No music??

[lumumba_s]

Again, I already answered your questions - before you asked it actually. That is the benefit of having ideological discussions. But again, if you cannot reason from generalities to specifics on your own, there is little I can do for you. And did you really accuse ME of avoidance when we have yet to discuss a single issue anywhere near to completion that has been at the root of our discussion? Obfuscation? Let us go back to square one. Are you going to explain how you can rectify your rational objections to Muslim ritual when the Jews themselves were commanded with the very same rituals by God? If performing ablution for prayer makes no sense for us, it makes no sense for them as well. What about the fact that you seem unable to comprehend how an All-Knowing, Pre-eternal God (you do believe that God is All-Knowing right? perhaps I should have asked that first and not assumed) can write about something in pre-eternity and that not entail determinism? Its an important issue because you have used such fallacious reasoning as the basis of your rational critique of the Qur'an and mainstream Muslim theology? Can I take it you believe that God became informed of the events New Testament once the events happened on the ground? Obfuscation? Funny how both of you constantly criticize us for the very things you are guilty of. We were discussing epistemology and you all of a sudden become obsessed with the Gospel of Barnabus and the Book of James... I gave a detailed explanation and basic refutation of your claims. You in essence replied, "You are wrong. Hey! Look over there! What about this?!" And I'm the one avoiding?

[johan]

For the christian brothers, i think they should listen to this brother from the west..


sometimes the truth hurts when one holds unto falsehood..
maybe it's time to let go..

[Hawkeye]

Again, I already answered your questions - before you asked it actually. That is the benefit of having ideological discussions. But again, if you cannot reason from generalities to specifics on your own, there is little I can do for you. And did you really accuse ME of avoidance when we have yet to discuss a single issue anywhere near to completion that has been at the root of our discussion? Obfuscation? Let us go back to square one. Are you going to explain how you can rectify your rational objections to Muslim ritual when the Jews themselves were commanded with the very same rituals by God? If performing ablution for prayer makes no sense for us, it makes no sense for them as well. What about the fact that you seem unable to comprehend how an All-Knowing, Pre-eternal God (you do believe that God is All-Knowing right? perhaps I should have asked that first and not assumed) can write about something in pre-eternity and that not entail determinism? Its an important issue because you have used such fallacious reasoning as the basis of your rational critique of the Qur'an and mainstream Muslim theology? Can I take it you believe that God became informed of the events New Testament once the events happened on the ground? Obfuscation? Funny how both of you constantly criticize us for the very things you are guilty of. We were discussing epistemology and you all of a sudden become obsessed with the Gospel of Barnabus and the Book of James... I gave a detailed explanation and basic refutation of your claims. You in essence replied, "You are wrong. Hey! Look over there! What about this?!" And I'm the one avoiding?

Well if Islam has these high standards of verification then when I look at the dozens of examples in the Quran that are drawn from Gospels such as that of James, all regarded as legendary, I would have to conclude the Quran is not the word of God or that somehow these books regarded as legendary have a grain of historical truth and the real historical detail was revealed to Mohammed 600 years later. In my mind there seems no reason for God to reveal historical truth supernaturally as that would imply God reveals to you what you already know and that is absurd. There are no similar examples in the Bible or anywhere else as far as I know. So what we have is one man telling us he knows these things about the past but he was not actually there. But if they are historical we should be able to research them and see if it's the truth but of course what any rational person would do is laugh at any one who tried to tell us the known past has been revealed to him.

Now if the Muslm position is that Mohammed was just recounting the known past and the only bit that might be supernatural would be that he was inspired to include the historical event then that has occured many times and the event can be researched and checked in principle. If on the other hand the whole event was unknown to Mohammed then we have a different issue BUT it is still possible to check out the event. In the case we have discussed the supposed historical details are only found in one book that is known to be fabricated.

I conclude therefore that the Quran in these instances has no foundation and therfore it cannot be from God.

[lumumba_s]

The Qur'an is not a history book. It is not recounting narrations for the sake of intellectual curiosity. The Muslim position is that God gave revelation to Prophet Muhammad and what is contained in that revelation has moral, spiritual or practical benefit to humanity. The Prophet was not recounting anything. Your entire premise is based on the notion of plagiarism and the idea that Prophet Muhammad, when he was a 12 year old boy concocted a plan to claim prophethood 30 years later and was able to recount information spanning the entire Old and New Testament, along with apocryphal literature, that he could only have heard casually on a few business trips, has been agreed to be completely unreasonable and absurd by Western scholars who have even the slightest shred of objectivity.

Your conclusions mean nothing. It is a circular argument that is has a preconceived conclusion. If the Qur'an affirms the Biblical account, it is plagiarizing. If the Qur'an disagrees with the Biblical account, but agrees with apocryphal literature, it is plagiarizing the wrong source. If the Qur'an contains information absent from both the Biblical account and apocryphal literature, then its information can't be confirmed and thus can be ignored - even though there have been instances where the Qur'anic account has been demonstrated to be more historically accurate than the Bible. After all, you haven't even attempted to demonstrate how the "stories" mention in the Book of James are incorrect (something Ihsan attempted to argue with you repeatedly, but which you simply ignored). But again, that would require you to actually be committed to what textual criticism means, along with the process of history as a discipline, instead of just quoting whoever you can when you think it can be used against us.

The simple fact remains that 75% of the New Testament is either an outright fabrication, mis-attributed or an outright religious forgery, all of which are untraceable back to anyone with any historical or religious authority. That being so, the Four Gospels, which provide the only significant biographical material, but are mostly unconcerned with Jesus or Mary's life prior to his mission, is on par with the Book of James. And the apocryphal material the Catholics use and include in their Bibles, is no less authentic than what the Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and the other Christian sects Bibles contain. If James not writing the Book of James automatically means that its entire contents are fabricated, then the same must necessarily apply to the Books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. But is that your conclusion? Of course not. You only imitate rational thought, while it is clear to outside observers that there is no logic in your thought process. If you were consistent, then you would be forced to take the same noncommittal stance that people like Bart Erhman, Keith Ward and the other Biblical scholars have taken who have since become unaffiliated Deists, Agnostics or Christians who admit that the New Testament in its current form cannot be called "Divine".

The core of the New Testament is a religious forgery, as is "Acts of the Apostles". In their content, they compromise the message and activities of Jesus, along with the understanding and activities of his disciples (i.e., the living example of the religion or the "Sunnah" of Jesus and his Companions that you claim has no relevancy in religion when it comes to Islam - what is the point of Acts? Why did the early Christian community care what the Apostles did? Or do you simply blame us because we are not so bold as to claim that Sahih al-Bukhari is a Divine scripture?). They were based on other writings available at the time that were not preserved and they therefore cannot be authenticated to reflect the understanding, practices or beliefs of the Apostles. In that respect, they have no religious authority, but are simply historical documents. Does that mean that everything they contain is false? No it does not. It simply means that it would be foolish to accept everything that it says uncritically. This, I've already said in my posts. But as Shaad mentioned previously, both of you seem unable or unwilling to read between the lines.

I understand quite well that you do not accept the Qur'an as being Divine. I am fine with that. I can only hope that in the future you will be more open-minded and accept the Qur'an for what it is, instead of approaching it with the hostility you have for it at the moment. But please, don't fool yourself into thinking that your fallacious arguments have any merit.

And don't think that I haven't noticed you are still avoiding the essential issues. And please, don't forget that forums save everything, so we all are aware that you are arguing the very same points that you argued a few months ago with Ihsan. But such things are bound to happen when there are no agreed upon principles that form the basis of discussion. You are avoiding. The issues that I had with you, I've stated and have detailed in a way that left me entirely open to your criticism. That, you refuse to do. Instead you want to talk about the Gospel of Barnabas or the Book of James because those are your tailor made arguments and you are not really interested in an actual discussion (though the larger question of the entire written legacy of the 12 disciples being lost, or the fact that Jesus apparently had no concern for a written tradition, but instead only seemed to be interested in an ORAL one and what that means for Christianity given your insistence upon written source material and the invalidity of oral narration when we are speaking of Islam is another discussion we unfortunately won't be having).

I'm tired of running around in circles. Have a nice day.

[Al-Boriqi]

lumumba
I don't know how you do it. You have won the art of patience without contest if I am the subject of contrast.

[Hawkeye]

For lumumba_s *- The Qur'an is not a history book. It is not recounting narrations for the sake of intellectual curiosity. The Muslim position is that God gave revelation to Prophet Muhammad and what is contained in that revelation has moral, spiritual or practical benefit to humanity. The Prophet was not recounting anything. Your entire premise is based on the notion of plagiarism and the idea that Prophet Muhammad, when he was a 12 year old boy concocted a plan to claim prophethood 30 years later and was able to recount information spanning the entire Old and New Testament, along with apocryphal literature, that he could only have heard casually on a few business trips, has been agreed to be completely unreasonable and absurd by Western scholars who have even the slightest shred of objectivity. Your conclusions mean nothing. It is a circular argument that is has a preconceived conclusion. If the Qur'an affirms the Biblical account, it is plagiarizing. If the Qur'an disagrees with the Biblical account, but agrees with apocryphal literature, it is plagiarizing the wrong source. If the Qur'an disagrees with both the Biblical account and apocryphal literature, then its information can't be confirmed and thus can be ignored.

Amazing! I have never mentioned or even heard about this 12 year old boy premise so you are inventing again. The argument I presented was not as such about plagiarism or copying but about the oddity of your prophet recounting history which he plausibly must have known and calling it revelation. Now, recounting history by copying from a source is commonplace and occurs all the time quite legitimately. But you in fact have conformed that it as indeed plagiarism with your words 'the prophet was not recounting anything.' If your view is the usual Muslim position it is in fact the worst kind of plagiarism because you are denying what is obvious copying and claiming it is entirely new. One might point out also that the information we have been discussing found in the Quran cannot be confirmed and according to you must be ignored.

Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy called*Ad Hoc Rescue?*Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption - 'not recounting anything' is taken into account. However, I cannot think of any good reason to accept this saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief, your rescue is an ad hoc rescue.*The burden of proof is definitely on you to show your assumption is valid.

It also seems to be true that you have commiteed the fallacy called Begging the Question. By this i mean that any writing could have moral, spiritual and practical value without it being regarded as supernatural.*However, in the Quran there are a large number of stories which are obviously copied from older sources, which of itself is not an issue (other that they are typically edited) but your contention 'not recounting anything' implies a supernatural element which can only be supported if the Quran is from God. But this is begging the Question and perhaps is most lucidly expressed by Matthew Tindal who has observed, “it is an odd jumble to prove the truth of a book by the truth of the doctrines it contains, and at the same time conclude those doctrines to be true because contained in that book.”*

Finally, if your conclusion is correct about 'not recounting' then it can be applied to any writing as an argument for authenticity - and if you really think that is valid you are in cloud cucko land.

[Hawkeye]

For lumumba_s - The simple fact remains that 75% of the New Testament is either an outright fabrication, mis-attributed or an outright religious forgery, all of which are untraceable back to anyone with any historical or religious authority. That being so, the Four Gospels, which provide the only significant biographical material, but are mostly unconcerned with Jesus or Mary's life prior to his mission, is on par with the Book of James. If James not writing the Book of James automatically means that its entire contents are fabricated, then the same must apply to the Books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. But is that your conclusion? Of course not. You only imitate rational thought, while it is clear to outside observers that there is no logic in your thought process. If you were consistent, then you would be forced to take the same noncommittal stance that people like Bart Erhman, Keith Ward and the other Biblical scholars have taken who have since become unaffiliated Deists or Agnostics.

Can you cite your authority for claiming this figure of 75%? Let me cite another equally eminent scholar, one who knows Erhman and indeed they have worked together. Craig Evans in his book 'Fabricating Jesus - how modern scholars distort the Gospel' shows that the four cannonical Gospels and Acts were in circulation by 95AD at the latest and therefore within living memory of the Apostles. The proto-Gospel of James in contrast is dated at the earliest 150AD so could not have been written by the James we read of in the cannonical Gospels. It may of course contains hints or ideas copied from the usual Gospels which of course is how a fabricated account is made to look genuine.

The question of attribution is an interesting one but I am not sure what you expect to find. Would you be satisfied if the book simply said 'written by Luke' or there was a signature or a chain of people who went right back to the author - what would you look for, what would be proof for you and would it make any difference, would you become a Christian? Have a look at the list of books by Paul that Erhman regards as authentic and surely that means you have to believe them? What scholars do is examine other things for they know that it is very unlikely that the original first copy would have survived given the fragility of the materials and the wear and tear on it that would have occured in reading it often and making other copies. So we look at content and in chapter 2 of Evan's book he lists the kind of things scholars look for when establishing authenticity, such as: historical coherence, multiple attestation, embarrassment, dissimilarity, consistency, semitiscms and so on.

In contrast let's consider the Quran where there are no early manuscripts and later manuscripts are incomplete. Now consider authorship and how it can be established. Well if Mohammed was the author then it might be possible to trace each verse to him. If you argue that God was the author then there is no way to trace it back to him and all you have is one man's word that he received it via a angel from God and since it more often than not disagrees with earlier revelations it is unconfirmed and so like all revelation it is hearsay. You can argue that the Quran says its from God but such an argument amounts to begging the question. You can apply the kind of authenticity criteria I mentioned earlier but that's as far as it can go and then make an informed decision.

The question then is about which is more plausible, the Bible with a huge manuscript base that passes the authentication tests and with multiple attestation or the Quran with just one witness and huge swathes of it traceable to an earlier source? Well there seems no contest to me.

[Hawkeye]

For lumumba_s - The core of the New Testament is a religious forgery, as is "Acts of the Apostles". They were based on other writings available at the time that were not preserved and cannot be authenticated to reflect the understanding, practices or beliefs of the Apostles. In that respect, have no religious authority, but are historical documents. Does that mean that everything it says is false? No it does not. It simply means that it would be foolish to accept everything that it says uncritically. I understand quite well that you do not accept the Qur'an as being Divine. I am fine with that. I can only hope that in the future you will be more open-minded and accept the Qur'an for what it is, instead of approaching it with the hostility you have for it at the moment. But please, don't fool yourself into thinking that you fallacious arguments have any merit.

Well I have quoted a Biblical scholar who is not alone in rejecting your hypothesis. Most Christians I know approach the Bible with a critical mind, indeed the Bible everywhere encourages you to use your intellect and think it all through. One often hears in sermons or Bible study groups discussions of authorship or what a text might mean from several possibilities or hear that some do not regard the creation story as literal or discuss why verses have alternative readings and so on. I cannot, though I might be wrong, recall any Muslim who would consider the Quran in the same way, indeed it is almost impossible to find a Muslim who finds anything to question in any of Islam, including its history and to me that does not look like people with open minds. It also must be said that critics of Islam are likely to be locked up or worse in Muslim majority countries.*

I wonder what you mean by 'open minded' because I suspect you regard anyone who rejects Islam after they have researched it as someone with a closed mind. For sure you talk about hisbah but it has four degrees and of course you cannot do it without confining it because of the Quranic principle of commanding good and forbidding evil but what constitutes either of these is also more or less defined. So great you can express an opinion but not one that vilifies Islam, thus one cannot express the opinion that the Quran is a forgery for example or say your prophet's character is open to censure. Have you read M. H. Kamali's book 'Freedom of Expression in Islam'?

[Hawkeye]

For lumumba_sDon't think that I haven't noticed you are still avoiding the essential issues. And please, you don't forget that forums save everything, so we all are aware that you are arguing the very same points that you argued a few months ago with Ihsan. But such things are bound to happen when there are no agreed upon principles that form the basis of discussion. You are avoiding. The issues that I had with you, I've stated and have detailed in a way that left me entirely open to your criticism. That, you refuse to do. Instead you want to talk about the Gospel of Barnabus (though the larger question of the entire written legacy of the 12 disciples being absent and what that means for Christianity in your insistence upon written source material is another discussion we won't be having) or the Book of James because those are your tailor made arguments and you are not really interested in an actual discussion. I'm tired of running around in circles. Have a nice day.

Well state the issues one at a time not rely on long rambling posts. If I am arguing the same points *you seem unaware you are offering the same answers and the trouble is you think it is not only correct but the only answer. If one looks through your long posts then you are unable to offer a simple yes or no anywhere. In the current discussion we are looking at the epistemology that underpins Islam and given that the Quran copies from other sources then those sources are important to examine. Barnabas was cited and is often cited and sold all over the Muslim world so it authenticity is open to scrutiny - then we moved to the use of other apochraphyl Gospels where almost every incident about Jesus in the Quran is drawn. Lastly, Muslims are fond of claiming they are more Christian than Christians and follow his teaching but those teachings can only be found in the canonical Gospels and if we collect together all the words of Jesus found in the Quran it hardly amounts to a sentence which again points to a very weak epistemology.*

[lumumba_s]

"Not recounting anything" meaning that he (God bless him and give him peace) was merely conveying revelation from God. And 95 years is okay for the Four Gospels, but 70 years is severely problematic for the Qur'an. Fascinating... The rest is regurgitation of your same one or two points that I've already responded to, along with your seemingly inability or refusal to acknowledge the facts. Written material is not the only measure of authenticity. If we cannot even get past that, then there is no point continuing. And given that you and Ihsan already discussed this months ago, you clearly wish to hear nothing other than what already gives you comfort.

Azami, Nyazee and Said. Have a nice day.

[Hawkeye]

As we have discussed languages, some here may like to get hold of "The Unfolding of Language" By Guy Deutscher who read Maths at Cambridge before doing a PhD in Linguistics and now works at the Department of Anclent Near Eastern Languages at the University of Leiden.

The book discusses how languages develop and change. One issue he debates is this notion that all languages have a golden period and then decline; though as he points out if this is so we should all by now be just be grunting at each other.

However, what is very interesting in the context of some of our discussion is that he devotes a whole chapter (chapter 6) to looking at how the almost algebraic complexity of the tri-consonantal root and vowel template system might have arisen in Semitic languages. As Deutcher points out, the proto-Semitic languages tree goes right back to the very dawn of writing, some 8,000 years ago so early samples are not easy to come by. I thought his arguments convincing though the book is often quite detailed but nevertheless if you are interested in how languages, all languages evolve then the book is well worth the effort.

PS it's available in printed form and as an ebook.

[Hawkeye]

"Not recounting anything" meaning that he (God bless him and give him peace) was merely conveying revelation from God. And 95 years is okay for the Four Gospels, but 70 years is severely problematic for the Qur'an. Fascinating... The rest is regurgitation of your same one or two points that I've already responded to, along with your seemingly inability or refusal to acknowledge the facts. Written material is not the only measure of authenticity. If we cannot even get past that, then there is no point continuing. And given that you and Ihsan already discussed this months ago, you clearly wish to hear nothing other than what already gives you comfort.

Azami, Nyazee and Said. Have a nice day.

Two points, Jesus was 30 years old when his ministry began so the distance is not 95 years is it? But if you acknowledge that the earliest quranic manuscripts are at least 70 years after your prophet then we see there is little difference other than the key fact about the huge disrepancy in number of available manuscripts.

Secondly, could you clear up what you mean by 'not recounting' as it still sounds ambiguous to me. There seem two main possibilities

1. Mohammed knew about the various Biblical stories, including those from the appochryphyl gospels plus he surely know about the purely Islamic events that are mentioned in the Quran. Therefore, their inclusion is because he was inspired to include them but the details are from his own memory or

2. Mohammed knew nothing about the Biblical stories and so they were given by direct revelation. (of course this does explain purely Islamic events inclusion)

Have a nice day

[lumumba_s]

Like I said, when you refuse to acknowledge or twist to suit your purposes, the basic facts under discussion, there is no point in trying to have a conversation. Whether we are talking about your selective quotation of some of your own sources, the fact that the early "manuscripts" of the New Testament are mere FRAGMENTS, the Qur'an was memorized and transmitted by the COMMUNITY, or that the modern languages of English and Arabic, specifically, have gone through a historical process and are not 8,000 years old - thus your argument is irrelevant when we are talking of specifics, it all makes trying to have an HONEST dialog with you pointless.

[Hawkeye]

Like I said, when you refuse to acknowledge or twist to suit your purposes, the basic facts under discussion, there is no point in trying to have a conversation. Whether we are talking about your selective quotation of some of your own sources, the fact that the early "manuscripts" of the New Testament are mere FRAGMENTS, the Qur'an was memorized and transmitted by the COMMUNITY, or that the modern languages of English and Arabic, specifically, have gone through a historical process and are not 8,000 years old - thus your argument is irrelevant when we are talking of specifics, it all makes trying to have an HONEST dialog with you pointless.

Firstly, Nowhere have I stated that English and Arabic are 8000 years old, you are either deliberately lying or can't or don't read what people say. When you distort what is said like this the youknownothing of honest dialogue.

Secondly, please state the basic facts you are talking about

Thirdly, fragment is a technical term and does not imply it is necessarily small. the FACTS are there are very early manuscripts for the NT and further the parts of the NT are quoted in an additional 15,000 other documents and indeed the NT could be reconstructed from these alone. As I have said before, there are only three tiny bits of the NT still in doubt and I don't know of any biblical scholar who does not say this. Scholars,ay disagree on dating or authorship or meaning but no one seriously doubts that the Greek NT is 99.9% accurate.

Fourthly, I do not deny oral transmission only as Erhman points out it is unreliable. The trouble isthat without a thought you accept perfect oral transmission for the and deny such a possibility for anyone else - that is dishonest.

[Ron]

The book discusses how languages develop and change. One issue he debates is this notion that all languages have a golden period and then decline; though as he points out if this is so we should all by now be just be grunting at each other.

This has to be one of the stupidest comments made by a "learned" man. Seriously, he can't tell the difference between a golden era of eloquence vs the degradation of a language? These "experts" of the Near East are an interesting bunch. You can be a scholar of Arabic but you don't have to know a word...how many languages enjoy that sort of dismissal by academia?

Just ridiculous. Good job finding that guy...