Sons of God

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Exactly.

Muslim scholars acknowledge that there was no written Qur'an for a long time. They, themselves claim that the Qur'an, before being written down, was written on bones, cloths and leaves and such. Even in the Hadiths, wife of Muhammad speaks of verses being written on cloths (and as I already stated, having a goat eat one).

Even if we accept that first Qur'an was compiled in the time of Uthman, we therefore must accept the fact that Uthman burned the numerous versions of Qur'an that popped up left right and centre, choosing one (I'm guessing he would have chosen one that he liked the best or something.) as the real Qur'an. This is the view held by early Muslim sources (Hadiths). Muslim scholars consider Uthman as 'rightly guided' and thus the Qur'ans he burned were the false ones.

Islamic fun fact:

Did you know that Muhammad himself wasn't spoken about for almost 150 years after his death? (his Sunnah, biography, phrophethood and such.)

Neither the Arab conquerors of the 7th century nor the people they conquered made any mention of Muhammad, the Qur’an, or Islam for the full six decades.

His biography wasn't even written for 150 years after his death and neither was the Qur'an.

*twilight zone music*

EDIT: Make that *x-files music*.

Of course there is no evidence in any meaningful manner other than secular acceptance and high probability. it is the same way secular Scholars would say that Yeshua almost certainly existed although there is no physical evidence. there is just a high probability and scholars accepting a portion of a biblical character who may have existed.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
I simply stated the many secular scholars accept the claims made of when it was written down with 20 yrs of Muhammad's death. I dont deny anything u said, I am fully aware of how the verses were gathered and about other books having bn burned.

Of course there is no evidence in any meaningful manner other than secular acceptance and high probability. it is the same way secular Scholars would say that Yeshua almost certainly existed although there is no physical evidence. there is just a high probability and scholars accepting a portion of a biblical character who may have existed.

Secular scholars, like who? This is not a challenge, I would like to read a secular scholar's take on this subject who is supportive of this hypothesis.

But I'm wondering - Why should we accept such a bold claim that Qur'an was compiled within 20 years after Muhammad's death, if we have no reason to?

Like I said, had the Qur'an been compiled 20 years after Muhammad's death, we would have at least had someone mention something about either Muhammad or Qur'an or Islam within first 20 years.

But, again, as I said, neither the conquered nations, nor the Arabs who conquered them ever mentioned Qur'an, Muhammad or the Islam for full 60 years.

From that, unless you're a Muslims scholar, you'd have no reason to believe that Qur'an existed or was compiled before then, especially since the oldest existing Qur'an dates from the 8th century.

You're right, though, people disagree on this. Usually secular scholars vs religious one, but I'm sure there's also friction within the two.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
But, again, as I said, neither the conquered nations, nor the Arabs who conquered them ever mentioned Qur'an, Muhammad or the Islam for full 60 years.

No mention of the Koran I can believe but I find it really hard to believe the caliphates never once mentioned Islam.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Secular scholars, like who? This is not a challenge, I would like to read a secular scholar's take on this subject who is supportive of this hypothesis.

But I'm wondering - Why should we accept such a bold claim that Qur'an was compiled within 20 years after Muhammad's death, if we have no reason to?

Like I said, had the Qur'an been compiled 20 years after Muhammad's death, we would have at least had someone mention something about either Muhammad or Qur'an or Islam within first 20 years.

But, again, as I said, neither the conquered nations, nor the Arabs who conquered them ever mentioned Qur'an, Muhammad or the Islam for full 60 years.

From that, unless you're a Muslims scholar, you'd have no reason to believe that Qur'an existed or was compiled before then, especially since the oldest existing Qur'an dates from the 8th century.

You're right, though, people disagree on this. Usually secular scholars vs religious one, but I'm sure there's also friction within the two.

http://images.betterworldbooks.com/088/World-Religions-9780884897255.jpg

I am saying that the claim is generally accepted. I dont know if that has changed since my courses were like 6 or 7 years ago. 😕

but, I just shrug it off as the best current explanation on a subject we know lil about. they teach the claim being made it is up to the person to acknowledge it or not. Its exactly the same thing with Jesus Christ, scholar accept his possible existence without any evidence. historian scholars deal with different type of evidence that other disciplines would not accept. its the price they pay for studying the past. they cannot give u an absolute explanation but the most reasonable and likely one that can at times be supported by outside sources and sometimes not at all.

The Quran's are destroyed when warn out or found to be imperfect this is well known and explains why u cannot find many ancient sources other than the few that are found. It doesnt bother me if ppl think that the oldest Quran found was a 100 or 200 yrs after Muhammad's death and he may not have existed at all.

Only certain things are taken at face value and generally accepted one being Muhammad most likely did exist in the same context as Jesus most likely did exist. if u dont accept it that is fine if new evidence can show the man never existed at all it wouldnt bother me although I cant see how u can prove the non existence of a person in the ancient past. 😕

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'm not speaking about my belief, as I don't believe God ever spoke to a single person only, but to many people all the time.

My question was to those who believe he has.

I kind of had the impression that was obvious...but clearly not.

The real issue is the question: are we separate from God?
…and I knew what you were doing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No mention of the Koran I can believe but I find it really hard to believe the caliphates never once mentioned Islam.

If you find it hard to believe, devote some time into research.

It's almost 9 years since I picked up the Qur'an first time and started reading the Hadiths and history and Sirat and sources of all kinds, asking Imams, Muslims, non-Muslims, ex-Muslims...everyone.

Around 80% of Muslims had never read the Qur'an as around 80% of all Muslims do not speak Arabic.

Finding information about Islam, surprisingly took more than a first google page...

Originally posted by Nietzschean
I guess my only evidence of a secular view on the claims being accepted is my old religions of the world textbook, world history and cultural awareness and my professor the same guy for all my classes.

http://images.betterworldbooks.com/088/World-Religions-9780884897255.jpg

I am saying that the claim is generally accepted. I dont know if that has changed since my courses were like 6 or 7 years ago. 😕

but, I just shrug it off as the best current explanation on a subject we know lil about. they teach the claim being made it is up to the person to acknowledge it or not. Its exactly the same thing with Jesus Christ, scholar accept his possible existence without any evidence. historian scholars deal with different type of evidence that other disciplines would not accept. its the price they pay for studying the past. they cannot give u an absolute explanation but the most reasonable and likely one that can at times be supported by outside sources and sometimes not at all.

The Quran's are destroyed when warn out or found to be imperfect this is well known and explains why u cannot find many ancient sources other than the few that are found. It doesnt bother me if ppl think that the oldest Quran found was a 100 or 200 yrs after Muhammad's death and he may not have existed at all.

Only certain things are taken at face value and generally accepted one being Muhammad most likely did exist in the same context as Jesus most likely did exist. if u dont accept it that is fine if new evidence can show the man never existed at all it wouldnt bother me although I cant see how u can prove the non existence of a person in the ancient past. 😕

That must be the same book which would say that Islam means peace or that Muhammad was a merchant. (He travelled to Syria on behalf of Khadija once and that was the first and last working day of his life).

A book about archaeology or history would be more appropriate in determining Qur'an's origins and age than a public school book on world religions, which, I can bet all I own, would not have mentioned anything remotely against or bad sounding about Islam.

I also had a professor who is an ex-Muslim who devoted 30 years of his life into researching Islam, the history of Islam, sources etc... Should I just accept what he says? No, I should not, so I read for myself.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
actually it doesnt. u failed to notice the part where I said secular scholar and mirrored verse of cannanites. it isnt a theory its a fact. I am not arguing Theological reinterpretation.

I tend to throw aside "modern" bible verses and go straight to the translation closes to the original intent.

I am the last person you want to argue about the Judeo Christian religion it was my meat and butter in school...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion

dont come at me with modern re interpreted verses of your bible. u want to argue keep theology aside and look at it as is with literal honest translations of ancient sources. that secular scholars agree with. 😮‍💨

1) Why would I EVER go to a secular scholar for their OPINION on Bible texts?

2) The King James Bible is hardly "modern", my friend. It was originally translated in 1611, and remains to this day the most honest, pure iteration of the Word of God in the English language. It uses the Majority text, rather than the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

3) What are your "ancient sources" exactly? Just because something is older doesn't make it more accurate. A lot of old texts say the world is flat. Is it? No.

Be very weary of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which many people prefer because they're "older". One was found in the Vatican City (obviously not a Christian text) and the other was literally FOUND IN A TRASHCAN AT THE BASE OF MOUNT SINAI. That's actually where all of the other Bible translations come from (NIV, ASV, NKJV, NWT, etc.)

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If you find it hard to believe, devote some time into research.

It's almost 9 years since I picked up the Qur'an first time and started reading the Hadiths and history and Sirat and sources of all kinds, asking Imams, Muslims, non-Muslims, ex-Muslims...everyone.

Around 80% of Muslims had never read the Qur'an as around 80% of all Muslims do not speak Arabic.

Finding information about Islam, surprisingly took more than a first google page...

Convincing me that the first Muslim Caliphates didn't know about the existence of Islam will take more than sarcasm.

Hey, she used condescension too, Mister Man! estahuh

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Convincing me that the first Muslim Caliphates didn't know about the existence of Islam will take more than sarcasm.

I'm not here to convince you. In fact, I don't care if you believe it or not. If you're too lazy to do research for yourself, then remain wondering... or ignorant on this matter.
Whichever suits you better. Makes no difference to me.

EDIT: Perhaps you should also re-read what I wrote - I said they did not mention him not that they did not know him. What they knew or didn't know can hardly be determined without any documented evidence. It's how history works.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'm not here to convince you. In fact, I don't care if you believe it or not. If you're too lazy to do research for yourself, then remain wondering... or ignorant on this matter.
Whichever suits you better. Makes no difference to me.

Edit: Though I suppose this is one of those things that drifts close to the negative proof zone.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
1) Why would I EVER go to a secular scholar for their OPINION on Bible texts?

2) The King James Bible is hardly "modern", my friend. It was originally translated in 1611, and remains to this day the most honest, pure iteration of the Word of God in the English language. It uses the Majority text, rather than the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

3) What are your "ancient sources" exactly? Just because something is older doesn't make it more accurate. A lot of old texts say the world is flat. Is it? No.

Be very weary of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which many people prefer because they're "older". One was found in the Vatican City (obviously not a Christian text) and the other was literally FOUND IN A TRASHCAN AT THE BASE OF MOUNT SINAI. That's actually where all of the other Bible translations come from (NIV, ASV, NKJV, NWT, etc.)

I get my translations from the dead sea scrolls translated by secular scholars who have no stake in its theology hence less likely to spin or lie. I tend to trust scholars like Bart Erhman who reads various languages including greek and hebrew rather than someone who gets all his quotes and religious beliefs from KJV rather than look up specific words translations on his own which I also do myself.

an example are the words used in 32:8

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

El Elyon = Most High God
Ha Elohim= Sons of God/Council of Gods

these words should set off alarms and red flags b/c these names and specific stories are a close match to a Ugaritic Pantheon that was already established before the ppl u would come to know as the Israelites entered the land of the Cannanites.

and for your information the Judeo Christian Religion was not Monotheistic in the sense that God acknowledged other gods as repeatedly in ancient text including the old testament and Torah. The Concept that God is the only god only came about 500 yrs or so before Jesus birth when they finally stamped out the vestiges of its polytheistic/monolatrist roots.

U know how they did this? by changing the meaning of words which scholars today would be disgusted by its obvious and purposely mistranslated words that makes no grammatical sense in the context being used even in its original language.

It be like a modern person turning the word car into a person running. O_O"

only in the bible do u find the words like: El Elyon, Elohim given multiple meanings outside of its original intent which is power, god, gods, council of gods, celestial host ..

not one has it ever meant human or children of god the isrealites. it makes no sense whatsoever and religious theologians should be ashamed of this b/c they try to cover the judeo religion's monolatrist pantheon roots by changing the meaning of the word for the sake of their religion.

by the way my argument of the specific translation is with how the words were used in the Torah in its original language .

The New testament is another argument since it was written in Greek with a completely new religious view.

lmao @ KJV wanking.

Edit: Reading the NT and then reading the works of Plato can bring interesting results...almost as interesting as reading the OT and reading the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
lmao @ KJV wanking.

Edit: Reading the NT and then reading the works of Plato can bring interesting results...almost as interesting as reading the OT and reading the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'm not here to convince you. In fact, I don't care if you believe it or not. If you're too lazy to do research for yourself, then remain wondering... or ignorant on this matter.
Whichever suits you better. Makes no difference to me.

This really isn't a matter that calls for hostility as far as I'm concerned.

I wouldn't even know where to go looking for a source that says "there are no records of Islam from the time of the Muslim Conquests". You're the one who's set herself up as an expert on this subject, not me, and I assume you have some kind of source.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
how so?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Weren't you the one who snapped earlier about people backing up their claims or staying quiet?

Edit: Though I suppose this is one of those things that drifts close to the negative proof zone.

You accused me of misreading. If I did missread, then point out where.

I have already stated that there are NO records of anyone talking or writing about Muhammad or Qur'an or Islam for full 6 decades.
What do you want me to produce? A blank document?

In order for you to debunk this, you must find a writing or a primary source that speaks about Muhammad or Islam or Qur'an that has been missed or overlooked in research. So what evidence shall I produce? A source about something that doesn't appear to exist?

In history no record usually means we have no reason to believe it was there - in theology...well, that's up for debate.

If we turn this to a 'theological' discussion and accept only the Qur'an...it might work.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This really isn't a matter that calls for hostility as far as I'm concerned.

I wouldn't even know where to go looking for a source that says "there are no records of Islam from the time of the Muslim Conquests". You're the one who's set herself up as an expert on this subject, not me, and I assume you have some kind of source.

It works by looking at the writings of the times of Muslims conquest, key dates, of the caliphates as well as the people they conquered. They'd be the first to talk about it, I would imagine.

Same way one can conclude that that Mecca did not exist for a very long time before Muhammad. Any traveller that visited Arabia along the coast had written about many merchant cities, or cities in general, but hasn't mentioned Mecca.
Since there are no records of Mecca in the BC time by anyone who visited (give me time to pull out the names of Persians, Romans and Greeks who visited and spoke about their ventures in Arabia), we have no reason to assume that anything was there at that time.

(And it was supposed to be, as Abraham supposedly built The Kaaba).

Since Saudi Arabia forbade archaeological investigations, this makes the quest for proving Mecca existed since Qur'an and Muhammad claim it did, impossible.

EDIT: Also, I am sorry about my tone. It was uncalled for.