Islam and the Qur'an - its very origin and veracity

[Grandliseur]

In discussions with Muslim, I have often been told how the Qur'an is superior to the Bible because of the little variance found throughout history in the Qur'ans existing.

The following is not for most, since the video is large. Nonetheless, for the few who might be interested in this subject, this video tells us with certainty where Islam originated, why we have qiblas or kiblahs that change direction (prayer walls facing the sacred place in Mecca) depending on their age, and also about the veracity of the Qur'an itself.

If you have extra time and like historical accuracy, this video is for you:
Even Muslim might value this information.

 

[YmirGF]

Downloading for later viewing.

Looks interesting. Would love to get @Augustus thinking about it.

I thought this intriguing from the Wiki page about Dan Gibson:

Gibson's book was received very reluctantly by representatives of Islamic studies. One reason for this is Gibson's lack of professional scholarship. This indeed influenced parts of his research, such as his premature assumption that the Library of Alexandria had been destroyed by the Arabs. Another reason is that Islamicists are very careful to agree on hypotheses concerning early Islam because of the impact on today's Islamic world even if the case seems to be clear. An example for this reluctant reception is Prof. Michael Lecker's review of Gibson's Qur'ānic Geography in the Journal of Semitic Studies from 2014, ending with the telling sentence: "This book’s imaginative writing may have its followers, perhaps even in academic circles. But the study of early Islamic history is better served by small steps, one at a time."[5] - Prof. Daniel C. Waugh wrote a sceptical review in The Silk Road, in which he criticises many sloppy mistakes in Gibson's book but leaves open whether Gibson's central claim of early mosques pointing towards Petra is right or wrong.[6]

 

[Grandliseur]

Downloading for later viewing.

Looks interesting. Would love to get @Augustus thinking about it.

I thought this intriguing from the Wiki page about Dan Gibson:

Gibson's book was received very reluctantly by representatives of Islamic studies. One reason for this is Gibson's lack of professional scholarship. This indeed influenced parts of his research, such as his premature assumption that the Library of Alexandria had been destroyed by the Arabs. Another reason is that Islamicists are very careful to agree on hypotheses concerning early Islam because of the impact on today's Islamic world even if the case seems to be clear. An example for this reluctant reception is Prof. Michael Lecker's review of Gibson's Qur'ānic Geography in the Journal of Semitic Studies from 2014, ending with the telling sentence: "This book’s imaginative writing may have its followers, perhaps even in academic circles. But the study of early Islamic history is better served by small steps, one at a time."[5] - Prof. Daniel C. Waugh wrote a sceptical review in The Silk Road, in which he criticises many sloppy mistakes in Gibson's book but leaves open whether Gibson's central claim of early mosques pointing towards Petra is right or wrong.[6]

Do I detect a hint of the green monster in the professor's review!
The conclusions of Mr. Gibson are surely going to be hard for many to accept. Still, when I looked at his evidence of the site of origin, Becca, it was compelling to me with the many varied details that matched the descriptions in Muslim writings.

 

[socharlie]

The winners rewrite history...

 

[Grandliseur]

The winners rewrite history...

That's how it usually goes. It is, however, interesting to see what was.

 

[socharlie]

That's how it usually goes. It is, however, interesting to see what was.

It looks like typical story which can be found in any religion. Christianity has seen similar story. Even official History of the Communist Party of the USSR was changed due to political winds.

 

[Augustus]

Looks interesting. Would love to get @Augustus thinking about it.

One thing he argues is that the Umayyads were the Petra 'traditionalists', and the Abassids the Mecca 'reformers' who later won the day and created the new Qibla.

The Umayyad dynasty continued in Spain though and by this point orchestrating an empire wide realignment along with places outside the empire would be somewhat challenging. Mid 8th C seems a bit too late.

His theory about all early mosques pointing to Petra presupposes a high degree of accuracy in alignment, which I'm not sure existed at the time. Would be interesting to see further research though.

There is also a story about a mosque in Samarkand where Hanafis prayed west and Shafi'is prayed south before compromising on Southwest (presumably 9th C). This might suggest that directional precision was not expected to a high degree, as long as you were praying in the general direction.

The Quran is a theologically sophisticated text that presupposes a high degree of knowledge of late antique religious discourse which does seem better suited to a less parochial environment than Mecca, and one that had strong Syriac influences. The script of the Quran also suits a North Arabian context better according to this, as well as some of the verses in the text itself.

On the other hand there is also early 'Islamic' graffiti in Central Arabia. The most intricate features inside the Dome of the Rock seem to be directed towards Mecca also.

Northern Arabian tribes had been serving in the imperial forces of both Rome and Persia for centuries (possibly even forming the majority of Roman forces by the time of the conquests). Islamic tradition has early Muslims fleeing to Christian Ethiopia, which was a Roman ally (possibly fleeing from Persian aligned Jewish Arabs??).

This "Roman connection" could provide a conduit for Syriac religious affairs to reach further into Arabia than might be expected I suppose.

Without more substantial evidence I'd still be inclined to view Jerusalem as the original Qibla, especially seeing as Muhammad seems to have been most aligned with Moses in scripture. It seems most likely that changes in the Qibla would have occurred prior to the 1st Fitnah as it would encounter greater logistical difficulties the longer it took after that.

The 'reification' of Islamic identity seems to have occurred under abd al-Malik. Not that he invented it, but the historical record pre/post Malik is markedly different. Again making a Qibla change after this point less likely.

Like most things on this issue, some evidence can be seen to point in one way, while other evidence seems to point in another.

 

[YmirGF]

One thing he argues is that the Umayyads were the Petra 'traditionalists', and the Abassids the Mecca 'reformers' who later won the day and created the new Qibla.

The Umayyad dynasty continued in Spain though and by this point orchestrating an empire wide realignment along with places outside the empire would be somewhat challenging. Mid 8th C seems a bit too late.

His theory about all early mosques pointing to Petra presupposes a high degree of accuracy in alignment, which I'm not sure existed at the time. Would be interesting to see further research though.

There is also a story about a mosque in Samarkand where Hanafis prayed west and Shafi'is prayed south before compromising on Southwest (presumably 9th C). This might suggest that directional precision was not expected to a high degree, as long as you were praying in the general direction.

The Quran is a theologically sophisticated text that presupposes a high degree of knowledge of late antique religious discourse which does seem better suited to a less parochial environment than Mecca, and one that had strong Syriac influences. The script of the Quran also suits a North Arabian context better according to this, as well as some of the verses in the text itself.

On the other hand there is also early 'Islamic' graffiti in Central Arabia. The most intricate features inside the Dome of the Rock seem to be directed towards Mecca also.

Northern Arabian tribes had been serving in the imperial forces of both Rome and Persia for centuries (possibly even forming the majority of Roman forces by the time of the conquests). Islamic tradition has early Muslims fleeing to Christian Ethiopia, which was a Roman ally (possibly fleeing from Persian aligned Jewish Arabs??).

This "Roman connection" could provide a conduit for Syriac religious affairs to reach further into Arabia than might be expected I suppose.

Without more substantial evidence I'd still be inclined to view Jerusalem as the original Qibla, especially seeing as Muhammad seems to have been most aligned with Moses in scripture. It seems most likely that changes in the Qibla would have occurred prior to the 1st Fitnah as it would encounter greater logistical difficulties the longer it took after that.

The 'reification' of Islamic identity seems to have occurred under abd al-Malik. Not that he invented it, but the historical record pre/post Malik is markedly different. Again making a Qibla change after this point less likely.

Like most things on this issue, some evidence can be seen to point in one way, while other evidence seems to point in another.

Thanks for this, @Augustus

Now that I have watched the documentary, I am intrigued, but also have a quasi-Eric Von Daniken feel about Gibson's claims. I'm more inclined to go with the idea that they were just not that sophisticated to get things lined up properly in the early years. Still, some interesting oddities were brought to light. I thought the stone markers around Petra were interesting given that no such markers exist in Mecca.

@Grandliseur thanks for sharing the video but I just don't think I'd break out the popcorn just yet. It would not occur to me to use this material as a talking point to Muslims as nothing short of archaeologists/historians would possibly be able to give any kind of educated reply.