The Qur'an vs. the Hadiths

[A'isha]

Right, only ANTpogo has read the right books and done the research and has the right attitude. No one else has ever read the Koran or the Hadiths and come to their own conclusion.

And if all you care about is your own conclusion, that's fine.

As soon as the issue of what actual Muslims conclude (and have concluded throughout history) comes into the picture, though, you're gonna have to have a bit more meat in your sandwich than just "I read a translation of the Qur'an once".

 

[tsig]

And if all you care about is your own conclusion, that's fine.

As soon as the issue of what actual Muslims conclude (and have concluded throughout history) comes into the picture, though, you're gonna have to have a bit more meat in your sandwich than just "I read a translation of the Qur'an once".

Now I have to have attended a madrassa before I get to have an opinion about Islam?

 

[A'isha]

Now I have to have attended a madrassa before I get to have an opinion about Islam?

Yes.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

 

[angrysoba]

You want people to buy the books you cite before you think they're qualified to disagree with you?

ANTPogo has said no such thing. She is doing what is commonly known as providing citations.

So the only reason I could be against Islam is that I'm not sufficiently educated about it?

The topic is about the Koran and the hadiths. Not whether you are for or against Islam. Perhaps if you read the sources ANTPogo is citing you might learn something instead of just lugging that chip around on your shoulder.

Right if only I'd studied more about Islam I might understand this:

After the Battle of the Ditch, when the coalition force of Quraish left the battle field, Prophet Muhammad attacked the last of the large Jewish tribes of Medina, the Banu Qurayza. After a 25 days siege, they (Jews) surrender unconditionally. In the end, all 600-700 males of the tribe were killed and the women and children sold into slavery





http://www.faithfreedom.org/article...nu-quraiza-and-khaybar-a-historical-analysis/



Common apologetics, attack the source, it was war, the Jews betrayed him

Not sure what that has to do with the topic. Again, it just makes it look like you are pointlessly trying to provoke a fight.

According to ANTpogo you have no right to post in this thread.

She has said no such thing about a "right to post". She's making the simple observation that if you join a discussion it is best to be informed about the topic otherwise you may end up looking foolish.

No, it's that if you want to robustly discuss a topic, and especially if you want to make statements in that discussion that are backed up by anything, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the extant body of work.

ANTpogo placed the bar by implying that anyone who disagreed with her was ill-informed.

Note cite to relevant body of work.

Could you quote the bit where ANTPogo says, "anyone who disagreed with her was ill-informed"? You cannot, of course, because you know full well you are making up charges against her. Again, this only looks foolish.

Right, only ANTpogo has read the right books and done the research and has the right attitude. No one else has ever read the Koran or the Hadiths and come to their own conclusion.

Sulking, pouting and stamping your feet like that is not very grown-up behaviour. If you have some reason for disagreeing with ANTPogo why not try expressing it in the form of an argument and using eveidence to back up your claims. There's no point whining about how she knows more about the subject than you.

 

[TimCallahan]

Wikipedia has an interesting article on the Hadiths, including the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam over which of the Hadiths are valid. Their discordant views are interesting in that the Sunni / Shia split was fairly early.

 

[RelentlessPunishment]

Funny how this attitude of mine never seemed to bother you when I (and others) would dun SnakeTongue, Clayton Moore, and dogzilla about what books they read (or, rather didn't read) about the Holocaust.

But perhaps it's only the vastly complex issue of the history and theology of Islam that can be understood without having to actually read any scholarly works on the subject.

Truthiness is better than knowledge for some people, I guess.

I agree to discuss the history of anything a good knowledge base is appropriate. I don't know the thread on the holocaust but it sounds like I'd agree with you there.

But not in regards to theology.

Why would the Spiral Dork (my name for the islamic god) design the ultimate-religion-for-everyone that's so dependent on complex theology and scholarship in the first place? It's very complexity is a structural problem for islam as a religion, and I don't need to read any books to see that. This complexity will always lead to absurd outcomes with only turgid, equally complex, systems of redress. All this would be fine if the theology was only concerned with muslims, but the extent to which islamic theology concerns itself with other people makes this crazy layering of laws and interpretations seem entirely unkind and unwise. At the very least it invites suspicion, which isn't a good design for a relgion of peace.

Theology can be based in history, but it doesn't have to be. It can, contrary to what you suggest, be soundly based on intuition (Chrisitan theology is full of this). I actually wish there was more room for truthiness within islam - I think some of the Sufi's took a truthy approach, but I also understand that many thought of them as heretics. Anyway, I digress, enough of mere history. It's often too academic and contentious to be useful anyway.

Theology can also be grounded in common sense, sociology, language, logic, circumstance, or anything. For example, Robert Spencer uses a superb psychologically-oriented theology in his discussion of islam, which I think yields consistently insightful results, and this isn't compromised by his quality of knowledge of islamic history (which is possibly quite bodgy - what do people make of his new book, Did Mohammed Exist ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/7/seeking-facts-of-elusive-canon/?page=all )). It's absurd to suggest that stakeholders in islamic theology, such as kufrs, dhimmis, polytheists, people of the book, free-speach advocates, feminists, social workers, apostates, etc, have to have any knowledge of islamic theology to critique the religion. All they need is a knowledge of their own ethical positions. It would be fairer to say that islamic theology should have an extensive knowlegde and understanding of each and every one of these people, as individuals, before it formulates any opinion about them, and this seems an entirely reasonable proposition given the Spiral Dork's allegeded omniscience.

Most importantly for anyone reading this: respect Muslim people, history, and culture, but never ever be told you have to think about Islam in an Islamic way.

Sorry to be somewhat off-topic (although I'm not sure - I actaully think all this does all relate quite directly to the OP). I'll try to make up for it now. Here's an excellent site which is like a crash course in the Koran and Hadith: http://theamericanmuslim.org . The quality of the essays and writers seems to vary considerably, but the depth and scope of the topics is superb, and they engage with some of the more contentious and problematic aspects of Islamic theology more than many islamic sites, and it's intended for both muslims and non-muslims alike, and there's loads specifically about the Koran and Hadith and how to read them.

 

[A'isha]

I can quite honestly say I've never seen anyone recommend both Robert Spencer and Sheila Musaji in the same post before.

EDIT: And I think that if you want to understand what Muslims believe and why they believe it, you most definitely need to explore Islamic theology from an Islamic perspective. Note that this is different from looking at it to determine whether it's true or not. This is simply looking at it in order to describe it accurately.

 

[A'isha]

Their discordant views are interesting in that the Sunni / Shia split was fairly early.

The Sunni/Shia split basically happened the moment Muhammad died, and Abu Bakr was selected as the first caliph over Ali. Those initial cracks grew when Ali finally became the fourth caliph, only to face revolts from even such important members of the Companions as Muhammad's widow Ai'sha.

When Ali was defeated by Muawiya (who became the fifth caliph and the first of the Umayyad dynasty) and assassinated, resistance to Umayyad rule coalesced around a group of Muslims who considered that Ali, as the son-in-law of the Prophet and his supposed designated heir, was the only proper caliph, and only his descendants were worthy to lead the the Muslim community, the umma. They became known as the Shi'at Ali, the Followers or Partisans of Ali.

Hence, the Shia.

Ali is so important to the Shia that their version of the declaration or witness to faith, the shahada (la ilaha illaha, Muhammadan rasul Allah, "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet") goes instead la ilaha illaha, Muhammadan rasul Allah wa Alian waliullah - "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet and Ali is the executor of God's will".

 

[KevinCanada]

The Sunni/Shia split basically happened the moment Muhammad died, and Abu Bakr was selected as the first caliph over Ali. Those initial cracks grew when Ali finally became the fourth caliph, only to face revolts from even such important members of the Companions as Muhammad's widow Ai'sha.

When Ali was defeated by Muawiya (who became the fifth caliph and the first of the Umayyad dynasty) and assassinated, resistance to Umayyad rule coalesced around a group of Muslims who considered that Ali, as the son-in-law of the Prophet and his supposed designated heir, was the only proper caliph, and only his descendants were worthy to lead the the Muslim community, the umma. They became known as the Shi'at Ali, the Followers or Partisans of Ali.

Hence, the Shia.

Ali is so important to the Shia that their version of the declaration or witness to faith, the shahada (la ilaha illaha, Muhammadan rasul Allah, "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet") goes instead la ilaha illaha, Muhammadan rasul Allah wa Alian waliullah - "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet and Ali is the executor of God's will".

Does this not go even deeper. Was there not a number of Islamic scriptures burnt at or near that time so they could establish one Qur'an for all?

 

[A'isha]

Does this not go even deeper. Was there not a number of Islamic scriptures burnt at or near that time so they could establish one Qur'an for all?

Essentially.

During Muhammad's lifetime and decades of revelations, there was no coherent attempt to record and/or codify these revelations into written form. A few of the Companions wrote down what Muhammad said, but the lion's share of his revelations were simply memorized and recited orally. After Muhammad's death in 632 AD, the first caliph, Abu Bakr, was concerned that the deaths during the Wars of Riddah (apostasy) of many Companions whose memories were the only repositories and sources for Muhammad's revelations, meant that the revelations were in danger of being lost forever. He ordered that Zaid ibn Thabit transcribe as much as possible of these revelations onto leaves or pages (suhuf, hence the word mushaf [plural masahif] to refer to a written copy of the Qur'an). However, Abu Bakr's sole concern was that the revelations as remembered and recorded by the Companions not be lost, not in codifying a definitive single version of them. As a result, there arose many masahif, often differing from and contradicting each other, which became the primary sources of dissension between the varying factions among the Companions that each had their own mushaf.

Finally, the third caliph, 'Uthman, ordered Zaid, the same scribe who first wrote down the "complete" revelations at the order of Abu Bakr, to actually create a definitive version of Muhammad's revelations using the initial collection as a base but not ignoring the contents of the Companions' masahif. This became known as al-mushaf al-'uthmani, the 'Uthman Qur'an. 'Uthman then ordered that a copy of this textus receptus be distributed to each of the centers of the Islamic world, and that every single other mushaf be collected and burned. Of course, this last order was not universally followed, and by the 8th and 9th centuries, a minor scholarly subgenre of quranic exegesis arose, dedicated to exploring these pre-'Uthman masahif and their variations from the main 'uthmanic text of the Qur'an.

Or so the standard view goes.

 

[KevinCanada]

Essentially.

During Muhammad's lifetime and decades of revelations, there was no coherent attempt to record and/or codify these revelations into written form. A few of the Companions wrote down what Muhammad said, but the lion's share of his revelations were simply memorized and recited orally. After Muhammad's death in 632 AD, the first caliph, Abu Bakr, was concerned that the deaths during the Wars of Riddah (apostasy) of many Companions whose memories were the only repositories and sources for Muhammad's revelations, meant that the revelations were in danger of being lost forever. He ordered that Zaid ibn Thabit transcribe as much as possible of these revelations onto leaves or pages (suhuf, hence the word mushaf [plural masahif] to refer to a written copy of the Qur'an). However, Abu Bakr's sole concern was that the revelations as remembered and recorded by the Companions not be lost, not in codifying a definitive single version of them. As a result, there arose many masahif, often differing from and contradicting each other, which became the primary sources of dissension between the varying factions among the Companions that each had their own mushaf.

Finally, the third caliph, 'Uthman, ordered Zaid, the same scribe who first wrote down the "complete" revelations at the order of Abu Bakr, to actually create a definitive version of Muhammad's revelations using the initial collection as a base but not ignoring the contents of the Companions' masahif. This became known as al-mushaf al-'uthmani, the 'Uthman Qur'an. 'Uthman then ordered that a copy of this textus receptus be distributed to each of the centers of the Islamic world, and that every single other mushaf be collected and burned. Of course, this last order was not universally followed, and by the 8th and 9th centuries, a minor scholarly subgenre of quranic exegesis arose, dedicated to exploring these pre-'Uthman masahif and their variations from the main 'uthmanic text of the Qur'an.

Or so the standard view goes.

This explains a lot about how the Qur'an is written. Even more about the layout of it. Which brings up more interesting points. Back in my high school days, I'm sure many readers did this exercise. The teacher wrote down a sentence, lined up a dozen kids and had them whisper the sentence one by one to each other.

At the end of the chain, what came out of the last child's mouth was not what was written on paper and in anyway or form.

This scribe has a basic foundation, A Table of contents to follow when writing the Quran, but needed more information so the scribe used other people notes. That would also make the last several chapters of the Quran, logical along with the first chapter. The last several chapters are a bunch of one line entries that don't really make any sense.

The scribe must of felt it was relevant but could not fit it anywhere else, thus just adding it to the end.

Be interesting to see if there is other Qur'ans kicking around. This would be something that Vatican may have in their vault.

 

[dafydd]

Right, only ANTpogo has read the right books and done the research and has the right attitude. No one else has ever read the Koran or the Hadiths and come to their own conclusion.

I've read them. Guff from start to finish, and as Mark Twain said after reading ''The Book Of Mormon'' chloroform in print.

 

[TimCallahan]

I've read them. Guff from start to finish, and as Mark Twain said after reading ''The Book Of Mormon'' chloroform in print.

And it came to pass that Dafydd did take up the holy book of Mormon. Yet he failed to read it with the proper crystal glasses. And it came to pass that he did err in reading the heretical words of Mark Twain (For it came to pass that Mark Twain was but a pseudonym). And there were wars and rumors of wars in the land of the middle east. And it came to pass that there were repetitions and rumors of repetitions in the Holy Qur'an. And Lo, over two thousand years after the time of Jesus there did rise yet another prophet of profit. And he did take up the tin cans of the e-meter. And it came to pass that many were cleared, both of their minds and their pocket books. And it came to pass that some did take up serpents. And many of these were cleared of their lives. And it came to pass . . . .