The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the oldest Quran

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, that's why the theory said by GGPViper (that Islam originated from nontrinity Christianity) doesn't make much sense to me, the Quran talks a lot about polytheism which indicates that Arabs there were mostly pagans, it does also mention Christians and Jews, so Arabia was most probably populated by Pagans, Jews and Christians. However, many hadiths indicate that Jews and Christians were the minority tribes. And there are a lot of Arabian pagan beliefs than have inherited into Islam, like the belief in the Djinns existence and the pilgrimage customs, the Djinn mythology existed before Islam. The famous Satanic verses also strongly indicate that Quraysh were pagans, not Christians.

Also, Islam is much closer to Judaism than to Christianity, even when it comes to religious practices, like don't eat pork, don't drink, Halal food yet the Quran insults both Christians and Jews, the nontrinity Christians were still used to call themselves Christians so it doesn't make sense that Islam originated from them unless they shifted more extremely than what was thought.

Once again, this only makes sense if:

(1) The Qur'an is one comprehensive text, the product of one author at one given time
(2) The Hadith is a valid historical source

The new historical studies raise serious doubts about both. First of all, the Qur'an is so fragmented that it could more realistically be seen as a compilation of texts written at different times (some perhaps written centuries before the life of Muhammad) by different authors... and perhaps even in different languages. This seriously weakens any description provided about contemporary society within the Qur'an. Furthermore, many of the events in the Qur'an are not - unlike many of the events in the Christian Bible - corroborated by external evidence.

Second of all, the Hadith/Sunnah can't really be considered a historical source. It is a religious source, and very likely a forged one due to the impossibly high levels of detail within it about the life of Muhammad and his companions despite the fact that the Sunnah wasn't written down until more than 2 centuries after Muhammad's apparent death (Sahih Bukhari was written no earlier than 846).

Right. A lot of what I've been thinking actually brushes with a contextualization in Reza Aslan's Zealot that a friend stayed on me to read as he'd thought it had a lot of fascinating info about that time period (from reading enough of the Amazon reviews both pro and con it looks like his standpoint in the book is a lite version of the modern scholar stance). The thing that jumped out at me a bit more was the degree of divide between Johnian/Paulian Christianity vs. what otherwise would have just been something much more similar to Messianic Judaism if it were left to James. The rules of Islam seem like a fast-average because it's still 613 Levitical laws vs. what's in the suras which seems like an approximation in spirit but it's still missing a lot of detail.

It really seems like they took a look at Judaism, at Christianity, decided to take what seemed to be the best of each in respect to their cultural dilemma at the time, and it became a new system for previously disaffected pagans to join in hopes of creating a better society.

The Islamic traditional view of Arab Paganism that it was pure Hedonism, and that pagan Arabs indulged themselves into drinking and sex, it is traditionally believed that they didn't believe in an afterlife. If this is true, then a religion that promises an afterlife might be pretty more appealing; a religion that offers a good eternal life vs a religion that offers eternal death, the latter cannot compete much. It is traditionally believed that the "4 wives rule" of polygamy was a limitation set to the unlimited sex partners Arabs were used to have before; and the second part of the verse which says "if you are afraid to not be equally fair to all of them (the 4 wives) then only have one" - and later on "you'll never be equally fair to all them" as an attempt to gradually introduce monogamy into a previously heavily poly society.


Also, if Mohammad really existed then he was seriously not an ordinary man, think of the charms of Jim Jones with the military vision of Genghis Khan and canniness of Great Alexander, his IQ was probably extremely high. Human history had witnessed a fair numbers of exceptional individuals who became god-like almost from scratch with thousands or even millions of blind followers, think of Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, think of the cult leaders. So probably Mohmmad could gather followers with his exceptional intelligence and charms and then went into military expansion, he was also surrounded by smart companions and generals, Khalid ibn al-Walid is often compared to Hannibal regarding military Generalship and tactics and he is arguably one of the great military geniuses in history. Early Muslims probably have created the first guerrilla tactics in warfare, the raids they did on Meccan caravans (after the Hijra) were not simply for goods gain but it was a part of a well calculated strategy to economically weaken Mecca before making their strike.

The more I did read about him in other places I see a lot of Joseph Smith, except instead of Moroni, golden tablet, and magic glasses he had Gabriel appear to him in a cave. History can be a bit like The Hobbit where a person who wouldn't have otherwise been vaulted out of the crowd just ends up being in the right place at the right time with the right ideas. For what the 'Great Religions' were it seems strange that any of them made it without an incredibly unlikely confluence of factors. A great example with this is Christianity where you had *tons* of messiahs in Jerusalem, so many wanting to overthrow both Rome and the lackey High Priest who was usually just a rubber-stamp of the Empire. How the story of one man stood out in the historical context is anyone's guess.

Where I'd disagree with some modern historians or simply looking for emotional grounds for people to fabricate 'having a vision' for sociopathic reasons - there's a lot of other ways that can happen. Sometimes people really do see angles in caves or have a blinding flash of something ineffable while riding a horse. It may or may not necessarily be supernatural in cause but their relationship to that event isn't any less authentic as a driver of their behavior.

Coffee table books.



Are you sure that he MINTED Christian coins? Coins at the time were made of silver and gold which held value in many countries so it was common practice to have coins from one country ending up in another country. The Arabian peninusla traded with the Roman Empire which resulted in Roman coins being used at the time, and still unearthed today, around Mecca and in Yemen. Conversely, there was a time when England did not mint any of its own gold coins and instead used the gold Dinar.

And what has prompted you to reach such a conclusion about these works?

What specific chapters, passages, sections etc. in these works are you unimpressed with, and why?

Waraqah ibn Nawfal a distant cousin of Mohammad was an Ebionite christian.

A narration from Aisha gives these details:

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as God wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" God's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This was the same one who keeps the secrets whom Allah had sent to Moses (angel Gabriel). I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." God's Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while.[4][5]

Hmmm...

If you look at the verses regarding Christianity in the Quran:


1- Christians who believe that Jesus is God are kuffar:

Surely, disbelievers are those who say, “Allah is the Masīh, son of Maryam” while the Masīh had said, “O children of Isrā’īl , worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” In fact, whoever ascribes any partner to Allah, Allah has prohibited for him the Jannah (the Paradise), and his shelter is the Fire, and there will be no supporters for the unjust.

(al-Ma'idah: 72)


2- Christians who believe in a trinity are kuffar:

Surely, disbelievers are those who say, “Allah is the third of the three” while there is no god but One God. If they do not desist from what they say, a painful punishment shall certainly befall such disbelievers.

(al-Ma'idah: 73)


I wonder if those verses were to differentiate between Trinity Christians and non-Trinity Christians. However, the Quran clearly considers that all prophets before Mohammad were Muslims too but their followers later messed up their message.

The term coffee table book means a book that might make interesting casual reading but should not be regarded as a trustworthy source of factual information. I have seen both books and I haven't got round to reading them yet although I know a couple of historians who have read them. The first problem they have with them is that Christoph Luxenberg is a pseudonym and nobody knows who he really is or what his credentials are. Is he a history professor at a university? Is he a Christian propagandist and opponent of Islam who holds a senior figure in a church? Is he some obscure and insignificant amateur historian of Islam who is out to make a profit from his works? Is he an intelligence agent? What is undeniable is that he is an unknown quantity. His works are not without criticism from non-Muslims. François de Blois has questioned Luxenberg's knowledge of Arabic and refers to him as a dilettante.

Well, then we have Karl-Heinz Olig, Volker Popp, Claude Gilliot, Afred-Louis de Prêmare, Pierre Larcher, Sergio Noja Noseda, Alba Fedeli, Gerd Puin and Markus Gross... the remaining authors of the two works (and Ibn Warraq, but that is also a pseudonym, so I'll leave him out) who all figure with their real name in these works... and several of them are university professors specializing in Arabic language and culture.

So I'll ask again:
What specific chapters, passages, sections etc. in these works are you unimpressed with, and why?

Why is it that all over the internet are these battle zones between believers in Christianity and believers of Islam? There are many religions and faiths which predate both Christianity and Islam along with the birth of Jesus Christ and the creation of Mohammed. Why are only these two religions afforded credibility and numbers of adherents? Why are all earlier faiths/religions dismissed as irrelevant? There are as many varying origins of Christianity as there are of Islam. Although the existence of Jesus Christ is acknowledged, even the exact dates of his birth and death are questionable. The resurrection itself is questionable and improbable. Even the resurrection has various explanations which Christians will not even consider.

Out of all the religions/faiths known through history, what makes these two stand out other than their mutual history of using violence around the world to spread their beliefs and intimidate people into absconding other faiths, which still goes on today, by both of these two "major" religions?

Not sure what the question is that you are asking.


Obviously an extinct religion is just that- extinct. So you're not gonna find missionaries for the gods of Mount Olympus on the internet today.

You might find classical scholars who know Bullfinch's Mythology inside out. But theyre not going to try to convert you to being a Pagan. Even when Greek Paganism was alive in ancient times the Greek pagans had no concept of "spreading the faith" in the Olympian Gods.

The living Asian religions of today dont have "jealous gods". Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Jainism, allow you to sample the buffet. You can be a Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucianist, at the same time.

But if you're Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, you cant eat from the buffet. You have to be loyal to that one faith. And the last two are also evangelical- you have to spread the good news. And they are both huge relgions in the world ( a a billion plus adherents each). So its to be expected that Islam and Christianity are going to dominate the conversation on the world wide web. Both are exculsivist, militant, and evangelical.

Well there is still the reality that Christianity and Islam have spread so widely mainly because of their use of violence, and that violence still exists, even verbally, to denounce other religions and hold people to Christianity and Islam. I just do not give either of these religions credibility simply because of their numbers when I take into consideration how those masses were accumulated, and continue to spread.

I know, just because I don't recognize it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I know, redundant. Sorry.

Well...you're asking a question, and answering it at the same time.

you're saying both faiths are like dictators who nefariously stuff the ballot box, and then claim they were "democratically elected", and have a "mandate from the people- so I must be doing something right!".

Last edited by naturalplastic on 24 Apr 2014, 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.