Was Islam spread by the sword?

[outhouse]

Even if we accept the Sirah as being true

Maybe you do. I know better.

 

[Augustus]

I'm sorry you have not posted any.

Should I assume you are totally unfamiliar with contemporary Islamic scholarship?

History states the book was copied/plagiarized mythology and that the bible was its source. This is not up for debate.

No serious scholar thinks 'the Bible was its source'. Read the last quote, this reflects something not up for debate.

a 19 year old is not going to have the wealth of knowledge we can attribute to the koran.

he converted to islam at 19, so the text already existed

Keep reaching this is fun

Did you google him?

Aw, bless. That's his son

LOL reaching FAIL

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

Uthman eventually accepted Christianity and remained Christian until he died. It is unknown whether he heard Muhammad's message. It was said that he left the area most likely before the birth of Muhammad. This is because he left around the time Waraqah was in his 20’s (Waraqah was 80 when the Prophet was about 40).

Again, you are not familiar with any of the material. Along with Waraqa, these are 4 significant hanifs in the Sirah.

A quick google search and glance at wikipedia is not a substitute for scholarly enquiry.

Maybe you do. I know better.

Yet base your entire argument on it. Without the Sirah your argument doesn't exist

You aren't at all familiar with scholarly research are you?

 

[outhouse]

What do you consider to be some good resources on the origins of Islam to justify your certainty?

Logic and reason, knowing the vague history the mythology of the man grew in.

Supernatural claims are not credible claims. SO

The text did not come from nowhere, it did not come out of thin air. Muhammad had to be taught this information, he factually had to have a teacher.

So we look at who the evidence points to.


Pieces of the koran has been dated to the time of Waraka just before muhammad was born. So we have some strong evidence muhammad did not start the traditions.


Who is said to be the first one to call the man a prophet?

We have traditions of a life long relationship between waraka and muhammad, and that IS EXACTLY what it takes to compile traditions in the koran

 

[outhouse]

Islamic scholarship?

There is no such a credible thing.

There is not one credible muslim scholar that has anything to do with Jesus or Israelite history. In the whole world.

Because Islamic scholars are biased and have no credibility, they are apologist teaching theology. Nothing more.

 

[outhouse]

No serious scholar thinks 'the Bible was its source'

False.

Where did all the biblical mythology come from, the koran contains plagiarized biblical mythology?

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

Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology. Stories about Musa (Moses)[1] and Ibrahim (Abraham)[2] form parts of Islam's scriptures

 

[outhouse]

That's his son

Then you FAIL

Pieces of the koran are dated to possibly before muhammad was even born

 

[outhouse]

wikipedia is not a substitute for scholarly enquiry.

Fail.

It is sourced to scholars and professors.

 

[outhouse]

Yet base your entire argument on it.

Nope.

I study the traditions, before i use them, not literally.

So my arguments are not based on literal interpretation.

 

[outhouse]

The text did not come from nowhere, it did not come out of thin air. Muhammad had to be taught this information, he factually had to have a teacher.

the koran has copied mythology from the bible. That means we look at who muhammad knew that had biblical knowledge and wrote in Arabic.

 

[outhouse]

Raheb Bouhayra add him to the list as other possible teachers

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Found him when he was lost and returned him to his family though, not raised him.



The problem is that you are taking the Sirah as being accurate, then choosing to reinterpret it to suit a personal belief. It's not really a rigorous approach to academic history, more a hopeful speculation.

Do you consider the Sirah to be an accurate reflection of Muhammed's life? If not why should you choose this aspect to trust other than the idea that it makes a nice sounding story? What milieu do you think the Quran was 'revealed' in?

Given the lack of evidence, why is this view the 'most plausible' amongst the non-traditional approaches to the history?

Admittedly these aren't the only two plausible explanations of how the Quran was created; but which seems more likely?

That Muhammed was:the best student of a relative who

• corrupted Biblical verses and wrote them in Arabic;
• was a heretic;
• taught Muhammed what was in the Bible from an early age.

or;

that Muhammed was

• a well-to-do child from an affluent family who somehow could never afford a learned man to tutor the boy in reading & writing despite living in the most influential trading city on the Arabian Peninsula;
• had the Quran revealed to him by an angel - and that Quran just happened to take on the form of verses & stories plagiarised from early Abrahamic texts that Muhammed had never been able to read - conveniently rendering the Quran's creation a miracle;
• Muhammed was gradually revealed the Quran, allowing him to tailor newly-revealed verses to his needs & current situation (like when he had to attack people).

Occam's Razor would suggest the former is more likely.

 

[outhouse]

The whole concept of muahammad being the new moses is plagiarized form the bible.

 

[Augustus]

Admittedly these aren't the only two plausible explanations of how the Quran was created; but which seems more likely?

If I agreed with the traditional narrative then my religion wouldn't be 'none'. But you are limiting the 2 choices to the traditional Islamic narrative and a narrow subset of the Jewish Christian revisionist hypothesis. It is a totally false dichotomy.

As I've said, both rely entirely on the Sirah for their plausibility. Waraqa serves a rhetorical purpose in the Sirah, which is another reason to be sceptical to some degree.

You also have to be very sceptical of a tradition that says only a small number of people were familiar with scripture, when the Quran itself assumes a high degree of audience familiarity with scripture.

The view presented by Outhouse is a simplification of a view that is on the fringes of revisionist scholarship. As the quotes from Dye and Bowering show, it is plausible but speculative and basically unprovable.

If you are interested in the range of scholarship there are plenty of articles that can be accessed without access to academic databases (and even more if you do). I can give you a few recommendations if you would like (or a lot if you are very interested).

 

[Augustus]

Supernatural claims are not credible claims. SO

Who's making those in this debate?

False.

Where did all the biblical mythology come from, the koran contains plagiarized biblical mythology?

It contains aspects of the Bible but also aspects of non-cannonical Gospels, Midrashic teachings, non-scriptual Christian myth (Alexander romance, & sleepers of Ephasus) and Christian Church orders (Didascalia Apostolorum), etc.

Thus no credible scholar would make the statement "its source was the Bible", as it is so much more than that.

The text did not come from nowhere, it did not come out of thin air. Muhammad had to be taught this information, he factually had to have a teacher.

Factually, that teacher didn't factually have to factually be Waraqa.

Factually, there are factually many factually different explanations that factually don't claim to be unquestionably factually correct.

Pieces of the koran has been dated to the time of Waraka just before muhammad was born. So we have some strong evidence muhammad did not start the traditions.

Then you FAIL

Pieces of the koran are dated to possibly before muhammad was even born

Again, instead of being closed-minded and intent on saying FAIL or , perhaps you should pay attention and actually learn something.

If they predated Muhammed then they would fall right into the timescale of Zaid bin Amr who you have now twice incorrectly identified because you are too 'wiki happy'.

Also as regards your dating:

Nevertheless, the dating of these manuscripts has proven to be highly problematic and controversial. Suffice to say that the process of radiocarbon dating does not seem to be working accurately on these materials. For instance, one such manuscript, now in Birmingham, England, has been given a date range that places it before Muhammad began his religious movement.4 While the possibility that the Qur’an actually predated Muhammad is not entirely out of the question, the dating of this manuscript is most likely inaccurate, as are the early datings of the manuscripts in Tübingen, Leiden, and Yemen.5

The problem, it would seem, is that radiocarbon dating in the medieval period is only accurate when it can be calibrated by tree ring data, particularly from oak trees. Such data is wanting for the medieval Mediterranean or Near East, and the data from the northern hemisphere that has been used to calibrate these tests was taken from Ireland and North America. If one were to instead use the data from the southern hemisphere (and we are talking about Arabia here), I am told by those more expert in this procedure than me that very different datings would result. For the time being, then, we must remain skeptical of these sensationalist findings and their often uncritical dissemination in the popular media. S Shoemaker - Biblical Criticism and the Qur’an: The Hour Has Drawn Nigh http://www.mizanproject.org/biblical-criticism-and-the-quran-the-hour-has-drawn-nigh/

Who is said to be the first one to call the man a prophet?

Sirah

We have traditions of a life long relationship between waraka and muhammad, and that IS EXACTLY what it takes to compile traditions in the koran

Sirah

Fail.

It is sourced to scholars and professors.

So you are arguing that wikipedia is a substitute for scholarly enquiry?

You really do go on a lot about your credentials as a historian, now you are saying you only need to read wikipedia.

Interesting...

Nope.

I study the traditions, before i use them, not literally.

So my arguments are not based on literal interpretation.

They aren't based on contemporary critical scholarship either.

So, what sources would you recommend? You must have read dozens, a few good ones to support your view would be nice.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If you are interested in the range of scholarship there are plenty of articles that can be accessed without access to academic databases (and even more if you do). I can give you a few recommendations if you would like (or a lot if you are very interested).

Would you, please?

 

[Augustus]

Would you, please?

No problem.

Might take a few days to get round to it and find the links especially given drinking/hangover likelihood of the next few days. Doubt you'll be in too much of a reading mood anyway

Will post a new thread somewhere and tag you in it.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No problem.

Might take a few days to get round to it and find the links especially given drinking/hangover likelihood of the next few days. Doubt you'll be in too much of a reading mood anyway

Will post a new thread somewhere and tag you in it.

Take your time; I'm in no rush. I trust the holidays are treating you well?

 

[outhouse]

Thus no credible scholar would make the statement "its source was the Bible", as it is so much more than that.

False. It follows the Abrahamic tradition almost in full.

No one states it is the only source, your reading into it and then defending it just like an apologist defends mythology.

 

[outhouse]

that teacher didn't factually have to factually be Waraqa.

No one said he factually did anything.

The odds of a family member who was a priest who had a lifelong relationship with the man, are highly probably that he taught him something. That is what priest do

This is with a high degree of certainty. Not fact.

So you are arguing that wikipedia is a substitute for scholarly enquiry?

Your not a scholar, it more then good enough for you.

that radiocarbon dating in

Spoken like a muslim creationist.

Sirah

So what?

It is only historical where historicity can be determined. It is not credible on its own, nor is it devoid of possible history.

But you have no credible knowledge or education in determining what is and is not historical, based on your own words.

 

[outhouse]

You have not refuted this in any way.

The text did not come from nowhere, it did not come out of thin air. Muhammad had to be taught this information, he factually had to have a teacher.

#1 YES OR NO?????????


the koran has copied mythology from the bible. That means we look at who muhammad knew that had biblical knowledge and wrote in Arabic.

#2 YES OR NO????????? and then who do we know about?