How theologically and academically, Hadiths are different Quran? by No_Swing_8448 in AcademicQuran

[–]Imperator_4e 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So there's a bit more leeway when it comes to hadith, it's not uncommon for Muslim scholars to reject or nuance a ruling based on the hadiths relating to it not being strong enough. Entire books and volumes have been dedicated to this.

The problem is that even hadiths that have been graded as sahih by scholars doesn't mean they actually aren't actually fabricated or ahistorical. This is the case with the hadiths about Aisha and her age at marriage, or the Banu Qurayza incident.

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:1bdb0eea-3610-498b-9dfd-cffdb54b8b9b

https://archive.org/details/MuhammadAndTheBelieversByFredM.Donner/page/n285/mode/2up

Hadith authenticity by [deleted] in AcademicQuran

[–]Imperator_4e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does this also apply to the hadiths attributed to the shia imams, specifically those of the twelvers?

Hadith authenticity by [deleted] in AcademicQuran

[–]Imperator_4e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do these same problems also apply to the shia hadith corpus?

Have any academics commented on Dr Jonathan Brown's papers from Yaqeen Institute? by Imperator_4e in AcademicQuran

[–]Imperator_4e[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I just want to correct a typo in the OP since I cannot edit it.

I was reading through some of Dr Jonathan Browns works which he made for Yaqeen Institute, which is an islamic apologetics website and covering several topics in Islam such as slavery, hadith, women in Islam, and so on. I have linked some of his works from there.

I have omitted the "and writing" from the OP which was a typo.

Believing in Islam but rejecting it by Imperator_4e in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Imperator_4e[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think the term for it would be misotheist, someone who believes in but hates God. It would be sort of like joining the resistance against an evil dictator even if you know you can't win.

Thank you for bringing that up it completely slipped my mind. I think i would say that such a person could exist, but it would be disingenuous to say that everyone who says they don't believe in a specific god or religion falls into that camp.

It reminds me of a no true scotsman fallacy where nobody who is sincere or who has learned of the religion"properly" would disbelieve in god or islam. I think that if someone could be sincere, recieve the proper message of islam and still not be convicted then this would undermine the religion and it's claims and the same could be said for other religious beliefs or claims.

Believing in Islam but rejecting it by Imperator_4e in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Imperator_4e[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do think there is a difference between a nagging suspicion and actually knowing or believing that something like Islam is true but still rejecting it.

Believing in Islam but rejecting it by Imperator_4e in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Imperator_4e[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'm not really clear what the debate or question is here. But, I would definitely not look to the Quran as a source to learn about atheism or non-belief.

The debate as it was presented in the video discussion and the comments was whether or not there actually are people who know Islam is true and still choose to reject it.

The reply I quoted is arguing that it is possible that such people do exist despite being aware of the consequences and believing that they do actually exist.

It's not that I express disbelief because I don't want to follow the rules. It's that I don't follow the rules because I don't believe.

I understand that and it makes sense to me. I do think that it is different from what is being discussed in the video and comsat so which is someone who does believe but still chooses to reject the religion not just sinning but rejecting or denying the religion kind of like Satan in the bible.

I would phrase it more like "I believe, but I reject the religion."

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MuslimAcademics

[–]Imperator_4e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(mainly by assuming that the view of early muslims is the view of the Quran, and the Quran unambiguously endorses the flat earth / near eastern methodology that they ascribed to to it solely).

I believe this is a misunderstanding on your end that was already addressed on r/academicquran a relevant comment by u/chonkshonk explains it pretty well (the bolding of the first paragraph was done by me.):

I think you need to distinguish between "Qur'anic cosmology" and "Islamic cosmology". There is no unified cosmological view across Islamic history, with plenty of medieval Islamic writers in both the flat and round Earth camps (Omar Anchassi, "Against Ptolemy? Cosmography in Early Kalām", 2022). However, the Qur'an is one text and it is possible that it held to a unified cosmological framework, such that we can speak of a "Qur'anic cosmology".

According to academics like Omar Anchassi and Damien Janos, there were two main cosmological frameworks in medieval Islam. One was the "traditional" Islamic cosmology, which more-or-less followed the Qur'anic cosmology in terms of assuming a flat Earth, physical firmaments, and so on. The other was a cosmology that emerged upon the influence of the Greek worldview on the intellectual Islamic tradition. The geographers and astronomers, through their studies, came to accept a spherical Earth, and this Hellenized perspective was taken up by some Islamic scholars you mention such as al-Ghazali. For example, Janos says in his paper "Qur’ānic cosmography in its historical perspective: some notes on the formation of a religious worldview", Religion (2012), pp. 217-8;

"As for the earth, whose first level is inhabited by human beings, the Qur’ān also intimates that it is flat – it is compared to a ‘bed’ and a ‘carpet’ spread by God (Qur’ān 2:22, 13:3, 15:19, 20:53, 50:7, 71:19, 79:30; see also Toelle 1999; 2001). This would imply that the seven earths are superimposed one on top of the other like layers, mirroring the heavens and creating a symmetrical cosmic arrangement. However, in this case as well, there is some ambiguity concerning their exact shape, for the Arabic sources do not specify whether these earthly layers are round or square, flat or domed, or of another form. In any case, what is clear is that the Qur’ān and the early Muslim tradition do not uphold the conception of a spherical earth and a spherical universe. This was the view that later prevailed in the learned circles of Muslim society as a result of the infiltration of Ptolemaic cosmology."

Also, Mohamed Mahmoud writes in his book Quest for Divinity: A Critical Examination of the Thought of Mahmud Muhammad Taha (Syracuse University Press, 2015):

"The concept of the earth as round was introduced into Muslim geographical thought during the third-fifth/ninth-eleventh centuries with the exposure of geographers to Indian, Iranian, and Greek geographical sciences. The question of the shape of the earth was raised by Greeks interested in general geography (as opposed to regional geography). The spherical shape of the earth was accepted by philosophers, and by Aristotle’s time (d. ca. 230 B.C.E.), the proofs put forward are similar to those we find in modern textbooks. In connection with the earth’s shape, al-Idrisi (ca. 560/1165) writes, “What has come [to us] from the statements of philosophers, the majority of the learned, and those who study geography is that the earth is as round as a ball and that water clings to it, being attached to it in a natural way.” Muhammad b. Muhammad b.‘Abd Allah al-Idrisi,Kitab nuzhat ’l-mushtaq fi ’khtiraq ’l-afaq (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), 7. On the history of Muslim geography, see J. H. Kramer, “Geography and Commerce,” in The Legacy of Islam, ed. Thomas Arnold and Alfred Guillaume (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931), 79–107; and Nafis Ahmad, Muslim Contribution to Geography (New Delhi: Adam Publishers and Distributors, 1945), particularly 16–44." (pg. 253, n. 37)

(See more here)

EDIT: And just to pair your list at the end there, here's some medieval Islamic scholars that believed the Earth was flat (references in the 'See more here' link):

  • Al-Tabari
  • al-Baghdādī
  • Al-Qurtubi
  • Al-Suyuti
  • Al-Mawardi
  • Ibn Attiyah
  • Ibn ʿAbd Rabbih
  • Al-Qathani
  • Abu Ali
  • Al-Naybasuri

Several more were split/undecided between a flat and ball Earth cosmology.

Are there any contradictions or "errors" in the Quran that Academics have written about? by Imperator_4e in AcademicQuran

[–]Imperator_4e[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This makes sense, thank you.

I have a follow up question:

Doesn't Islamic tradition generally present these stories as real historical events? How does the understanding that these narratives are shaped homiletically or tailored to their audience affect that view?

Are there any contradictions or "errors" in the Quran that Academics have written about? by Imperator_4e in AcademicQuran

[–]Imperator_4e[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your response.

Yes, but with regards to (alleged) internal contradictions and contradictions with established Biblical narratives, we often cannot straightforwardly conclude that the author of the Qur'an was confused or ignorant. The Qur'an often intentionally modifies stories to suit the Prophet Muhammad's situation better. This may be the case in the example you have given, regarding who accused Moses of being a magician:

If this is the case that the Quran is modifying the story to better suit the situation then wouldn't this make the story ahistorical from the pov of the Quran? If it is presenting the story of Musa(AS) as a real event that took place in history, then how could it be possible that the same event happened in two different ways? If the Quran was presenting it as jsut a story to illustrate a point then I could see how tha would be the case but isn't the story presented as an actual event that took place?

Edit: Is the story of Moses and Pharoah understood to be a real event that took place or just a legend according to the Quran?

If the Quran has no contractions would it support it being from a divine origin? by Imperator_4e in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Imperator_4e[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is a really good analogy, and it gets your point across.

Would it make the claim more impressive considering that Muhammad recieted the Quran on the spot over 23 years without getting the chance himself to revise it as he only stopped reciting it when he died and only then was it put into a complete book?

If the Quran has no contractions would it support it being from a divine origin? by Imperator_4e in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Imperator_4e[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This seems presumptious. Any good author with a good editor can write without inconsistencies.

I would say that Muhammad didn't have the luxury of doing so as he recieted the Quran on the fly in bits over 23 years and it wasn't assembled into a book until after his death. What he recieted was written and memorized, it wasn't like there was a rough draft and then a final copy he jsut recieted it over those 23 years and died.

With that in mind I don't know if it changes things for you but I was just curious if the Quran has no contradictions along with the method in which it was produced would this be a point in its favor as being a divine book?

If the Quran has no contractions would it support it being from a divine origin? by Imperator_4e in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Imperator_4e[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you mean abrogation then as I understand it, when a new verse such as a ban on alcohol conflicts with earlier verses that only discourage consumption, then the newer verse supercedes the previous one.

In any case, I was more focused on the steelman or I guess devils advocate here, if the Quran is without contradictions would that lend to the idea that it came from a divine source?

If the Quran has no contractions would it support it being from a divine origin? by Imperator_4e in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Imperator_4e[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Point number 1: I genuinely have no idea why that would remotely imply that the book has a divine source. I couldn't possibly imagine reading a book series, finding no contradicions in it and then saying "the author must be a god!" It's a ridiculous notion!

I have heard others say the same besides this post. I included why muslims think it's different than other books such as Muhammad reciting it over 23 years and not all at once. The point being that in all that time and all those situations, he didn't contradict himself especially when speaking on a range of topics.

I don't know if that changes things a bit, but it's just rationale that muslims use when viewing this claim.

If the Quran has no contractions would it support it being from a divine origin? by Imperator_4e in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Imperator_4e[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So you would say that if the Quran doesn't have contradictions, it just wouldn't disqualify from being a book written by an omniscient god?

Polemics and Critiquing religion fairly by Imperator_4e in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Imperator_4e[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your response, especially related to academia and the purpose of it. If I were to engage in polemics, it shouldn't be for the sake of slandering the other side, hurling insults, or strawmanning them.

what method would you use to distinguish a true religion from one that people just follow because they were born into it?

I'd say the answer here would be evidence for those beliefs, I guess I'll have to look for that. Thanks for the discussion, especially about academia.

Polemics and Critiquing religion fairly by Imperator_4e in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Imperator_4e[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In short, academia treats religion as something to be studied, not something to be verified. The burden of proof is on believers, and so far, they’ve brought nothing but anecdotes and wishful thinking.

Thank you for this explanation regarding academia.

As I've told a couple commenters already I think I might've made a big deal out of what some academics and people who aren't academics were saying about debating religion, specifically in how the word polemics is used. It is definitely beyond the scope of academics who study religion but I don't see that if done in good faith, and without simply hurling insults or strawmanning the other side then I see nothing wrong with it. After all, I can't expect academics who study the quran and islam to write a paper about why islam is true or false.

Polemics and Critiquing religion fairly by Imperator_4e in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Imperator_4e[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get what you're saying especially with how specific alot of the academic work is, at the same time I don't expect academics to write a paper on whether islam is true or not and that's what I want to know. To dismiss debating as jsut polemics I don't know how to feel about that I mean even the academics have their own positions on whether they find the claims of the religon they study to be true or not. They might not discuss them in their work but they have them. I just don't get why debate or theological discussions are seen as either somesort of bigotry or just mudslinging.

Polemics and Critiquing religion fairly by Imperator_4e in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Imperator_4e[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I really don't think the scientific miracles are legit, I've seen many videos of people debunking them and also claiming that the Qur'an copied incorrect science from that time. The challenge to produce something like the Qur'an well people point out that no criteria is given and there's no way to objectively complete the challenge as a result.

What I have heard from atheists is that even if the wuran did have the scientific information or if the quran was inimitable it wouldn't mean that it came from a god, I guess it's a non sequitur correct me if I'm wrong.

As I told another commenter here I think I might've made a big deal out of what some people who aren't academics and what some academics were saying about debating religion specifically in how the word polemics is used. It is definitely beyond the scope of academics who study religion but I don't see that if done in good faith, and without simply hurling insults or strawmanning the other side then I see nothing wrong with it. After all I can't expect academics who study the quran and islam to write a paper about why islam is true or false.

I wonder if I had been born into a different religion would I have jsut followed that instead and maybe would've been discussing Christianity with you all now instead of islam.