Origins of the Quran

[Augustus]

As I stated it means NO CREDIBILITY it is apologetics. Its just like YEC studies. It is theological in nature NOT historical

Sorry, said I wouldn't reply but this is too funny.

Google it and read as far as the 2nd paragraph of the wikipedia article this time

It is your source.

You mean an essay from a book written in honour of Patricia Crone, published by Brill, edited by (amongst others) Robert Hoyland.

Do you understand why that means it is probably not 'worthless'?

Do you understand that in academic disciplines it is better to say 'I don't know' than to make something up just for the sake of it?

If I may, I think what Outhouse is trying to convey is that Muhammad most likely absorbed information about Judaism and Christianity from perhaps a variety of sources.

He really isn't.

Your view is far too nuanced and sensible.

 

[outhouse]

He really isn't.

I am. But errors have never stopped you from a reply

The biblical traditions are the primary source, that is factually why its called an Abrahamic tradition

 

[outhouse]

The alternative is that Muhammad really did get the Qur'an from god, via Gabriel

Which is the context of my post.

It is ludicrous to posit this, when we have so many credible alternative methods fro the man learning biblical theology

 

[outhouse]

Where did muhammad learn the biblical traditions?

Where did illiterate muhammad learn to write it in Arabic, or who did it for him?

 

[paarsurrey]

If I may, I think what Outhouse is trying to convey is that Muhammad most likely absorbed information about Judaism and Christianity from perhaps a variety of sources. According to legend, he did do a fair amount of traveling on trade missions and it isn't hard to imagine him talking at length with people he may have encountered. That is, imho, the most likely situation, as it did take him 23 years to "hand down" his slim little tomb. So, it's not like he didn't have loads of time to reason things out.
For example, the Qur'an wouldn't even have been recognizable as a book for the first several years. It was just a weird collection of oddball comments when looked at chronologically.
The alternative is that Muhammad really did get the Qur'an from god, via Gabriel, which is sort of weird because the Muslim god is said to have no partners, but needed Gabriel to spill the beans to Muhammad. Maybe Allah was into LLC's. Who knows? The point is, if Muhammad really did get this from God that is not exactly happy news to either Jews or Christians and later to the Bahai's and the Ahmadiyya's.
@outhouse @Augustus @Carlita
In regards to the Christian cited in the OP that bewildered Carlita, that person obviously has zero understanding of the roots of Christianity, Judaism or Islam and should be smiled at and politely ignored. Next time it comes up, try changing the subject.

"Muhammad really did get the Qur'an from god"

And that is the reality, G-d is the author of Quran, no other possibility. Why not accept it, if one may like to and is convinced heart and soul?No compulsion, whatsoever, please
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

"Muhammad really did get the Qur'an from god"

And that is the reality, G-d is the author of Quran, no other possibility. Why not accept it, if one may like to and is convinced heart and soul?No compulsion, whatsoever, please
Regards

As I understand it, being a Muslim and accepting that the Qur'an was a gift from God are not really too distinct from each other. I gave the matter honest consideration, and I just don't see any way of having one without having the other.

Which is one of the many reasons why I know that I will never be a Muslim.

Try as I might, I just do not understand how anyone can reach the conclusion that the Quran has divine authorship.

The text is not even remotely what it would have to be to convince me of its divine origin (admitedly a rather tall order).

It is way too theocentric, way too combative, way too lacking when compared to wiser texts that do not claim divine inspiration.

I guess it does not help that it does basically challenge me to either call it untrue or confess that I was born believing in God, either.

 

[outhouse]

As I understand it, being a Muslim and accepting that the Qur'an was a gift from God are not really too distinct from each other. I gave the matter honest consideration, and I just don't see any way of having one without having the other.

Which is one of the many reasons why I know that I will never be a Muslim.

Try as I might, I just do not understand how anyone can reach the conclusion that the Quran has divine authorship.

The text is not even remotely what it would have to be to convince me of its divine origin (admitedly a rather tall order).

It is way too theocentric, way too combative, way too lacking when compared to wiser texts that do not claim divine inspiration.

I guess it does not help that it does basically challenge me to either call it untrue or confess that I was born believing in God, either.

And to be factually honest, no other position is academically credible.


muhammad had to be taught the biblical traditions.

And no muslim scholar is interested in discovering who taught muhammad this.

 

[outhouse]

G-d is the author of Quran, no other possibility.

That is not academic or credible. It is faith only.

 

[Gharib]

And to be factually honest, no other position is academically credible.


muhammad had to be taught the biblical traditions.

And no muslim scholar is interested in discovering who taught muhammad this.

Show us your evidence that Muhammed was taught Biblical traditions.

 

[outhouse]

Show us your evidence that Muhammed was taught Biblical traditions.

Where is your evidence an angel told him


Where did muhammad learn the biblical traditions?

Where did illiterate muhammad learn to write it in Arabic, or who did it for him?

 

[LuisDantas]

Asking people to take the supposed divine origin of the Qur'an on faith is too much.

Why would a divine book make such a sustained effort to disavow atheism?

Why would it be so less impressive than, say, the Tao Te Ching, John Stewart Mill, or Peter Singer?

Why would it tell atheists that either it is false or we are lying?


I suppose you could hypothetise that the Qur'an is the word of God after all yet for whatever reason he wants many people to doubt his existence.

There are actually good reasons why that would be a credible scenario... yet even then that would mean that the Qur'an is in fact false or at least dangerously incomplete.

 

[YmirGF]

"Muhammad really did get the Qur'an from god"

And that is the reality, G-d is the author of Quran, no other possibility. Why not accept it, if one may like to and is convinced heart and soul?No compulsion, whatsoever, please
Regards

But that's the thing, paarsurrey, I don't believe that story is true regardless of how sincere Muslims think it is. I completely reject the idea that Muhammad was any kind of a prophet and that there is a god who feels a need to send messengers.

 

[paarsurrey]

Asking people to take the supposed divine origin of the Qur'an on faith is too much.
Why would a divine book make such a sustained effort to disavow atheism?
Why would it be so less impressive than, say, the Tao Te Ching, John Stewart Mill, or Peter Singer?
Why would it tell atheists that either it is false or we are lying?
I suppose you could hypothetise that the Qur'an is the word of God after all yet for whatever reason he wants many people to doubt his existence.
There are actually good reasons why that would be a credible scenario... yet even then that would mean that the Qur'an is in fact false or at least dangerously incomplete.

I understand that one has a right to be sceptical of what I say, but the same way I have a right to be sceptical of the skeptics. I never talk of any "either or" are say others are lying. I think they sincerely believe what they say, the same way as I sincerely believe what I say.
We are all friends here on this forum, and it is only a friendly discussion or comparing our notes with one another. I respect everybody and never say any disrespectful words about anybody present or absent.
Be happy please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

But that's the thing, paarsurrey, I don't believe that story is true regardless of how sincere Muslims think it is. I completely reject the idea that Muhammad was any kind of a prophet and that there is a god who feels a need to send messengers.

It is OK with me.
Be happy, please
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I understand that one has a right to be sceptical of what I say, but the same way I have a right to be sceptical of the skeptics.

I suppose you do, although that is an odd thing to say and it does sound unfair to you.

It is simply not possible to convince one such as me of the existence of God. Certainly not by way of the Qur'an.

Meanwhile, it is not clear to me what, if anything, you have left to be skeptical of.

Are you perhaps keeping your right to suspect me and others of ultimately being believers regardless? Or of eventually becoming believers?

That is... not a promising or advisable stance for anyone to take, I must say. It has hardly any benefit, far too many dangers, and is above all a waste of time and energy.

I never talk of any "either or" are say others are lying. I think they sincerely believe what they say, the same way as I sincerely believe what I say.

Well, then it must be true that either your God does not exist or has been lying to you. Strong words for me to say, but also an unavoidable result of the claims of the Qur'an.

We are all friends here on this forum, and it is only a friendly discussion or comparing our notes with one another. I respect everybody and never say any disrespectful words about anybody present or absent.
Be happy please
Regards

That much I know for a fact, which compounds by puzzlement that much more.

 

[Gharib]

Where is your evidence an angel told him


Where did muhammad learn the biblical traditions?

Where did illiterate muhammad learn to write it in Arabic, or who did it for him?

If I say an angel told him and that's my belief, that's fine.
If you say that you don't believe it, that's fine.
But when you say he copied the Bible and someone taught him the Bible and Torah then prove it.

 

[Gharib]

If I may, I think what Outhouse is trying to convey is that Muhammad most likely absorbed information about Judaism and Christianity from perhaps a variety of sources. According to legend, he did do a fair amount of traveling on trade missions and it isn't hard to imagine him talking at length with people he may have encountered. That is, imho, the most likely situation, as it did take him 23 years to "hand down" his slim little tomb. So, it's not like he didn't have loads of time to reason things out.

I could say the same thing for the opposite side, that he never had time to know about Judaism and Christianity because he was always travelling.

But on a different note, if he did learn during his travels, there needs to be evidence that the places he went to and the people who accompanied him to these journeys were/knew everything about Judaism and Christianity. If you have such evidence then maybe your theory has some credence. Otherwise it's nothing more than a baseless claim.

 

[outhouse]

But when you say he copied the Bible and someone taught him the Bible and Torah then prove it.

His own family member was a priest.

There is history that this priest had contact with him.


That is strong evidence.


You have no evidence of anything except fanaticism and fundamentalism bud

 

[outhouse]

Otherwise it's nothing more than a baseless claim

No its not.

Mythical angels repeating biblical mythology is a factually baseless claim.

The problem the koran has is it copied many biblical events that never took place because they were myths not reality.


There was no flood, no exodus, no noah, no moses, no Abraham, not one factually has any historicity as ever existing.


Now just because ancient people did not know any better, and copied what they thought was real, was there mistake. We now know it was copied mythology.


If there was an angel, it would at least be responsible for accuracy and for things to be historically correct. FACT not one scholar in the whole world uses the koran for any historical aspect of jesus or Israelites history, because copied mythology is historically worthless

 

[Gharib]

No its not.

Mythical angels repeating biblical mythology is a factually baseless claim.

The problem the koran has is it copied many biblical events that never took place because they were myths not reality.


There was no flood, no exodus, no noah, no moses, no Abraham, not one factually has any historicity as ever existing.


Now just because ancient people did not know any better, and copied what they thought was real, was there mistake. We now know it was copied mythology.


If there was an angel, it would at least be responsible for accuracy and for things to be historically correct. FACT not one scholar in the whole world uses the koran for any historical aspect of jesus or Israelites history, because copied mythology is historically worthless

Abraham is buried in Hebron, Palestine. Do you deny that Abraham is buried in Palestine.
I have been there myself and seen the grave.