[quote]lixy wrote:
Well, you tell me what other religion have compiled their book publicly. Not to bash, but you can hardly find an institution more secretive than the Catholic church.
[/quote]
And if there are you probably do not know about them ;-)…
[quote]lixy wrote:
It is a logical fallacy to conclude that, because Salman Rushdie was threatened, the current version of the Quran is different than the one in Mohamed’s time.[/quote]
Damn you are stupid.
Again you are going way out into loony territory to not only misunderstand what I said, but to twist it into that.
Get your head out of your ass and attempt to read it again.
I am beginning to realize why it is you don’t seem to understand the debates going on here.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Can’t trust anything by Fox News.
They actually reported that there was an auction, those bastards. How dare they?
Now they are reporting there was snow in the Mid-West, those whores.
That’s very constructive! Thanks for your valuable input.
Since you missed is, here the point in plain English: Don’t trust anything unless it’s verifiable.[/quote]
Hah! Ever read ‘1984’? The glorious books that people follow are probably no more than a couple of hundred years old. The magic books are continually updated to match the needs and wants of the rulers at any given time.
Why do you think religions preach love of your neighbor and the joy of selflessness? The rulers want to collect on your unselfish gifts.
Since you won’t bother to really read the links, I will be so kind to cite Mr. Luxenberg (they german scientist who took a pseudonym because actual scientific research unto your “best researched religion” [Lixy] puts you in mortal danger.)
[b]
Q. - What do you say, then, about the idea, accepted until now, that the Koran was the first book written in Arabic?
A. - “According to Islamic tradition, the Koran dates back to the 7th century, while the first examples of Arabic literature in the full sense of the phrase are found only two centuries later, at the time of the ´Biography of the Prophet´; that is, of the life of Mohammed as written by Ibn Hisham, who died in 828. We may thus establish that post-Koranic Arabic literature developed by degrees, in the period following the work of al-Khalil bin Ahmad, who died in 786, the founder of Arabic lexicography (kitab al-ayn), and of Sibawwayh, who died in 796, to whom the grammar of classical Arabic is due. Now, if we assume that the composition of the Koran was brought to an end in the year of the Prophet Mohammed´s death, in 632, we find before us an interval of 150 years, during which there is no trace of Arabic literature worthy of note.”
Q. - So at the time of Mohammed Arabic did not have precise rules, and was not used for written communication. Then how did the Koran come to be written?
A. - “At that time, there were no Arab schools - except, perhaps, for the Christian centers of al-Anbar and al-Hira, in southern Mesopotamia, or what is now Iraq. The Arabs of that region had been Christianized and instructed by Syrian Christians. Their liturgical language was Syro-Aramaic. And this was the vehicle of their culture, and more generally the language of written communication.”
Q. - What is the relationship between this language of culture and the origin of the Koran?
A. - “Beginning in the third century, the Syrian Christians did not limit themselves to bringing their evangelical mission to nearby countries, like Armenia or Persia. They pressed on toward distant territories, all the way to the borders of China and the western coast of India, in addition to the entire Arabian peninsula all the way to Yemen and Ethiopia. It is thus rather probable that, in order to proclaim the Christian message to the Arabic peoples, they would have used (among others) the language of the Bedouins, or Arabic. In order to spread the Gospel, they necessarily made use of a mishmash of languages. But in an era in which Arabic was just an assembly of dialects and had no written form, the missionaries had no choice but to resort to their own literary language and their own culture; that is, to Syro-Aramaic. The result was that the language of the Koran was born as a written Arabic language, but one of Arab-Aramaic derivation.”
Q. - Do you mean that anyone who does not keep the Syro-Aramaic language in mind cannot translate and interpret the Koran correctly?
A. - “Yes. Anyone who wants to make a thorough study of the Koran must have a background in the Syro-Aramaic grammar and literature of that period, the 7th century. Only thus can he identify the original meaning of Arabic expressions whose semantic interpretation can be established definitively only by retranslating them into Syro-Aramaic.”
[/b]
If you anything about how cultures evolve historically, you know that when they adopt writing, they suck in big parts of the culture which brought them the books. And, they also twist history to (re)make it their culture. This has been obeserved in practically EVERY culture area. In fact, I challenge you to present where it didn’t happen.
Let’s hear some more of the man:
[b]
Q. - By the way, what do you think about the Islamic veil?
A. - "There is a passage in Sura 24, verse 31, which in Arabic reads, ´That they should beat their khumurs against their bags.´ It is an incomprehensible phrase, for which the following interpretation has been sought: ´That they should extend their kerch
iefs from their heads to their breasts.´ But if this passage is read in the light of Syro-Aramaic, it simply means: ´They should fasten their belts around their waists.´"
Q. - Does this mean the veil is really a chastity belt?
A. - “Not exactly. It is true that, in the Christian tradition, the belt is associated with chastity: Mary is depicted with a belt fastened around her waist. But in the gospel account of the Last Supper, Christ also ties an apron around his waist before washing the Apostles´ feet. There are clearly many parallels with the Christian faith.”
[/b]
If God chooses to speak to you or communicate with you in some way, then from then on the content of magic books just seems plain pathetic.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Since you won’t bother to really read the links, I will be so kind to cite Mr. Luxenberg [/quote]
Finally, somebody’s sparking the debate…
[quote]Q. - What do you say, then, about the idea, accepted until now, that the Koran was the first book written in Arabic?
A. - “According to Islamic tradition, the Koran dates back to the 7th century, while the first examples of Arabic literature in the full sense of the phrase are found only two centuries later, at the time of the ´Biography of the Prophet´; that is, of the life of Mohammed as written by Ibn Hisham, who died in 828. We may thus establish that post-Koranic Arabic literature developed by degrees, in the period following the work of al-Khalil bin Ahmad, who died in 786, the founder of Arabic lexicography (kitab al-ayn), and of Sibawwayh, who died in 796, to whom the grammar of classical Arabic is due. Now, if we assume that the composition of the Koran was brought to an end in the year of the Prophet Mohammed´s death, in 632, we find before us an interval of 150 years, during which there is no trace of Arabic literature worthy of note.”[/quote]
What about the mu’allaquat? Does Mr. Luxenberg not consider them “Arabic literature in the full sense of the phrase”?
Also, I am unable to decrypt his answer. Is he saying “yes” or “no” to the interviewer’s question?
[quote]Q. - So at the time of Mohammed Arabic did not have precise rules, and was not used for written communication. Then how did the Koran come to be written?
A. - “At that time, there were no Arab schools - except, perhaps, for the Christian centers of al-Anbar and al-Hira, in southern Mesopotamia, or what is now Iraq. The Arabs of that region had been Christianized and instructed by Syrian Christians. Their liturgical language was Syro-Aramaic. And this was the vehicle of their culture, and more generally the language of written communication.” [/quote]
I don’t think anybody ever challenged the idea that inhabitants of Arabia weren’t particularly concerned about education (didn’t change much!).
[quote]Q. - What is the relationship between this language of culture and the origin of the Koran?
A. - “Beginning in the third century, the Syrian Christians did not limit themselves to bringing their evangelical mission to nearby countries, like Armenia or Persia. They pressed on toward distant territories, all the way to the borders of China and the western coast of India, in addition to the entire Arabian peninsula all the way to Yemen and Ethiopia. It is thus rather probable that, in order to proclaim the Christian message to the Arabic peoples, they would have used (among others) the language of the Bedouins, or Arabic. In order to spread the Gospel, they necessarily made use of a mishmash of languages. But in an era in which Arabic was just an assembly of dialects and had no written form, the missionaries had no choice but to resort to their own literary language and their own culture; that is, to Syro-Aramaic. The result was that the language of the Koran was born as a written Arabic language, but one of Arab-Aramaic derivation.” [/quote]
Once again, I’m afraid he lost me. Is this guy trying to sell the idea that the Quran was written by Christian missionaries?
And while the theory that Arabic had no written form in the prophet’s time is thought provoking, I don’t think he’ll find anyone (or anything) to support it. The Arabic alphabet emerged in the 6th century and is of Nabataean origins, not Syro-Aramaic.
[quote]Q. - Do you mean that anyone who does not keep the Syro-Aramaic language in mind cannot translate and interpret the Koran correctly?
A. - “Yes. Anyone who wants to make a thorough study of the Koran must have a background in the Syro-Aramaic grammar and literature of that period, the 7th century. Only thus can he identify the original meaning of Arabic expressions whose semantic interpretation can be established definitively only by retranslating them into Syro-Aramaic.” [/quote]
This doesn’t make any sense. If he accepts the premise that the Quran is the Gold Standard for Arabic, why then would one need Syro-Aramaic to understand it?
Agreed. But as I ask above, why would one need more than Arabic to interpret the Quran?
[quote]Q. - By the way, what do you think about the Islamic veil?
A. - "There is a passage in Sura 24, verse 31, which in Arabic reads, ´That they should beat their khumurs against their bags.´ It is an incomprehensible phrase, for which the following interpretation has been sought: ´That they should extend their kerch
iefs from their heads to their breasts.´ But if this passage is read in the light of Syro-Aramaic, it simply means: ´They should fasten their belts around their waists.´"
Q. - Does this mean the veil is really a chastity belt?
A. - “Not exactly. It is true that, in the Christian tradition, the belt is associated with chastity: Mary is depicted with a belt fastened around her waist. But in the gospel account of the Last Supper, Christ also ties an apron around his waist before washing the Apostles´ feet. There are clearly many parallels with the Christian faith.”
[/quote]
I’d like to stick to history, linguistics and stay away from theology in this debate.
But since I have the Quran opened next to me on verse 31 of surah 24, let me just say that I see nothing that talks about veils or “kerchiefs from their heads to their breasts”. It talks about covering the farj and zina which refer to the crotch. It also says women should not to “kick with their feet”, which I consider to be yet another way of saying “do not show your panties”.
As to the “parallels with the Christian faith”, well…duh! Islam is a mere revival of what is considered the one true faith: Monotheism. So yes, of course it shares components with Judaism and Christianity.
Let me tell you what I think of this whole theory: It is entertaining but I doubt anyone is taking it seriously. It is half-baked in the sense that he leaves essential questions unanswered (e.g: who wrote the Quran?). It contradicts a lot of what historians have gathered from the period. I can understand why he took a pseudonym; throwing around bombshells like his without back up is not good for one’s reputation as a scholar. Out of curiosity, what’s the man’s background?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Once again, I’m afraid he lost me. Is this guy trying to sell the idea that the Quran was written by Christian missionaries?
[/quote]
No, maybe influenced by them. Would explain how stories from Judaism and Christianity are found in the Koran. I read a book which said at the time of Muhammad, there were something like 10 sects of Christianity, each proclaiming something different. Maybe the Koran was an attempt by Arabs, Muhammad (or Gabriel) to cut out all the BS from the pre-existing religions the same way Muhammad cast out all the pre-existing idols from the Kaaba.
Also, Muhammad was not the first person to claim he was the paraclete described by Christ. Marcion did so also. So, when the Muslims came out of Arabia, the Byzantines thought they were just another group of Christian heretics.
Interesting.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
No, maybe influenced by them. [/quote]
Fair enough. Is that Mr. Luxemberg’s official position? Is the “maybe” verbatim?
Sure, why not? If you don’t think it’s the word of God, then this is certainly plausible.
One major detail though; are you disputing the fact that Mohamed traveled a lot in his youth. If not, whatever missionaries came down to Arabia are not really essential to the stories found in the Quran. Your “would explain” is quite shaky.
[quote]So, when the Muslims came out of Arabia, the Byzantines thought they were just another group of Christian heretics.
Interesting.[/quote]
Indeed. I didn’t that.
But how come they took them for Christian heretics and not Jews? Surely, Muslims are far closer to the latter. Where did you find the info anyway?
Can’t say where I read it off hand. I have done a lot of reading in my spare time.
I’m not sure exactly if they thought they were Christians, but there were so many sects rising up at the time they mistook them as another type of heretical sect probably.
Well, since these “mu’allaquat” aren’t secret texts, I bet he knows them.
Poems were traditionally passed on verbally. Literature on the other hand is hardware. And while these poems are the first noteworthy arabic poetry who later were written down, they probably also changed a bit over time. Again, I’m not a linguist like you (and unlike Luxenberg), so let’s exchange pointless assumptions.
[quote]
This doesn’t make any sense. If he accepts the premise that the Quran is the Gold Standard for Arabic, why then would one need Syro-Aramaic to understand it?[/quote]
The Quran unified the arabic language. Why is that so hard to grasp?
[quote]
Agreed. But as I ask above, why would one need more than Arabic to interpret the Quran?[/quote]
Duh. Because the illiterate, uneducated [Lixy’s comment] Arabs were slowly compiling their own liturgy with the “help” of syrio christians (missionaries, converts, mixed offspring, simple duplicators etc.). And while the languages are very similar AND one word can mean very different things in both languages his theory holds some water.
[quote]
As to the “parallels with the Christian faith”, well…duh! Islam is a mere revival of what is considered the one true faith: Monotheism. So yes, of course it shares components with Judaism and Christianity.[/quote] Lixy, you come across as a very reasonable person across the board. Save for your “reasons” to convert and some of your thoughts on this. Then it does make less sense then ZAP on a bad day.
If it’s just a revival it’s hardly from the one GWAD - else he’s just a lame rocker who needed money and reassembled his crew for another “last” tour.
Like Sam Harris pointed out, the non radicals just don’t see how pointless their “moderate” faith is.
and to add something to GKhans post.
While some people would simply say, “the Koran is the arabic bible” and be somewhat right, it is only fair to point out how long it took for christianity to unify all ideas under one roof. As Gkhan pointed out, the further away you went from Rome, the more deeply entrenched the local myths and legends were with the faith.
And of course, the three big monotheistic religions are called abrahamic (don’t know the exact english translatiopn) for a reason.
How do we know that Muhammed even existed at all? Religions want to control populations, so they invent magical beings who speak to angels, then write down all the rules for you to follow. I’d be suspicious of that.
If God wants to speak to me, He knows where I am. He doesn’t need an interpreter.
I believe devoutly in God, but not in religion.
His claim is rock hard, esp. compared to Jesus. It’s difficult to imagine history without him.
His claims about angels telling him god’s word…that’s another matter.
Headhunter, why do you belive in ONE god, why not in many?
You are already influenced by your cultural religious background.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
His claim is rock hard, esp. compared to Jesus. It’s difficult to imagine history without him.
His claims about angels telling him god’s word…that’s another matter.
Headhunter, why do you belive in ONE god, why not in many?
You are already influenced by your cultural religious background.[/quote]
I believe in one God because only one voice has spoken to me. If you hear a voice that literally sounds as big as an ocean, then you just know.
My fiance had died that very day. The voice said, ‘THE SPIRIT’, and it was an incredible and mind boggling experience.
You may put this down to hysteria or delusion but I assure you that I was in full command of my senses and my reason. Unlike the magical books, however, I don’t demand that you believe me and I consider it immoral to tell you how to live.
“Who controls the present controls the past.” (1984)
I’m still not convinced that Muhammed existed at all. I’ve never seen him. All we have to go on are written records. Who wrote those records? Who controls what they say? Why do these major religions insist on telling others how to live? Its like a meeting of the DNC (Dem National Committee) where someone decides on the message and the buzzwords of the day.
I probably would grant the existence of Muhammed but would be very suspicious that what he actually said matches what we read in the Koran today.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The Quran unified the arabic language. Why is that so hard to grasp? [/quote]
Yes, the Quran unified the Arabic language. Now, do you (or that Mr. Luxemberg) or do you not consider it the Gold Standard of Arabic. If so, then the Arabic we know today is derived from it and suffices to interpret it correctly.
What you are saying is that one needs to know Latin in order to correctly understand the Spanish Royal Dictionary. That would be an exercise in etymology.
Ok, I see now. He is saying that the macro-language that is Arabic today is not the same as the Quran’s, but is closer to Aramaic. Did I get that right? Then I need to ask the following:
When a word in the Quran seems to have both Hebrew and Aramaic roots, and assuming both are different, how does one decide which meaning is the correct one? Did Mr. Luxemberg devise some automagical pattern recognition program that processes that? Or is he a one man army who claims to know better than the profusion of scholar to have studied the topic? Do you not think somebody with the meticulousness, independence of judgment, and era of people like Ibn Jarir are bound to be closer to the original meaning than what an invisible German dude says in the 21th century?
Honestly, this guy’s entire theory rests upon the idea that nobody ever bothered to study what is undoubtedly the most important and influential “literary” work to come out of Arabia.
For the sake of argument, how much does Mr. L. consider to be rubbish in the way the Quran is understood today? More than half? A quarter? Less than 5%? 1%? In other words, how much of what we think is Arabic today is Aramaic?
Also, whoever came up with the idea to hide that the Quran is not from Mohamed’s time? Was it a concerted effort? Or just something that snuck upon the Islamic collective memory?
How does he explain the blatant inconsistencies of his theory with the Hadith and Mohamed’s references to the Quran? Were the many people who compiled the Hadith independently part of that secret cabal? Or were they (along with their prolific legacy) just a figment of the Ummah’s imagination?
I think I am beginning to understand the title of the thread now.
Rock the kasbah!
The idea behind Islam - if I might be so arrogant as to speak for Him - is to give humanity one last chance of redemption, because, supposedly, all the other messages were corrupted.
How is aspiring to a balance between the Earthly and the Heavenly pointless?
There’s a Hadith that goes: “When you like someone, you should like him moderately because he might become someone whom you dislike one day, and when you dislike someone dislike him moderately because he might become someone you like one day.”
If everybody was to abide by that piece of wisdom, the world would be a far better place. Replace “someone” with “something”, and you have yourself a recipe for a perfect life. It’s weird saying that to a crowd who’s allegedly hardcore, but it is a point which can’t be stressed enough. Be it money, food, women, deadlifts or even God, loving (or hating) any of these to the extreme can only lead to catastrophes. Case in point: war, obesity, anorexia, crimes of passion, terrorism, herniae…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
How do we know that Muhammed even existed at all? [/quote]
How do you know that you’re not in the Matrix?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
How do we know that Muhammed even existed at all?
How do you know that you’re not in the Matrix?[/quote]
It is quite possible that we are. Descartes established that I must exist but nothing establishes my status within existence.
I think we have to begin somewhere, such as in the validity of our senses and proceed from there.
Now its your turn: Do you truly believe that God needed to speak to all of us through one man, the Prophet? If God could speak to one man, why not all?
God doesn’t need Muhammed to give voice to His message. I’d suggest its all a trick.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Now its your turn: Do you truly believe that God needed to speak to all of us through one man, the Prophet? [/quote]
It is ridiculous to claim that God needs to do something.
What “Prophet” are you talking about? God spoke to plenty of people, prophets, messengers, and other chosen ones. It allegedly started with Abraham (on Highway 61?), through Moses, Noah, Jesus and the countless others.
Supposedly, prophets and other “chosen ones” possess mental and spiritual qualities that the rest of us lack. It is said that one would go bonkers if subjected to the voice of God, angels, and other beings. For my part, I don’t know. There are plenty of questions that can’t be treated logically, and the way you analyze them, determines whether you are a believer or a faithless. But a quick peak into the issue reveals that if God spoke to us all, we’d all be believers, and there would be no real challenge faith-wise. Just a guess…
Again, God doesn’t need anything from anyone. Him bringing down another message for the redemption mankind, is viewed as a token of His mercy. You know how it goes. As time goes by, people are bound to sway from the straight path, so He sent yet another prophet to remind us all of the one true message.
Tell me more about your position vis-a-vis God. Do you believe in any prophet at all? Or were they all just “a trick” to you? If so, what tangible motive do you think was behind a bunch of ascetic people trying to educate people about religion? I mean, they were all persecuted, tortured, threatened, etc. What kind of “trick” is that?
Why would God, who influenced ALL of the prophets, tell one group to kill the followers of the others?
I mean, what do you suppose Mohammad Atta said when he saw Isa?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Tell me more about your position vis-a-vis God. Do you believe in any prophet at all? Or were they all just “a trick” to you? If so, what tangible motive do you think was behind a bunch of ascetic people trying to educate people about religion? I mean, they were all persecuted, tortured, threatened, etc. What kind of “trick” is that?[/quote]
I think that God spoke to Muhammed and he was very happy and told everyone how cool it was. Someone got the idea to use his experience as a way to power — anyone not believing was blaspheming, evil, and so on. So, Mohammed’s wonderful experience (which I have had similar) was used for nefarious purposes. There are always people on the lookout for an ‘angle’.
This is why I like anyone who says: “Use your own judgment. Your goal is to make yourself happy.” That person isn’t trying to control you. In fact, that person’s message is a lot closer to any message God would send, compared to someone who wants to dictate a bunch of laws in your face (like Sharia Law).