•
•

Prefabricated Judeo-Christian Arabic Texts (that somehow deviate from Judeo-Christian thought) were lying around for Muhammad to periodically resubmit as his own over 2 decades. (self.badhistory)

whatthehand が 投稿

https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3j39jn/carbon_dating_suggests_worlds_oldest_koran_is/culwx27

Now, I am aware of the Orientalists' POV that wonders if and how much access Muhammad had to Judeo-Christian sources but this thread, the commenter, and the article itself to some extent is just ridiculous. Their euphoric suggestions are wrong for several reasons and I hope I can begin to articulate them somewhat effectively,

  • Nobody suggests that Muhammad had prefabricated texts that he was bringing to his followers from time to time. The most that has been argued (by actual academics, not armchair commentators) is that his thoughts were inspired by knowledge of Judeo-Christian teachings.

  • It is well known (regardless of whether you believe he was being inspired or not) that he would give these verses to his followers orally. Ready made written Arabic pages (of a uniquely Islamic form) for him to deliver to his followers piecemeal over 2 decades,, whaaaaa?

  • The discovery of the text itself is added evidence to the view that the Quran was written down very early on and is remarkably consistent with the modern canon (that's what was so darn kool about it) suggesting that the text may have been preserved as earnestly as Muslims claim (the article is fair enough to cite as much).

  • The texts found in particular (even I was able to read them directly when they first came out, even though Arabic writing was more Abjady back then) are from the end of Mary and Taha. These chapters in particular are clearly articulating teachings that deviate from Judeo-Christian thought. So not only did he have pre-fabricated texts, they were fine tuned for his new religious teachings?

  • Uthman (third Caliph) commissioned the final formal canonization of the Quran but AbuBakr (the first Caliph) had done it before him (although just a copy or two), and the Muslims before that were writing it down too so the text (only a couple of pages) being earlier than Uthman would just be a kool confirmation of the existing view (among both Historians and Muslims) and nothing new. There's nothing controversial about it being older than Uthman's reported Quran.

  • The quote being quoted from the article is itself quoted from Tom Holland, the guy who wrote a book called "In the Shadow of the Sword". You can imagine the sensationalist angles and bad history he was doing when documenting the origins of Islam.

  • Another commenters suggestion that this is just early evidence (needing more work) and that the paper could well have been formed earlier than the current writing on it, is FAAAAAAR more reasonable than these guys' crackpot theories.

You might think I'm going into some bad-history myself but I'm sure we can agree that the basic idea these guys are euphorically upvoting DrBoomkin for is so ridiculous for so many reasons.

全 12 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]whatthehand[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The wikipedia pages on this will be able to detail the subject and provide sources much more effectively than I can.

I think just a general knowledge of issue is more than sufficient to debunk these guys.

[–]MicDeDuiwel 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Was wondering how long it'd take for this to show up here. As soon as I saw the thread on r/worldnews I knew that badhistory was all that awaited me in the comments.

[–]whatthehand[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you're familiar with /r/worldnews,, you might be familiar with /u/Drboomkin too. He's a frequent commentator on some very specific matters.

[–]adamgergesmuslims were the first to use swords 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The whole post in /r/worldnews is based on a typo in the date of the dating of the Quran.

[–]SnapshillBotPassing Turing Tests since 1956 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers.

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - 1, 2, 3

  2. https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/c... - 1, 2, 3

  3. Abjad - 1, 2, Error

  4. Mary and Taha - 1, 2, Error

  5. sensationalist angles and bad histo... - 1, 2, 3

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

[–]MercurianAspirations 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sure, I agree with what you've written here. But i would argue that the claim that the quran, or parts of it, we're inspired by preexisting texts is not as easy to discount, in my opinion, as you've made it out to be here. Of course it can't really be proven or argued for really either. Arguably it's precisely because the collection of quranic texts are so consistent that it's difficult to say anything meaningful about them. the situation is essentially that we don't have any solid evidence for anything other than the traditional narratives, so we kind of just go with those, even though they appeared later and the authors had strong reasons both religious and political to represent events a certain way.

[–]whatthehand[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree. The view that he was taking inspiration from Judeo-Christian sources takes much more effort to challenge and is a charge coming from serious academics. But, as we seem to agree, this is a far cry from saying he had such texts available to copy from or to pass off as is.

[–]farquierFeminazi christians burned Assurbanipal's Library 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Er how is it orientalist to claim Muhammad was aware of existing Judeo-Christian literature or had some form of access to it?

[–]whatthehand[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Orientalist meaning those who study the Eastern Traditions. Substitute for "historians in the particular field of study". I should had said the view in Orientalist Studies or something.

The view is ultimately circumstantial but it is understandable - coming from a naturalistic POV - to theorize that he must have had access.

[–]Quouarthe Weather History Slayer 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You should cross-post to /r/bad_religion as well. They'd enjoy it.

[–]whatthehand[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I did and that's where I was about to start but got more gutsy and posted to a more rigorous forum.

Also, just realized the very place in the Quran where the Birmingham Manuscript STARTS makes their theory even funnier;

And they say, "The Most Merciful has taken [for Himself] a son." (88) You have done an atrocious thing. (89) The heavens almost rupture therefrom and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse in devastation (90) That they attribute to the Most Merciful a son. (91) And it is not appropriate for the Most Merciful that He should take a son. (92)