Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 7:51 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pre-Uthman Quran Found in England
#31
RE: Pre-Uthman Quran Found in England
(July 23, 2015 at 11:13 am)Minimalist Wrote: See, here's your problem with that.  In order for your story to be true there would really have to be an "angel" who found a merchant sleeping in a cave and who then imparted what eventually came to be the koran after Mo repeated it to people who were actually literate - in whatever language existed at the time - who then wrote it down.

To that, I ascribe a probability of less than 0.00000000000000000001.  Which is roughly the same level of probability which I ascribe to the Joey Smith story with his "angel" and which I imagine you think is preposterous?  BTW, so you don't feel picked on, I give roughly the same probabilities to jesus, moses, and Romulus and Remus, etc.

I wasn't trying to convince you about any sort of angels or miracles, and you know that. 

My initial comments to you were a reply to your post about Luxenberg's argument that the Quran was written in a mixed Arabic-Syriac language.

Here it is, once again:

(July 22, 2015 at 3:57 pm)Rayaan Wrote: It probably escaped you that almost all languages have borrowed words from previous languages and then those words became incorporated into the new language - with the addition of some lexical re-arrangements.

For example, you know that the word "alcohol" is obviously an English word. But the word also has an Arabic origin, which comes from the root word al-kuhl, a powder used as an eyeliner. So, in the same way, certain words in the Quran may have a Syro-Aramaic origin, but that doesn't mean that the words themselves are not Arabic. If you still really believe Luxenberg's argument that the Quran was not written in pure Arabic but rather in a "mixed Arabic-Syriac language," then you also have to agree that Darwins On the Origin of Species was written not in English but in a mixed English-Greek-Latin-French-etc. language.

Muslim and Western scholars are already aware that many of the words in the Quran are variations of words that are originally found in the Syriac and Aramaic languages. These words already became a part of the Arabic dictionary during that time, and again, this is a well-known phenomenon that has occurred even in the English language as it gradually evolved over the course of time, along with many other languages. It has always been like that.

Then not surprisingly, you dodged all those points by simply asking "Are you trying to convince me, Luxenberg or yourself." That already gave me the impression that you were unable to counter them with a sound refutation.  

And yet again, a page later, you brought up something else in order to evade those points. And that further convinced me that you can't refute those points. Cool
Reply
#32
RE: Pre-Uthman Quran Found in England
Luxenberg is a scholar who has studied this stuff in depth.  He also, it seems, was one of you who is forced to write under a pseudonym to avoid being killed by the more fanatical among you.  Islam is not big on introspection into its claimed reality.  

I must tell you, Rayaan, that gives him a bit more credibility than any "believer."  Nonetheless, I have not read his book - only Spencer's excerpts which he quoted.

But I sure as hell don't buy any supernatural horseshit so that leaves you back at square one, doesn't it?
Reply
#33
RE: Pre-Uthman Quran Found in England
(July 23, 2015 at 3:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Luxenberg is a scholar who has studied this stuff in depth.

Yeah, and the "depth" of his study is so mind-blowing that even Western scholars couldn't help but make hostile replies to his theory.

As remarked in one collection of scholarly studies of the Quran, Luxenberg's revisionist work "excited a great deal of popular and journalistic attention, without for the most part finding a serious hearing among scholars" (Reynolds et al, The Quran in its Historical Context, xi). And yet after more than decade of research and investigation, scholars are generally unconvinced by Luxenberg’s work. Francois de Blois, for example, a distinguished philologist, concludes that Luxenberg’s new reading of the Quran "is a reading that is potentially attractive only in its novelty, or shall I say its perversity, not in that it sheds any light on the meaning of the book or on the history of Islam" (F. de Blois, Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 2003, p. 97).

Similarly, Gerhard Bowering, a professor of Islamic Studies at Yale University, concludes: "Reviewing these recent studies on the Qur'an mainly published during the last decade, it is clear that, despite the clamor in the press, no major breakthrough in constructing the Qur'an has been achieved. The ambitious projects of Lüling and Luxenberg lack decisive evidence and can reach no further than the realm of possibility and plausibility" (Recent Research on the Construction of the Quran p 81, in The Quran in its Historical Context).

In conclusion, whether or not Luxenberg has more credibility than a believer, his credibility in the academic and scholarly spheres is weak, and so ultimately your appeal to credibility is neutralized.

I understand why don't believe in any of the supernatural stuff, but at least be more acquainted with the scholars that you choose to cite.
Reply
#34
RE: Pre-Uthman Quran Found in England
Quote:Yeah, and the "depth" of his study is so mind-blowing that even Western scholars couldn't help but make hostile replies to his theory.

Oh, please....now you're sounding like Randy.  "My scholars say that your scholars are big poopy-heads."

The status quo is always hostile to change and islam does not welcome investigation into its roots under any circumstances.  I mean, I get it.  Xtians were the same way 500 years ago and there are still vestiges of that attitude today.  Perhaps in 500 years islam will have matured to the point where it is not threatened by questions about its bullshit.

In case you forgot it was just under 400 years ago that catholics and protestants began the jolly bloodbath of the 30 Years War (1618).  The Sunni and Shia seem to be staging a re-enactment.
Reply
#35
RE: Pre-Uthman Quran Found in England
I'm interested to know about the history of Arabic myself now. In particular, I've seen conflicting comments about the use of diacritical marks in Arabic on YouTube. I'm concerned there could be people willfully lying about the evolution of the Arabic script.

Even a layman can easily see Kufic Script has no diacritical markings and those marks are what help to give Arabic words their meaning. Without them, the words are much more "flexible". Perhaps that's where the seven Ahruf (or however you spell it) come in? Anyhow, if anyone has any interesting links or books then I'd love to see them.

Maybe I should have posted a new topic?

Reply
#36
RE: Pre-Uthman Quran Found in England
(July 23, 2015 at 6:08 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: I'm interested to know about the history of Arabic myself now. In particular, I've seen conflicting comments about the use of diacritical marks in Arabic on YouTube. I'm concerned there could be people willfully lying about the evolution of the Arabic script.

Even a layman can easily see Kufic Script has no diacritical markings and those marks are what help to give Arabic words their meaning. Without them, the words are much more "flexible". Perhaps that's where the seven Ahruf (or however you spell it) come in? Anyhow, if anyone has any interesting links or books then I'd love to see them.

Maybe I should have posted a new topic?

The thing is that the early Arabs were mostly an oral people, so they didn't need the extra visual aids to properly read the Quran. They knew how to pronounce the words just by looking at the letters.

The Quran also used to be recited in seven different "modes" or "dialects," which are called "ahruf." Since the Quran originally had no diacritical marks, the Arabs had the freedom to recite the Quran according to their own dialect/ahruf and that's why they decided to just leave it like that.

However, when copies of the Quran began to spread to other parts of the world, it became necessary to add the diacritical marks in order to make pronunciation easier for others, and to unite everyone under a single dialect, which is classical Arabic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Arabic

But the earliest Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks in the Quran because they were able to read it correctly even without the marks.

I will see if can post more details or links on this subject.
Reply
#37
RE: Pre-Uthman Quran Found in England
(July 23, 2015 at 6:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Oh, please....now you're sounding like Randy.  "My scholars say that your scholars are big poopy-heads."

Well you were the one who was praising Luxenberg as a scholar, and talking about his credibility and all, so don't cry when I say that most of the other scholars don't agree with his arguments.

Secondly, I was talking about scholarship as a whole - meaning both Muslim and non-Musilm scholars - on what they think about Luxenberg's work. I was explaining to you that there is a consensus amongst scholars that Luxenberg's arguments are flawed. That's not the same as saying that "my" scholars said so and so about "your" scholars. That is simply putting words in my mouth.

Thirdly, you know that I did post an explanation of why Luxenberg's work has been generally rejected, but you haven't directly addressed those points either.
Reply
#38
RE: Pre-Uthman Quran Found in England
Oh, the humanities.

Thank atheist god i'm not in one of those bullshit peddling fields. None of you lot (those in the social sciences)
can actually figure out left from right, but rather, you all provide hypotheses that "explain the most". Luxenburg may be right, an Islamic scholar may be right, but guess what? we can't know, because you've got no way to falsify hypotheses, and the humanities don't really cater to falsification in general. To substitute, they provide long winded discussions about how they think they're right, despite their belief in parsimony.

On that note, I'll stick to science, where the bullshit becomes apparent fairly quickly.

Enjoy chasing the wind
Plato had defined Man as an animal, biped and featherless, and was applauded. Diogenes plucked a fowl and brought it into the lecture room with the words,

"Behold Plato's man!"






Reply
#39
RE: Pre-Uthman Quran Found in England
(July 23, 2015 at 7:39 pm)Rayaan Wrote:
(July 23, 2015 at 6:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Oh, please....now you're sounding like Randy.  "My scholars say that your scholars are big poopy-heads."

Well you were the one who was praising Luxenberg as a scholar, and talking about his credibility and all, so don't cry when I say that most of the other scholars don't agree with his arguments.

Secondly, I was talking about scholarship as a whole - meaning both Muslim and non-Musilm scholars - on what they think about Luxenberg's work. I was explaining to you that there is a consensus amongst scholars that Luxenberg's arguments are flawed. That's not the same as saying that "my" scholars said so and so about "your" scholars. That is simply putting words in my mouth.

Thirdly, you know that I did post an explanation of why Luxenberg's work has been generally rejected, but you haven't directly addressed those points either.

What "points" do you think you raised?  That alcohol is a loan word in English?  So what?

In Luxenberg's wiki page a dutch archaeologist (?) complains:

Quote:Dutch archaeologist Richard Kroes[10] describes Luxenberg's book in a review article as "almost unreadable, certainly for the layman. One needs knowledge of eight languages (German, English, French, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic and Syriac) and of five different alphabets (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Estrangelo) to comprehend the book fully. A good working knowledge of German, Arabic and Syriac is indispensable to be able to assess the book.


So the complaint is that he speaks too many languages?  You know what, Rayaan?  I'll take that over some jackass who memorizes the fucking koran and thinks that is an education.

But then, there is the typical peaceful, islamic reaction to any criticism.

Quote:In 2003, the Pakistani government banned a 2003 issue of Newsweek's international edition discussing Luxenberg's thesis on grounds that it was offensive to Islam.[14]

Abid Ullah Jan accused Luxenberg of participating in an "discursive assault on Islam,"[15] but he has also been called an enabler of interfaith dialogue;[4] a "dilettante";[8] and the writer of "probably the most important book ever written on the Koran" by Ibn Warraq, an also unknown anonymous writer.[16]

Why do you suppose it is that people who try to investigate islam are forced to assume pseudonyms?

Never forget Salman Rushdie.
Reply
#40
RE: Pre-Uthman Quran Found in England
DawahMan recently posted on Twitter that this Quran is a 'slap in the face' for people who say the Quran has changed. But I think many, including myself and DawahNan, have been too quick to judge the content of the pages. I'm pretty sure DawahMan hasn't seen the pages in person either. Hopefully if the results of their findings are controversial they'll publish them anyway.

To me it makes to difference to the truth, or lack of, in the Quran. All it shows is people too great care of the Quran. But it seems me, Muhammadans are hypocrites because they have one standard for everyone else's books and another for their own. I see this in religious debates because they hold the Bible to a higher standard than the Quran. And DawahMan showed how stupid he was when he debated BasicsOfSikhi, but these people don't realize how moronic they sound.

What if I told you Vedic Chants are considered an oral masterpiece by UNESCO? That means if all of the Vedic texts were destroyed people woukd still have access to them orally. And, given the size of the Quran, I think chanting Vedas is more impressive than being Hafiz.

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Does the Quran support Theocracy? Leonardo17 17 765 Yesterday at 2:17 pm
Last Post: Ferrocyanide
  New Controversies around the Desecration of the Quran Leonardo17 100 8179 August 20, 2023 at 12:10 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Quran and Hadiths annatar 34 20455 October 11, 2022 at 5:14 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  "Nas" is probably my favorite arabic word in the Quran Woah0 22 1214 August 22, 2022 at 3:19 pm
Last Post: Aegon
  [Quranic reflection]: The Big Bang theory in the Quran. WinterHold 62 4201 June 14, 2022 at 1:21 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  How I'd Reveal the Quran To Humanity ReptilianPeon 23 2831 May 11, 2022 at 9:22 pm
Last Post: Cavalry
  2-big bang theory in the Quran mo3taz3nbar 108 48622 April 3, 2022 at 12:09 pm
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  [Quranic Reflection]: Quran vs Hadith- why the Hadith is false WinterHold 176 11500 January 15, 2022 at 2:39 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  [Quranic Reflection]: On reading the Quran.. WinterHold 1 852 July 24, 2021 at 5:23 pm
Last Post: onlinebiker
  [Quranic Reflection]: moon absorbed by the sun in the Quran: far future. WinterHold 253 13858 December 18, 2020 at 9:25 pm
Last Post: polymath257



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)