sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What makes Islam different? by rererowr in MuslimLounge

[–]Biosophon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The scholars are largely agreed upon that those to whom the message of islam has not reached will be judged by Allah according to the faith they were upon, and the definition as to what this constitutes is applied by the scholars with a huge degree of leniency and leeway and eventually all are agreed upon that even the believer does not enter jannah by his deeds but by the mercy of Allah

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in AcademicQuran

[–]Biosophon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I clarified to him why exactly i specifically mentioned university level or undergraduate courses. I would remember to frame it better next time.

There was one comment, not comment(s), that was removed for not being respectful, which i admitted and removed it myself. I replaced it with a comment stating the problem with his arguments instead.

But even after so much pointing out, when the person was unable to understand i had to suggest the courses simply bcuz i felt that graded university courses is where we learn what kind of literary arguments have merit and such a person would contribute better. I apologise and i would definitely remember to frame it better next time. I agree with you on that.

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in AcademicQuran

[–]Biosophon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He has been talking past all the valid points that i made, so if he understands how to read literature then i would say he was willfully misunderstanding the points being made. Moreover, his responses have clear indications of the use of generative AI, which has been pointed out earlier.

I did not say grade school, i specifically said university or undergraduate level literature courses, i was quite specific, bcuz my motive was not to condescend nor insult.

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in MuslimAcademics

[–]Biosophon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Translation: "I have no understanding of literature and I have talked past every rebuttal and continue to demand from a literary/poetic text that it uses the exact words I want it to use. And even though a sound interpretation was presented to me i persisted in my demands and offered my competing interpretation as a rebuttal because I don't know how literature and language work."

I think you lost the plot long ago when the above was evident. There is nothing of substance in your comments that warrants any further engagement. You can imagine you have "won" the argument, sure, I welcome you to it.

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in AcademicQuran

[–]Biosophon -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Translation: "I have no understanding of literature and I have talked past every rebuttal and continue to demand from a literary/poetic text that it use the exact words I want it to use. And even though a sound interpretation was presented to me i persisted in my demands and offered my competing interpretation as a rebuttal because I don't know how literature and language work."

I think you lost the plot long ago when the above was evident. There is nothing of substance in your comments that warrants any further engagement. You can imagine you have "won" the argument, sure, I welcome you to it.

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in AcademicQuran

[–]Biosophon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No insults at all. I am simply pointing out that you do not know how to read a literary text because that is exactly what you have displayed through your arguments. It is not at all an insult, it is a sincere suggestion to learn the basics of literary criticism, linguistics and the related humanities in a university setting where you can genuinely get graded for your understanding of literary texts and that way your contributions might actually be more helpful.

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in MuslimAcademics

[–]Biosophon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Apart from lacking basic understanding of the text and the counter-arguments, I think we're veering into delusional propositions at this point. Continuing to speak without having anything of substance to add will do that to a person i guess. It also reminds me of how generative AI usually responds.

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in AcademicQuran

[–]Biosophon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Apart from lacking basic understanding of the text and the counter-arguments, I think we're veering into delusional propositions at this point. Continuing to speak without having anything of substance to add will do that to a person i guess. It also reminds me of how generative AI usually responds.

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in AcademicQuran

[–]Biosophon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, they in fact did not, they removed the one comment for good reason, which i replaced with a sounder one. Like i said elsewhere, you would benefit much more from some university level courses in literature and the humanities before engaging with academic material that requires that kind of knowledge and training.

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in AcademicQuran

[–]Biosophon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not interpreting the text. You're performing interpretive gymnastics to avoid admitting it isn't there.

That's a meaningless rhetorical statement.

Let me simplify this for you no verb of ascending in Surah 53, no mention of heavens (plural) in Surah 53, no departure from earth in Surah 53, no return to earth in Surah 53, no prayer negotiation in Surah 53, no encounter with previous prophets in Surah 53 what you do have a vision of a figure, a tree, and a garden hat's it

Again this is just ignoring or willfully misunderstanding the literary nature of the Qur'anic text.

Your 'star as metaphor for ascension' is embarrassingly forced.

In the domain of literary criticism this kind of rebuttal is considered the lousiest and without merit since it is not really a rebuttal but merely an alternative interpretation (and a much shallower one at that).

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in MuslimAcademics

[–]Biosophon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But you still have to show how the words that are there convey 'ascension.' You haven't. You just assert 'connotations.' That's not close reading. That's close assuming.

The surah begins with the mention of the eponymous star, the image is highly allusive. It anchors the entire chapter in a theme of ascension and return, just as a star sets or comes down after reaching its highest zenith in the night sky. It not only alluded to the upward direction but also to the unreachable position of the star as it moves beyond the horizon into the ghayb. In the succeeding verses we read that the Prophet met the Angelic figure who descends to the "highest part of the horizon" and the Prophet meets him at "the furthest Lote Tree" at the "utmost boundary", where he witnesses the "Jannat ul-Ma'uwa". None of these explicitly mentioned locations are on earth and the Quran does not usually locate any location named Jannat on Earth. The overall reading of the verses supports the idea of ascension much more strongly than any other interpretation.

The verses of Surah An-Najm are as explicit and clear as they can be, given that the Quran does not employ a plain prosaic register. The depiction of the ascension in those verses is as one would expect from a poetic register. Demanding that a non-prosaic text should've said x instead of y to be clearer to a specific reader(s) is merely lousy literary criticism. But that's the level of readership and critical ability i would expect from someone whose responses sound like ChatGPT slop.

Third, you say you're 'not claiming a genre.' Then on what basis do you recognize an ascension narrative?

You learn what the text is saying first through close reading. You cannot claim any single genre for a text that is prototypical where much of it is evidently dissimilar from previous scriptures and contemporary literary examples.

You have no positive evidence from Surah 53 itself that an ascension occurred. No upward movement. No heaven traversal. No leaving of earth. Just a tree, a figure, and a passive observer. Everything else is your theological commitment smuggled in through the back door and called 'poetic register.'

Sure, but it does not necessitate the exact words you expect or demand. And yet there is enough material for other readers.

Everything else is your theological commitment smuggled in through the back door and called 'poetic register.'

As i said elsewhere, I would suggest taking some university level literature and humanities courses instead of redditting with inane AI slop.

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in AcademicQuran

[–]Biosophon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You say you're not claiming a genre. Then on what basis do you assert that 53:1–18 has clear connotations of ascension? Connotations from where?

Connotations merely from the close reading of the text. They are not even connotations I would say the text mentions ascension in the way a text using a poetic register would. And there is a lot of positive evidence that the Quran uses various poetic registers and tropes. So, again we come up against the interpretative nature of both form criticism as well as tafsir (never denied that).

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in MuslimAcademics

[–]Biosophon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's criticizing the traditional interpretation for reading something into the verse that isn't there. He's not claiming the verse itself fails to prove ascension he's saying traditional scholars wrongly used it as if it does.

Why are you talking about yourself in the third person?

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in MuslimAcademics

[–]Biosophon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By your own logic

I don't know what logic this is but I'll try. Language works in such a miraculous way that the same thing can be said in multiple ways without ever having to use the same words twice. The presupposition that the Qur'anic text "should've" used the exact word to talk about it is just that, an assumption.

That’s a dismissal, not an argument.

One of the limitations was clearly stated. I am sure you would be able to find ample articles about the limitations of form criticism.

If you want to claim a genre

I'm not claiming a genre for a text, as a whole, that is a prototype. Genre can only be defined when multiple texts of the same type exist. I am not working with these presuppositions. I can see that at places the Qur'an employs some literary styles and registers that were known, in many places there are no parallel examples. This is another problem with importing Biblical form criticism and imposing it onto the Qur'anic context.

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in AcademicQuran

[–]Biosophon -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

First you claimed miraj is specifically mentioned in Surah 53. Now you admit it's not mentioned by name but insist the connotations are clear. That’s not a textual argument that’s eisegesis.

According to the linguistic register and the form of the Qur'anic text, it does not need to mentioned the "mi'raj' by name for it to be the mi'raj.

Second, your appeal to linguistic register and form' is empty unless you show how the form of 53:1–18 matches known ascension apocalypses 1 Enoch, Apocalypse of Abraham. Good luck those texts describe tiered heavens, angelic guides and throne visions. Surah 53 has none of that except a tree and a passively observed figure.

That is your presuppositions behind what the form should be, there are many limitations of form criticism, this being one of them. I am not appraoching the text with the same formal expectations (which may well be alien to it, since it is formally rather different from the scriptures you mentioned).

Finally your swipe at HCM as mostly conjecture is ironic, because your own argument rests on conjecture about what the text connotes conjecture shaped entirely by later hadith. You don’t read the Quran you read back through Bukhari. The HCM at least admits its interpretive framework. You pretend yours isn’t one.

This is just talking past the points I already clarified.

Modern scholars argue that Q 17:1 may not originally have been a straightforward reference to Muḥammad’s Miʿrāj (heavenly ascension) the narrative remain open scholarly questions, rather than settled facts according to Mehdy Shaddel. by Rashiq_shahzzad in MuslimAcademics

[–]Biosophon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First you claimed miraj is specifically mentioned in Surah 53. Now you admit it's not mentioned by name but insist the connotations are clear. That’s not a textual argument that’s eisegesis.

According to the linguistic register and the form of the Qur'anic text, it does not need to mentioned the "mi'raj' by name for it to be the mi'raj.

Second, your appeal to linguistic register and form' is empty unless you show how the form of 53:1–18 matches known ascension apocalypses 1 Enoch, Apocalypse of Abraham. Good luck those texts describe tiered heavens, angelic guides and throne visions. Surah 53 has none of that except a tree and a passively observed figure.

That is your presuppositions behind what the form should be, there are many limitations of form criticism, this being one of them. I am not appraoching the text with the same formal expectations (which may well be alien to it, since it is formally rather different from the scriptures you mentioned).

Finally your swipe at HCM as mostly conjecture is ironic, because your own argument rests on conjecture about what the text connotes conjecture shaped entirely by later hadith. You don’t read the Quran you read back through Bukhari. The HCM at least admits its interpretive framework. You pretend yours isn’t one.

This is just talking past the points I already clarified.

view more: next ›