has some good ideas to take us out of this dilemma.
I get the impression that Dr. Saifullah thinks the above questions
were rhetorical. This is actually a very real problem for
non-believing scholars of the major religions. This is not the proper
group to discuss critical scholarship in the study of Christian
history, but I will say that many scholars have conceded how difficult
it is to find anything historical. In Islam, we can look at Dr.
Wansbrough. He was quite firm in not accepting anyone else's views of
what "really" happened; yet when he puts forth his own ideas, he
prefaces them with admissions that they are "conjectural,"
"tentative," and "emphatically provisional".
I don't think this is necessarily bad. Many people seem to think that
one is not allowed to call an argument "invalid" if they don't have a
replacement argument. Maybe history really is this much a black box
when we approach it coldly.
>From here Dr. Saifullah made the following comment:
> When we talk about evidence, we have to show an evidence of existence (or
> its non-existence). Negative evidence is no evidence.
First of all, one cannot prove the non-existence of anything, unless
Dr. Saifullah accepts appeals to ex-silentio arguments (which he seems
to abhor). I agree that negative evidence is not in itself evidence.
I'm not claiming otherwise.
> We would like to see what evidence do Remsberg and Wells have to
> offer of non-historicity.
Dr. Saifullah should feel free to read their books (or some books by
John Shelby Spong, Michael Goulder, or even the rather liberal
scholars as the Jesus Seminar). This is not the group to discuss such
things. If Dr. Saifullah would like to discuss textual analysis and
the historical reliability of the gospels, we can do that in
alt.religion.christianity, or through our respective web pages.
However, I doubt Dr. Saifullah would really want to be in the position
of defending Christian scriptures against those who are even more
skeptical of them than he is.
> > "This is an intelligent, sophisticated, and provocative book on a
> > perplexing subject *WRITTEN FROM A FAITH PERSPECTIVE*[.]"
> > [ibid., p. 613, emphasis mine]
>
> So.... ?
So? This was in the same vein of the other quote I offered from
Peters:
"'The case for considering the Qur'an as revelation,' the author
continues, 'is a very strong one' (p. 286). We are, then, in the realm
not of history or even of literary criticism, but of theology."
[F.E. Peters, "International Journal of Middle East Studies," Vol. 30,
1998, p. 612]
It is written from a faith perspective, not a historical or literary
one (though this excellent book does read like one that gets into
history or literary criticism).
Regarding the issue of Cook and Crone's admission of an error in their
book, Dr. Saifullah writes:
> And then say that the origins of Islam are very late! That is a strange
> kind of honesty. That is nothing but a classical double-speak.
No, it is not double speak. Take my "multiple hands" article. I could
hand you a typed version and say "such and such claim is an error"
(and I think I still have a couple transliteration errors, or other
problems). I think I'm being honest if before you read my stuff I say
"I was wrong on page 2." Apparently we disagree on this.
Moving right along, let us take a look back at the following quote
>from Kate Zebiri's review of Robinson's book:
"One of Robinson's main concerns in this chapter is to show the
underlying reasons for some of the abrupt, and to the Westerner,
disconcerting changes of pronoun which are characteristic of the
Qur'an. Here there is an element of circularity in that cause and
effect are sometimes assumed to be identical."
[Kate Zebiri, BSOAS, Vol. 61, 1998, p. 540]
Dr. Saifullah angrily demanded I (or Professor Zebiri) present
evidence. A reasonable request, though I think it is basically in the
quote. The issue has to do with the circular nature of assuming why a
text is a certain way. Let me set an analogy:
Suppose there is a place in America where the education system has
totally collapsed. The people in that area still read and write in
English, but many of our "traditional" (if I'm abusing this term,
maybe we could say "orthodox") rules regarding English grammar are no
longer employed. At this time, a religious movement appears among
these people, and they have a religious text. One of the passages from
their text reads as follows:
"It is good for you to be gooder each day and it is gooder to be nicer
each day and it is even more gooder to be kind to people because if
you've been kind the people have loved you."
There might actually be a great deal of wisdom in this passage
regarding how you treat your fellow man, but let us suppose we are
looking at it from a literary standpoint. Some scholars point out the
bad grammar, the temporal shift, and the fact that too many
conjunctions are present in the sentence. Now suppose a book, written
by a believer in the text, argues that the text was deliberately
written in this fashion. His evidence? The fact that this style is
found in many places in the text, and the fact that non-religious
writings from the community also employ the same style.
This is where the analogy is relevant. Is the text deliberately
written in this fashion, or is it merely in this fashion because it is
a product of its time? The argument could very well be circular in
that one may be blurring the line between what is the cause and what
is the effect. I think this is actually the case with Robinson's
arguments (which were partly a build on Dr. Haleem's text). How could
we know if the fact that a particular style that appears all over the
place is deliberate? On what do we base our assumption about which is
a cause of which? These aren't rhetorical questions by the way...
> By the way, the discussion is about stylistic features of the Qur'an and
> its frequent use than the Arabic poetry.
Understood. Now, is the fact that the Qur'an bears similar style to
roughly-contemporary Arabic writings evidence that this particular
style is deliberately or consciously employed? Or is it also possible
(though not necessarily the case) that it could have been employed by
a community that regularly employed this style as a given aspect of
their writings and that later readers looked back an ASSUMED it was
deliberate?
To set another quick analogy: do the children in my neighborhood
deliberately and consciously use the accent, words and body language
they employ to express themselves, or are they possibly products of
their environment?
Moving right along, I'd like to touch on something I mentioned at the
beginning of this post. I stated that at certain points Dr. Saifullah
seemed to think everything I wrote was a polemic. I have a long
history of sophomoric and anti-intellectual attacks on Islam, and I
suppose I have built a reputation that leads Dr. Saifullah to see
everything I write as being such. In reality, this is not the case.
Sometimes I write things that are not attacks. An example is the
following from my previous post in this thread:
===============
FACT: There are apocryphal gospels from the fourth century CE and
earlier that claim Jesus spoke when he was a newborn. This is
something that is not found in the traditional Christian cannon (four
gospels), but is found in the Qur'an.
NON-MUSLIM: "This is proof of earlier sources from which the stories
in the Qur'an were taken, thus further confirming the already obvious
hypothesis that the Qur'an is a work of wholly human origins, and not
>from any God."
MUSLIM: "This is proof that the Qur'an is from God, as earlier sources
confirm something which is in the Qur'an, but not in the Bible. How
could an illiterate seventh century Arab know about this?"
================
Amazingly, right after the post got accepted, some Christian elsewhere
in SRI tried to use this argument to discredit the Qur'an. Dr.
Saifullah also thought I was trying to use this point to discredit the
Qur'an. In reality, it was an analogy for how a piece of "evidence"
can mean two completely different things to different people in a
religious debate (hence the difficulty in trying to lay down the line
of demarcation). Dr. Saifullah even sought to fight me on my use of
the word "traditional" to describe the four gospels found in most
Bibles. I'm well aware of the state of the Christian cannon prior to
Nicea (and the long struggle that followed to stamp out works not in
the newly sanctioned cannon). I was solely making reference to the
gospels that have come to dominate most of the Christian world (the
synoptics and John).
Finally, we head into the home-stretch; the discussion on al-Masjeed
al-Aqsa...
> The word Masjid in Arabic simply renders the structure (of the Masjid)
> irrelevent. The word Masjid is simply as place of prostration, it does not
> have to be a circle of stones or towering minaret etc.
And again, this is understood. Regardless, the question still stands:
what evidence is there to the claims about Muhammad's miraculous night
journey? The ambiguous nature of the word masjid, as Dr. Saifullah
must know, is not any sort of evidence. I have a professor who has a
summer home near Jerusalem. In light of the nature of the word Masjid,
the original al-Aqsa Masjid *COULD'VE* been in the spot where her
place is, but that doesn't prove that it was.
> And a text written more than 100 years after the facts claim such and such
> is not suppose to mean that the facts were wrong unless otherwise shown.
I agree 100%. However, now that the word "masjid" has been shown to be
so fluid, maybe Dr. Saifullah could remind us what it is that the
text's actually said about the Masjid Muhammad went to... St.
Arculfus' testimony is not relevant by the way, as that is referring
to a structure built after Muhammad's death.
> Masjid al-Aqsa during the time of the Prophet, SAW, was nothing but a
> place of desolation and refuse. This was the place when the Temple of the
> Jews once stood.
Okay, now we're starting to get back to where we were originally at...
So, are you saying it was the spot where the temple once stood? Are
you saying that prostration took place in or among the refuse? What
are you saying? And once you say it, what is your evidence?
> Now if there was no building situated during the time of
> Prophet's, SAW, visit, it is not suppose to prove or disprove anything.
Agreed.
> Now a few sentences earlier, Dajjal was complaining about the sources that
> were written 100 years after the events. Now he uses the references that
> uses a quote from Muslim historian Mujir al-Din who wrote a few centuries
> later than the actual event.
HA! Dr. Saifullah has got me! I'll do him one better: I didn't even
check Mujir al-Din's text, rather I cited Karen Armstrong's
"Jerusalem," a book written 1,400 years after the fact! LOL! Good
point by Dr. Saifullah. So, would Dr. Saifullah like to remove
Armstrong's book from the pieces of evidence? It would be appropriate
in light of my stance, I admit.
> The Qur'an mentions the the Prophet, SAW was taken to al-Masjid al-Aqsa
> and that its surrounding are blessed. The question now is what constitutes
> the boundaries of al-Masjid al-Aqsa? Does it include only the
> Temple Mount? Or is it Temple Mount and its surrounding? Honestly, I do
> not know the answer. But I can say for sure that the boundaries of
> al-Masjid al-Haraam does constitute the whole of Makkah and is dilineated
> by well-known places outside it. See for example Encyclopaedia of Islam
> under "Makkah".
Fine, so our search becomes even more blurry, as, if it happened, it
might have been anywhere in that part of Palestine. I retract my
question about evidence, as there isn't anything one can actually
prove. Though I'm curious if you thus disagree with any Islamic
historians who place it in a specific spot (i.e. what is their
evidence?).
> If there is no evidence to back up the tradition then it does not qualify
> for the tradition to be false or suspect. This is one of the fundamentals of
> proofs and evidences.
And I agree 100%. I never claimed other wise. The question originally
was up in the air for anyone to tackle about evidence that Muhammad
actually did fly to Jerusalem. Of course, no evidence does not mean it
didn't happen. However, zero evidence has been presented, thus others
have a right to be skeptical. To use Ibn Ishaaq's version of the story
as an example, Muhammad rides a fantastic animal from Makkah to
"al-Masjid al-Aqsa" and then leads a prayer with Jesus, Adam, and
others. No evidence has been presented to support this amazing story.
I agree, this does not prove it didn't happen; however, would Dr.
Saifullah be willing to admit that no evidence has been presented?
> If no one claimed to have seen a flying horse land in the
> refuse then it does not mean that the seen a flying horse did not land in
> the refuse.
I agree 100%. However, if I claim a flying horse landed on my roof
last night, yet give no evidence, I am curious what Dr. Saifullah's
thoughts would be regarding my claim.
> By extending the analogy, if I did not hear about a place
> called "Kunduz" it does not actually lead to the conclusion that it did
> not exist.
Again, I agree. The fact that there is no evidence for Atlantis does
not mean that Atlantis does not exist, but I think many people have a
right to be skeptical. Agree or disagree? If in two weeks Michael
Jackson claims to have visited Atlantis, yet offers no evidence, would
Dr. Saifullah believe him? If not, why not?
-Denis Giron