Very well explained, althought here's one minor disagreement from me. I guess even if the Muslims didn't identify as a seperate religious community originally, they could possibly be considered as such, considering that some of the theology differs from Judeo-Christian scripture, such as the fact that in the Islamic version of the Fall of Man, it's Satan instead of the snake which tempts Adam.
That said, consideirng how ambiguous this area of history, we might never know for sure.
The Quran is inclusive of 'believers', however, the Quran is in large part a reaction to the apostasy of the Jews and Christians. Is the Quran used as an argument for the revival thesis while neglecting the anti-thesis contained within the Quran itself? Why not work out the textual argument and possible chronological and contextual disparities if they exist before introducing a tangential ad hoc architectural argument? The two points may be coeval but not connected in presentation.
Narrow explanation by Dr. Fred. As a Middle Eastern researcher I expected him to know a bit more about the islamic sciences. Saying that a lack of documents exist in islamic history is a very out of ordinary idea's. Hadith anyone??
Your minds are too narrow. There is a difference between "what happened" and "how what happened was framed to achieve a specific goal." Why is the first biography of Muhammad not written until a hundred years after he died? Also you can't accept Hadith unquestioningly - have you not read that in many cases isnad-s were fabricated to lend legitimacy to the saying? Your problem with Professor Donner's understanding is the result of a conservative perspective.
@laopod In order to understand those questions you need to understand the culture of the arabs. You can't take a measuring tape of western historical culture and apply it to the arabs.
Btw the hadith ARE NOT accepted unquestioningly. Every hadith in Bukhari and Muslim has a chain of narrators. Verifying all of them and their personal lives is a very very rigorous process.
What do you mean by "understand the culture of the Arabs?" Analyzing all available documentary evidence which can be proven to be authentic does not require one to "understand" a "culture", whatever that means. Professor Donner's view does not denigrate Islam. Everyone in Islamic history knows about verifying isnad-s of the Hadith. But the very process by which they were collected makes them suspect for use as historical sources. The fact is they construct a sacred history.
@laopod wowh.. I respect professor donner for the fact that he isn't a rambling idiot like most people in the media. He is Well educated and civil. He knows islam well. I just don't agree with him. I never said his view in anyway "denigrated" islam. In fact he seems neutral.
You do realize that the argument is that Muhammad and the early converts were more accepting of the ahl al-kitab, right? Why is that a bad thing? And before you criticize me on the point of understanding cultures: Having the goal of "understanding the culture of the Arabs" is an inherently us/them attitude which has proven faulty in the past. Of course scholars should be extremely familiar with literary and religious tradition, history, and social practices. Donner is.
@laopod i just think it is a HUGE leap to conclude Muhammad somehow produced the quran from the bible and torah.(btw i'm not criticizing you dude. I'm just saying my opinion). The Quran...most people forget...is not a Book, it's a speech. Once I say something, i can never take it back, i have no time to edit or write it out. Muhammad spoke the quran on the spot. To say an illiterate man who lacked basic writing ability culminated documents from the bible is too big of a leap...at least for me.
Actually, Muhammad is on record as editing the Quran to suit his needs post revelation. Furthermore, the Quran contains extensive plagiarisms from the Arabian myths and customs, Persian Cultural influences, Hellenic Philosophy, the New Testament, the Tanakh, Rabbinical Literature and Christian Apocrypha.
Where does illiteracy come into it? The Quran LOOKS exactly as it should: the pre-Islamic plagiarisms are often blotches and misremembered, as you'd expect from oral transmission.
@Klingschor "plagiarism"? don't make me laugh. Out of all the scientific inaccuracies and historical flaws found in the bible, the Quran manages to IGNORE all of them and in fact CORRECT them.
Btw, the Bible was not translated into arabic at the time. If you think Waraqa's notes on the torah produced the entire quran....you really don't know anything about history.
>"the Quran manages to IGNORE all of them and in fact CORRECT them"
Yep. A man survives inside a whale (37:142), Alexander builds a giant iron wall to imprison Gog & Magog (18:83-99), shooting stars are missiles from God (37:10, 67:5), mountains are pegs that prevent earthquakes (16:15, 78:7. ), etc. Corrected indeed.
As for Science Miracles in the Qur'an, just name one. Name ONE.
"Bible was not translated into arabic at the time"
There were Arab Christians in Jordan, Mesopotamia, Bahrayn, Oman and Yemen - Muhammad had ample sources from which to plagiarise. Furthermore, the Qur'an REFLECTS this - Surah 28:38 has the Pharaoh from Exodus ordering the Persian Vizier Haman from Esther to build the Tower to Heaven from Genesis. Muhammad only had indirect access to the Bible.
You're ignorant of the subject, and this shows in your comments - you've never looked at the Qur'an in a truly critical fashion, and you've never given this topic any serious thought - if you had, you wouldn't be spouting such ignorant nonsense.
>"you really don't know anything about history."
I challenge you to come onto Skype and back that up. The topic? Scientific Foreknowledge in the Qur'an and Plagiarism in the Qur'an.
Come onto Skype and I'll tell lay out all the evidence for you - I have a few friends who can speak Arabic fluently and who, having studied Classical Arabic, can read it :)
That's a common logical fallacy and tactic used by Muslims - kicking the ball over the fence to prevent further discussion. This only indicates your fear and inability to debate, not any inherent weakness in any of my arguments.
I have friends who can read Classical Arabic fluently, and who would happily sit in a debate and cover that area for me.
But I'm suspicious: can YOU read Qur'anic Arabic fluently?
PS: Islamophobe? You ignorant twat: /watch?v=4hYzeqOCMvY
No, its not - I have excellent translations and translators available at my disposal, and I very much doubt YOU can fluently read Classical Arabic either, since most Muslims can't even read modern Arabic.
>"classical arabic is a dead language"
Yes, I'm well aware of that - I said that my friends can READ it fluently, without a sweat.
Basically, you're afraid, and it's easier to just call me a "usual YouTube troll" rather than to actually investigate this topic or talk to me live.
@Klingschor i hate to break it to you, but you have 0% credibility with me. You know why? Because I know people that have made it their life studying quran and they say other wise. "But they are all muslim!"
Go tell Georgetown's Berkley Center that.
Stop acting like your very knowledgeable on this subject because let me tell you....your not.
Keep telling yourself that - and no, you're wrong - the earliest Mufassīrs acknowledged to a degree the pre-Islāmic plagiarism in the Qur'ān: see Isrā’īliyyāt.
Very well explained, althought here's one minor disagreement from me. I guess even if the Muslims didn't identify as a seperate religious community originally, they could possibly be considered as such, considering that some of the theology differs from Judeo-Christian scripture, such as the fact that in the Islamic version of the Fall of Man, it's Satan instead of the snake which tempts Adam.
That said, consideirng how ambiguous this area of history, we might never know for sure.
Gunderson002 2 months ago
The Quran is inclusive of 'believers', however, the Quran is in large part a reaction to the apostasy of the Jews and Christians. Is the Quran used as an argument for the revival thesis while neglecting the anti-thesis contained within the Quran itself? Why not work out the textual argument and possible chronological and contextual disparities if they exist before introducing a tangential ad hoc architectural argument? The two points may be coeval but not connected in presentation.
agc10001 3 months ago
Comment removed
laopod 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
in remembrance of all شَهيد Shahid and Mujahideen
__www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKBTGRFP1Us
__www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKBTGRFP1Us&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
AsilentScreech1980 5 months ago
PEACE___www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zbeMaHr1q0
AsilentScreech1980 5 months ago
Comment removed
kemin76 5 months ago
Narrow explanation by Dr. Fred. As a Middle Eastern researcher I expected him to know a bit more about the islamic sciences. Saying that a lack of documents exist in islamic history is a very out of ordinary idea's. Hadith anyone??
Fortunately U Chicago has smarter faculty
muslimgiga 5 months ago
@muslimgiga
@MuslimReviews
Your minds are too narrow. There is a difference between "what happened" and "how what happened was framed to achieve a specific goal." Why is the first biography of Muhammad not written until a hundred years after he died? Also you can't accept Hadith unquestioningly - have you not read that in many cases isnad-s were fabricated to lend legitimacy to the saying? Your problem with Professor Donner's understanding is the result of a conservative perspective.
laopod 4 months ago
@laopod In order to understand those questions you need to understand the culture of the arabs. You can't take a measuring tape of western historical culture and apply it to the arabs.
Btw the hadith ARE NOT accepted unquestioningly. Every hadith in Bukhari and Muslim has a chain of narrators. Verifying all of them and their personal lives is a very very rigorous process.
It's still happening today.
muslimgiga 4 months ago
@muslimgiga
What do you mean by "understand the culture of the Arabs?" Analyzing all available documentary evidence which can be proven to be authentic does not require one to "understand" a "culture", whatever that means. Professor Donner's view does not denigrate Islam. Everyone in Islamic history knows about verifying isnad-s of the Hadith. But the very process by which they were collected makes them suspect for use as historical sources. The fact is they construct a sacred history.
laopod 4 months ago
@laopod wowh.. I respect professor donner for the fact that he isn't a rambling idiot like most people in the media. He is Well educated and civil. He knows islam well. I just don't agree with him. I never said his view in anyway "denigrated" islam. In fact he seems neutral.
I don't agree with him though.
muslimgiga 4 months ago
@muslimgiga
You do realize that the argument is that Muhammad and the early converts were more accepting of the ahl al-kitab, right? Why is that a bad thing? And before you criticize me on the point of understanding cultures: Having the goal of "understanding the culture of the Arabs" is an inherently us/them attitude which has proven faulty in the past. Of course scholars should be extremely familiar with literary and religious tradition, history, and social practices. Donner is.
laopod 4 months ago
@laopod i just think it is a HUGE leap to conclude Muhammad somehow produced the quran from the bible and torah.(btw i'm not criticizing you dude. I'm just saying my opinion). The Quran...most people forget...is not a Book, it's a speech. Once I say something, i can never take it back, i have no time to edit or write it out. Muhammad spoke the quran on the spot. To say an illiterate man who lacked basic writing ability culminated documents from the bible is too big of a leap...at least for me.
muslimgiga 4 months ago
@muslimgiga
Actually, Muhammad is on record as editing the Quran to suit his needs post revelation. Furthermore, the Quran contains extensive plagiarisms from the Arabian myths and customs, Persian Cultural influences, Hellenic Philosophy, the New Testament, the Tanakh, Rabbinical Literature and Christian Apocrypha.
Where does illiteracy come into it? The Quran LOOKS exactly as it should: the pre-Islamic plagiarisms are often blotches and misremembered, as you'd expect from oral transmission.
Klingschor 2 months ago
@Klingschor "plagiarism"? don't make me laugh. Out of all the scientific inaccuracies and historical flaws found in the bible, the Quran manages to IGNORE all of them and in fact CORRECT them.
Btw, the Bible was not translated into arabic at the time. If you think Waraqa's notes on the torah produced the entire quran....you really don't know anything about history.
muslimgiga 2 months ago
@muslimgiga
>"the Quran manages to IGNORE all of them and in fact CORRECT them"
Yep. A man survives inside a whale (37:142), Alexander builds a giant iron wall to imprison Gog & Magog (18:83-99), shooting stars are missiles from God (37:10, 67:5), mountains are pegs that prevent earthquakes (16:15, 78:7. ), etc. Corrected indeed.
As for Science Miracles in the Qur'an, just name one. Name ONE.
Klingschor 2 months ago
@muslimgiga
"Bible was not translated into arabic at the time"
There were Arab Christians in Jordan, Mesopotamia, Bahrayn, Oman and Yemen - Muhammad had ample sources from which to plagiarise. Furthermore, the Qur'an REFLECTS this - Surah 28:38 has the Pharaoh from Exodus ordering the Persian Vizier Haman from Esther to build the Tower to Heaven from Genesis. Muhammad only had indirect access to the Bible.
Klingschor 2 months ago
@muslimgiga
You're ignorant of the subject, and this shows in your comments - you've never looked at the Qur'an in a truly critical fashion, and you've never given this topic any serious thought - if you had, you wouldn't be spouting such ignorant nonsense.
>"you really don't know anything about history."
I challenge you to come onto Skype and back that up. The topic? Scientific Foreknowledge in the Qur'an and Plagiarism in the Qur'an.
Klingschor 2 months ago 2
@Klingschor uhuh and I like how you jump to radical conclusions without providing substantial proof. Tell me if you know quranic Arabic.
If you don't your not worth my time.
muslimgiga 2 months ago
@muslimgiga
Come onto Skype and I'll tell lay out all the evidence for you - I have a few friends who can speak Arabic fluently and who, having studied Classical Arabic, can read it :)
/watch?v=RsV2Vn6wv0k
We're waiting :)
Klingschor 2 months ago
@Klingschor well this is where I stop. If you are not familiar with Quranic arabic, your no credible whatsoever.
It's FACT see... that the Quran is the greatest work in Arabic existing today. Arabic grammar and rhetoric is based in Quranic Studies.
Lexicons and the first dictionaries were written (ex Sheik Sulaim lexicon from Abyssiniya) specifically to understand the Quran.
Btw I looked at your blog and it's clear that your an islamaphobe.
Cheers.
muslimgiga 2 months ago
@muslimgiga
That's a common logical fallacy and tactic used by Muslims - kicking the ball over the fence to prevent further discussion. This only indicates your fear and inability to debate, not any inherent weakness in any of my arguments.
I have friends who can read Classical Arabic fluently, and who would happily sit in a debate and cover that area for me.
But I'm suspicious: can YOU read Qur'anic Arabic fluently?
PS: Islamophobe? You ignorant twat: /watch?v=4hYzeqOCMvY
*Shakes head*
Klingschor 2 months ago 2
@Klingschor it's common sense. You have no credibility whatsoever in this discussion kiddo. "I have "friends" who know classical arabic"
Btw classical arabic is a dead language, it's not spoken anymore lmafo.
......*smh* The usual YouTube troll.
cheers
muslimgiga 2 months ago
@muslimgiga
No, its not - I have excellent translations and translators available at my disposal, and I very much doubt YOU can fluently read Classical Arabic either, since most Muslims can't even read modern Arabic.
>"classical arabic is a dead language"
Yes, I'm well aware of that - I said that my friends can READ it fluently, without a sweat.
Basically, you're afraid, and it's easier to just call me a "usual YouTube troll" rather than to actually investigate this topic or talk to me live.
Klingschor 2 months ago
@Klingschor i hate to break it to you, but you have 0% credibility with me. You know why? Because I know people that have made it their life studying quran and they say other wise. "But they are all muslim!"
Go tell Georgetown's Berkley Center that.
Stop acting like your very knowledgeable on this subject because let me tell you....your not.
muslimgiga 2 months ago
@muslimgiga
Keep telling yourself that - and no, you're wrong - the earliest Mufassīrs acknowledged to a degree the pre-Islāmic plagiarism in the Qur'ān: see Isrā’īliyyāt.
PS: Can you fluently read Classical Arabic?
Klingschor 2 months ago
@Klingschor what a stupid question.
Yes I can fluently read quranic arabic yes.
Now go on a rage. Lmao "Plagiarism". Well you must be either smoking or heavily deluded.
I'm done w/ you rabbits.
muslimgiga 2 months ago
@muslimgiga
إنك لجبان.. بل كاذب أيضاً
Klingschor 2 months ago
Comment removed
muslimgiga 5 months ago
Comment removed
muslimgiga 5 months ago
Comment removed
muslimgiga 5 months ago