If Allah knows what is in each heart, why does he have to test people?

[KWED]

Yes, the one being tested learns something when they fail regardless of whether or not they know they are being tested. And theologically, they do eventually find out the result anyway.

If the person does not know they are being tested and does not know the result of the test, then they do not acquire any previously unknown information.

Both of them specifically reject that facile idea common on the internet that the author is simply "rehashing" old concepts.

They also both reject idea that the audience were dumb pagans who couldn't see this obvious plagiarism (another facile internet trope), and assume a high degree of religious literacy on behalf of the audience.

And as a sectarian work of rhetoric and theological commentary, why would people not assume arguments would be dissected and challenged?

Have you read the Quran? It is baffling to fathom how anyone could read it and claim that it isn't based on existing beliefs and customs. It even says as much itself!

As for the claim that the majority of people in 7th century Arabia were more informed and sophisticated than those of today, that's obvious nonsense as well.

 

[Augustus]

If the person does not know they are being tested and does not know the result of the test, then they do not acquire any previously unknown information.

They may work out they are being tested, or they may realise when they were faced with a challenge they rose to the occasion or failed miserably. It's not rocket science. And even if they do not, they find out on the day of judgement so it's irrelevant.

And these only matter if you take it rank literally rather than figuratively. And we know it's absolutely fine to take parts of the Quran figuratively.

Other than it fails in every way, it's a pretty good argument.

Have you read the Quran? It is baffling to fathom how anyone could read it and claim that it isn't based on existing beliefs and customs. It even says as much itself!

The NT is based on the OT, but it would be incredibly dumb to describe the NT as simply rehashing the OT.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail is based on the Arthurian legend but it would be incredibly dumb to describe it as simply rehashing the Arthurian legend.

Intertextuality/metatextuality is not simply "rehashing".

As for the claim that the majority of people in 7th century Arabia were more informed and sophisticated than those of today, that's obvious nonsense as well.

The text is obviously aimed at people who are already familiar with biblical and para-biblical narratives rather than ignorant pagans.

And I don't know why you think it is "obvious nonsense" that the people who lived in the late antique Middle East better understood late antique Middle Eastern religious, linguistic and sectarian issues than 21st century Western folk on the internet.

One of the major problems with modern scholarship on early Islam is that lack of information we actually have.

 

[Augustus]

Because this so-called perfect god didn't see fit to provide the historical context. That is what makes such commands open-ended and not tied to a specific point in time or a specific circumstance.

In which case, as I see it, there are 2 meaningful ways to study and/or critique it:

1. What various Muslims do or have believed and why
2. A historical analysis to try to identify the actual, real-world context it emerged in


What you seem to be doing is:

3. How I would personally interpret the Quran based on my own idiosyncratic criteria even though this reflects neither how Muslims interpret it or the real-world context it emerged in.

1. The overall tone and style of each period are distinct.
2. None of the Meccan surahs were event-driven. Are were all just believe-or-burn warnings delivered with mind-numbing repetition.
3. The introduction of militarism and killing "fee sabil allah" are clearly separated between the two periods.
4. The introduction of rules specific to Islam are clearly separated between the two periods.

If we assume there are 2 distinct categories (and there is scholarly debate over whether this is accurate), why should we assume they relate to Mecca and Medina? That is simply a product of classical Islamic theology which you acknowledge as a later development.

5. Many references to battles of known date and to relations with Mecca appear only in Yathrib verses.

Where do we know these dates from?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That's not what the Quran says though, so on what do you base that claim?

Verse 3:7, says, some of its verses are symbolic and unclear,...no one knows their interpretations except for God. Then a valid question, is, are the verses regarding Day of Resurrection, Hell and Heaven symbolic or literal? How do we know that?
Then in verses 7:52 and 53, it says, are you waiting for its interpretation, and final fulfillment? Its final interpretation and fulfillment will come....

From all this, it can be concluded that, the actual means of Hell or Hevean, are not know until it is revealed or fulfilled on the Judgement Day. Historically Many Muslim mystics also, did not interpret Hell and Heaven literally. Such as Rumi.

 

[KWED]

Verse 3:7, says, some of its verses are symbolic and unclear,...no one knows their interpretations except for God. Then a valid question, is, are the verses regarding Day of Resurrection, Hell and Heaven symbolic or literal? How do we know that?
Then in verses 7:52 and 53, it says, are you waiting for its interpretation, and final fulfillment? Its final interpretation and fulfillment will come....

From all this, it can be concluded that, the actual means of Hell or Hevean, are not know until it is revealed or fulfilled on the Judgement Day. Historically Many Muslim mystics also, did not interpret Hell and Heaven literally. Such as Rumi.

If you are claiming that even verses that give clear descriptions or instructions can be ambiguous symbolism and metaphor, you render the entire book meaningless and unintelligible.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

If you are claiming that even verses that give clear descriptions or instructions can be ambiguous symbolism and metaphor, you render the entire book meaningless and unintelligible.

Right. No, I am not saying the entire Book is symbolic.
But the Quran itself denotes that verses of Judgement Day are symbolic, because the term that it uses in verse 7:52-52, (Taweel), tells us so. Also, the Term "Fire" as I showed, in other verses is metaphorical, so, it is unclear if the Hell fire is also metaphorical or literal. We would know that only on the Day of Judgement, which according to Quran comes 1000 years after Revelation of Islam.

 

[KWED]

They may work out they are being tested, or they may realise when they were faced with a challenge they rose to the occasion or failed miserably. It's not rocket science. And even if they do not, they find out on the day of judgement so it's irrelevant.

And these only matter if you take it rank literally rather than figuratively. And we know it's absolutely fine to take parts of the Quran figuratively.

Other than it fails in every way, it's a pretty good argument.

In the context of an infallibly omniscient god, there can be no test. Whatever lesson a person might learn from from a trial that god puts them through in meaningless because that outcome was always inevitable, especially as the Islamic god determines every outcome by decree.

The NT is based on the OT, but it would be incredibly dumb to describe the NT as simply rehashing the OT.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail is based on the Arthurian legend but it would be incredibly dumb to describe it as simply rehashing the Arthurian legend.

Intertextuality/metatextuality is not simply "rehashing".



The text is obviously aimed at people who are already familiar with biblical and para-biblical narratives rather than ignorant pagans.

And I don't know why you think it is "obvious nonsense" that the people who lived in the late antique Middle East better understood late antique Middle Eastern religious, linguistic and sectarian issues than 21st century Western folk on the internet.

One of the major problems with modern scholarship on early Islam is that lack of information we actually have.

But the NT isn't a reworking of the OT in the way that the Quran is. No one has ever made that claim afaiaa.
If you read it, you will see many of the same myths simply retold with Arab names. The Quran even admits that the Bible was god's earlier attempt to get the series across. To argue that the Quran is not based to a degree on the OT is simply incoherent.

Of course 7th century Arabs understood 7th century Arab life better than 21st century Europeans (for example) but that doesn't mean they were more capable of rational thought or critical analysis.
Do you also think that 9th century Britons were better analytical thinkers than 21st century Britons? Of course not. It is "obvious nonsense".

 

[KWED]

Right. No, I am not saying the entire Book is symbolic.
But the Quran itself denotes that verses of Judgement Day are symbolic, because the term that it uses in verse 7:52-52, (Taweel), tells us so.

7:52 doesn't say anything of the sort.

Also, the Term "Fire" as I showed, in other verses is metaphorical, so, it is unclear if the Hell fire is also metaphorical or literal.

There are many, detailed, specific descriptions of the tortures of hell. Are you claiming that every one of those is metaphorical and that there is not painful punishment for those who reject Islam?
If so, what was the purpose of those lurid descriptions of the torments of Jahannam?

We would know that only on the Day of Judgement, which according to Quran comes 1000 years after Revelation of Islam.

So Judgement Day was 400 years ago?

 

[stevecanuck]

Did you want to say something?

 

[stevecanuck]

In which case, as I see it, there are 2 meaningful ways to study and/or critique it:

1. What various Muslims do or have believed and why
2. A historical analysis to try to identify the actual, real-world context it emerged in


What you seem to be doing is:

3. How I would personally interpret the Quran based on my own idiosyncratic criteria even though this reflects neither how Muslims interpret it or the real-world context it emerged in.

If we assume there are 2 distinct categories (and there is scholarly debate over whether this is accurate), why should we assume they relate to Mecca and Medina? That is simply a product of classical Islamic theology which you acknowledge as a later development.

What? Trying to make sense of your questions is becoming a chore.

 

[Augustus]

But the NT isn't a reworking of the OT in the way that the Quran is. No one has ever made that claim afaiaa.

The Quran isn't a rehashing of the OT either.

If you read it, you will see many of the same myths simply retold with Arab names. The Quran even admits that the Bible was god's earlier attempt to get the series across. To argue that the Quran is not based to a degree on the OT is simply incoherent.

That the Quran engages in an intertextual and metatextual dialogue with the OT, NT, parabiblical traditions, sectarian narratives and other contemporary myths and legends doesn't mean it is is simply a "rehashing" of the OT.

This point was explicitly noted in the texts cited earlier and refelcts the secular scholary consensus.

Of course 7th century Arabs understood 7th century Arab life better than 21st century Europeans (for example) but that doesn't mean they were more capable of rational thought or critical analysis.

It likely means they likely understood the language and context better than some chap on the internet using a translation and having little to no contextual knowledge while seeking to confirm their own prejudices.

 

[Augustus]

It is what you do though, so might as well be honest with yourself

What? Trying to make sense of your questions is becoming a chore.

Yes it's apparent you struggle with the basics regarding what we know from the Quran and what relies on other theological texts written centuries after the fact, hence you seek to avoid simple questions.

How do you know they relate to his time in Mecca and Medina without relying on the traditions you have already called unreliable and post-Quranic and thus problematic?

They could be "early period" or "late period" for example, but why should we equate them with Mecca and Medina specifically other than it is Islamic tradition to do so?

5. Many references to battles of known date and to relations with Mecca appear only in Yathrib verses.

And you avoided again (remember what you said earlier about dodging questions being a sign inability to respond with facts).

What battles of known dates are these? Which sources tell us about them?

 

[stevecanuck]

It is what you do though, so might as well be honest with yourself



Yes it's apparent you struggle with the basics regarding what we know from the Quran and what relies on other theological texts written centuries after the fact, hence you seek to avoid simple questions.

How do you know they relate to his time in Mecca and Medina without relying on the traditions you have already called unreliable and post-Quranic and thus problematic?

They could be "early period" or "late period" for example, but why should we equate them with Mecca and Medina specifically other than it is Islamic tradition to do so?



And you avoided again (remember what you said earlier about dodging questions being a sign inability to respond with facts).

What battles of known dates are these? Which sources tell us about them?

The main difference in tone and content is noticeable in terms of pre-hajj and post-hajj - or are you going to pretend we don't have a handle on that? The battles referred to are all post-hajj (ALL battles were post-hajj). You seem intent on having a debate about chronology. If so, start a thread and I'll join in. For now, we're done.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

7:52 doesn't say anything of the sort.

"We have given them the Book; We have spelled it out knowingly as a guideline and mercy for folk who believe. Do they look for (anything) except its interpretation? The Day its interpretation comes up, the ones who forgot it earlier will say, "The Messengers of Our Lord already came with the Truth; so, have we any intercessors, (for) then they would intercede for us, or will we be turned back to do other than what we were doing?" They have already lost their (own) selves, and what they were fabricating has erred away from them"
7:52-53 (Translated by Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali)

So, according to this verse, its interpretation comes, then those people who understand its true interpretation, would realize what Quran has promised is true.
Some translators, say, its fulfilment comes (instead of interpretation). That is also a correct and possible translation.

See, the point is, in verse 3:7, it says, some verses are metaphorical and only God knows their interpretation. So, a valid question is, what is the point of Book of God having verses that only God knows its interpretation. Well, a good answer is, verse 7:53, where it promises that its interpretation will be given in its own time.

There are many, detailed, specific descriptions of the tortures of hell. Are you claiming that every one of those is metaphorical and that there is not painful punishment for those who reject Islam?
If so, what was the purpose of those lurid descriptions of the torments of Jahannam?

Yes, because if all those event were literally to happen, how come the Quran says, even after the Day of Judgement comes people are still unaware of it:

"And warn them, [O Muhammad], of the Day of Regret, when the matter will be concluded; and [yet], they are in [a state of] heedlessness, and they do not believe." 19:39

See, even after the Day of Judgement comes they are still heedless and do not believe. This tells us, the signs of Day of Judgement are not to be interpreted literally, because if literally the stars fall or darkens, heaven is opened, and Fire of Hell appears, then surely all people will see it and believe.
But each of these have a symbolic meaning. Just like, for example when a man saw in a dream 7 fat cows and 7 skinny cows, its fulfilment was literally 7 cows.. but these cows represented years. (See story of Joseph in 12 th surrah of Quran, or the Old Testament).

So Judgement Day was 400 years ago?

"And they ask you to hasten the punishment. But never will fail Allah (in) His Promise. And indeed, a day with your Lord (is) like a thousand year(s) of what you count" 22:47


So, this verse is alluding that the Judgement Day comes in a 1000 years.
The question is, from when, the 1000 years period is to be counted. The following verse tells us:

"He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon" 32:5


This verse tells us, first God directs the ordinances from Heaven to earth. Once this is done, then 1000 years after, the Judgement Comes.
The flow of guidance according to Shia tradition continued after Quran, through the Imams. The 11th Imams passed away in year 260 AH. That means the ordinances were directed till year 260AH. So, if you add 1000 years, it comes to the year 1260 AH, in Islamic calander, which is 1844 in Christian calender.

 

[Augustus]

The main difference in tone and content is noticeable in terms of pre-hajj and post-hajj - or are you going to pretend we don't have a handle on that?

Hajj?

You mean Hijra?

We can tell there was some kind of event that led to the dating system changes for some Arabs (the extent to which they were Muslims and saw themselves as following a distinct religion is debatable).

If we want to say the hijra was Muhammad escaping persecution by pagans, etc. as Islamic tradition says he did we need to rely on the same theological sources that were written centuries after the fact and that you have said were unreliable. It also has a clear theological purpose with drawing parallels to Moses.

It may have happened, but it's hardly an established historical fact.

What do you think constitutes a "clear handle"?

The battles referred to are all post-hajj (ALL battles were post-hajj). You seem intent on having a debate about chronology. If so, start a thread and I'll join in. For now, we're done.

You miss the point, it's not about chronology, but that you keep conflating what is in the Quran with what is only known from theological sources that were written centuries after the fact.

You then deny you are doing this, but are unable to explain where the information is from which is why you keep dodging simple questions.

Where are you getting these battle dates from, and how do you know the verses relate to his time in Mecca and Medina?

 

[KWED]

"We have given them the Book; We have spelled it out knowingly as a guideline and mercy for folk who believe. Do they look for (anything) except its interpretation? The Day its interpretation comes up, the ones who forgot it earlier will say, "The Messengers of Our Lord already came with the Truth; so, have we any intercessors, (for) then they would intercede for us, or will we be turned back to do other than what we were doing?" They have already lost their (own) selves, and what they were fabricating has erred away from them"
7:52-53 (Translated by Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali)

So, according to this verse, its interpretation comes, then those people who understand its true interpretation, would realize what Quran has promised is true.
Some translators, say, its fulfilment comes (instead of interpretation). That is also a correct and possible translation.

See, the point is, in verse 3:7, it says, some verses are metaphorical and only God knows their interpretation. So, a valid question is, what is the point of Book of God having verses that only God knows its interpretation. Well, a good answer is, verse 7:53, where it promises that its interpretation will be given in its own time.



Yes, because if all those event were literally to happen, how come the Quran says, even after the Day of Judgement comes people are still unaware of it:

"And warn them, [O Muhammad], of the Day of Regret, when the matter will be concluded; and [yet], they are in [a state of] heedlessness, and they do not believe." 19:39

See, even after the Day of Judgement comes they are still heedless and do not believe. This tells us, the signs of Day of Judgement are not to be interpreted literally, because if literally the stars fall or darkens, heaven is opened, and Fire of Hell appears, then surely all people will see it and believe.
But each of these have a symbolic meaning. Just like, for example when a man saw in a dream 7 fat cows and 7 skinny cows, its fulfilment was literally 7 cows.. but these cows represented years. (See story of Joseph in 12 th surrah of Quran, or the Old Testament).



"And they ask you to hasten the punishment. But never will fail Allah (in) His Promise. And indeed, a day with your Lord (is) like a thousand year(s) of what you count" 22:47


So, this verse is alluding that the Judgement Day comes in a 1000 years.
The question is, from when, the 1000 years period is to be counted. The following verse tells us:

"He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon" 32:5


This verse tells us, first God directs the ordinances from Heaven to earth. Once this is done, then 1000 years after, the Judgement Comes.
The flow of guidance according to Shia tradition continued after Quran, through the Imams. The 11th Imams passed away in year 260 AH. That means the ordinances were directed till year 260AH. So, if you add 1000 years, it comes to the year 1260 AH, in Islamic calander, which is 1844 in Christian calender.

You didn't mention 7:53.

But if the true meaning of the Quran can't be known until judgement day, what use is it as a guide for people before then?

which is 1844 in Christian calender

So judgement day was in 1844? It seems to have gone under the radar somewhat.

 

[KWED]

The Quran isn't a rehashing of the OT either.

WADR, you should read it. It contains many of exactly the same myths and stories. You could claim this is purely coincidence, of course.

That the Quran engages in an intertextual and metatextual dialogue with the OT, NT, parabiblical traditions, sectarian narratives and other contemporary myths and legends .

Gosh, some lovely words there, but why not save yourself some time and just say "based on the Bible and other beliefs and customs"?

It likely means they likely understood the language and context better than some chap on the internet using a translation and having little to no contextual knowledge while seeking to confirm their own prejudices.

The issue is whether they critically analysed the work as a whole, rather than accepting the words of a prophet from a default position of superstition and supernatural belief.
And the answer is obviously not.

Look, I understand that (for some reason) you think the Quran is a fully original work of great literary worth, and that 7th century Arabs spent their free time critically assessing the content and implication of Muhammad's revelations. However, evidence and reason suggest otherwise.

 

[Augustus]

WADR, you should read it. It contains many of exactly the same myths and stories. You could claim this is purely coincidence, of course.

Rehash: reuse old ideas or material without significant change.

From a literary point of view, [the Quran is not a] a servile borrowing of Syriac literary traditions – far from that: they are adapted, not without creativity, to the context of Arabic language and literature
Traces of Bilingualism/Multilingualism in Qur’ānic Arabic - G Dye

"Even a brief perusal of the Arabic Qurʾān is sufficient to convince the first-time reader that the text presumes a high degree of scriptural literacy on the part of its audience... What is more, there are numerous echoes in the Qurʾān of non- biblical, Jewish and Christian traditions, some of them otherwise found in so-called apocryphal or pseudepigraphic biblical texts... So prominent is this scriptural material in the body of the Islamic scripture that one twentieth-century Western scholar of Islam was prompted to speak of the Qurʾān as “a truncated, Arabic edition of the Bible.” But in fact the Qurʾān is much more than just an evocation of earlier biblical narratives; it incorporates the recollection of those earlier scriptures into its own call to belief, to Islam and its proper observance, as it says, in good, clarifying Arabic S. Griffiths - The Bible in Arabic

The Qur’ān’s complex manipulation of the Aramaic Gospel Traditions is, furthermore, neither accidental nor haphazard. It is rather, quite deliberate and sophisticated. It would behoove readers to realize a basic fact concerning dogmatic re-articulation as we have laid it out herein, namely that the Qur’ān excercises complete control over its challenging or re-appropriation of passages from the Aramaic Gospels—not vice versa. This is evident both implicitly and explicitly within the text...

The point is that such a dexterous command of Biblical and post-Biblical literature as a whole, and such strong volition on the part of the Qur’ān’s authorship, is central to our understanding of its dogmatic re- articulation of the Aramic Gospels Tradition.

The Quran and the Aramaic Gospel Tradition - E El Badawi

Gosh, some lovely words there, but why not save yourself some time and just say "based on the Bible and other beliefs and customs"?

Because it is more accurate than saying "OMG Muhammad done a plagiarism for the dumb pagans innit LOL rehash rehash!"

The issue is whether they critically analysed the work as a whole, rather than accepting the words of a prophet from a default position of superstition and supernatural belief.
And the answer is obviously not.

The words in question are in consecutive sentences. This hardly required a complex textual analysis to work out if it made sense.

Look, I understand that (for some reason) you think the Quran is a fully original work of great literary worth, and that 7th century Arabs spent their free time critically assessing the content and implication of Muhammad's revelations. However, evidence and reason suggest otherwise.

You certainly don't seem familiar with any evidence, and if you think the above is a remotely accurate restatement of my position, you aren't doing so great with the reason either

 

[stevecanuck]

Hajj?

You mean Hijra?

Brain fart. Yes I mean Hijra

We can tell there was some kind of event that led to the dating system changes for some Arabs (the extent to which they were Muslims and saw themselves as following a distinct religion is debatable).

If we want to say the hijra was Muhammad escaping persecution by pagans, etc. as Islamic tradition says he did we need to rely on the same theological sources that were written centuries after the fact and that you have said were unreliable. It also has a clear theological purpose with drawing parallels to Moses.

It may have happened, but it's hardly an established historical fact.

What do you think constitutes a "clear handle"?

You still on this red herring? I never said they were unreliable in terms of getting the general history right. Never. Hadiths were not 'written' centuries after the fact. They were compiled later. Big difference.

Since the 7th century, millions of man-hours have been put in by Islamic scholars to establish early Islamic history and to try to make theological sense out of the mess they call the Qur'an. If you're aware of any sources that claim the Hijra was not in 622 (I don't care if it was September 24 or not) or thereabouts, then present them.

You miss the point, it's not about chronology, but that you keep conflating what is in the Quran with what is only known from theological sources that were written centuries after the fact.

You then deny you are doing this, but are unable to explain where the information is from which is why you keep dodging simple questions.

Where are you getting these battle dates from, and how do you know the verses relate to his time in Mecca and Medina?

Read the two underlined bits, and tell me your not just trolling.

Every single source I've used agrees to a similar chronology.

End of thread highjack. If you have any comments about the actual subject of this thread (which has zero to do with timing) I'll get back to you. Otherwise, you're on your own. I look forward to your thread on chronology.

 

[stevecanuck]

WADR, you should read it. It contains many of exactly the same myths and stories. You could claim this is purely coincidence, of course.

When I reread it in chronological order, that really jumped out. The Medina surahs introduced almost nothing new to Abraham's religion, except of course that your faithful servant was now the new prophet (Let the bells ring out and the banners fly). Mohamed's recruitment method boiled down to endless repetition of OT yarns and threats of eternal fire. All the rules we know and love about Islam were introduced in Yathrib.

Gosh, some lovely words there, but why not save yourself some time and just say "based on the Bible and other beliefs and customs"?

He's trying to impress you with his book larnin'.