Got any links on any of that to actual history? By actual, disinterested historians? The same type of arguments, with true consensual scholarship, are of course arrayed against Christianity.
Obviously not! this is new stuff… Scholarship is never undertaken by disinterested historians! Otherwise, they aren’t interested enough to bother! Islamic Critical Textual Archaeological Studies have never been done. Christianity never did it either, until the 19th century, and was forced into it. Islam has yet to acknowledge its sources need veracity.
The Coins were long discovered, but the work itself not re-evaluated in relation to Islam. The other stuff Smith et al is doing is new, therefore not “cite-able”
Just like in Geology where a whole generation of scientists had to pass-away before Plate-Tectonics was widely embraced! 
Kind of hard for Islam to acknowledge that its sources need veracity when it assumes veracity to begin with and affirms that the revelation of and in the Qur’an to Muhammad is proof that he was Allah’s prophet. [See The Miraculous Language of the Qur’an: Evidence of Divine Origin Paperback – June 1, 2015 by Basaam Saeh.]
Yep…that’s why I put in the refs to Abraham. The raison d’être is baked into the linage. Note the Angel’s message to the mother of Ishmael
Genesis 16:12, NASB: “But he will be a wild donkey of a man; His hand will be against everyone, And everyone’s hand will be against him; And he will live in defiance of all his brothers.'”
1 Like
Res ipsa loquitur
… 'nuff said!
1 Like
So these new stuff pedlars are self-interested, not unbiased, not impartial, not neutral? And there is no other historical scholarship of Islam over the past 1400 years?
I agree.But you have to take in the mindset of the medieval knight .He wanted to protect his brothers.there are chronicles that they say the Crusaders didnt want this war to happen at the first place.But there wasnt a choise.Of course attrocities were commited.Plus they sure not all governors burned synagogues etc.Take Baldwin the Leper.He was a good king.As Saladin was
1 Like
Islam itself has made it very clear…
EVERY WORD OF THE QUR’AN IS EXACT, TO THE LAST DOT AND IS PERFECT AND NOT TO BE QUESTIONED.
Re: “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)” (15:9).i
This Dogma is the reason Quranic Scholars only talk about the “Narrative” never about the FACTS… of Archaeology, Text, Anthropology, Science, Methodology or any other investigative means.
Jay Smith and others started to question this only three years ago and have found thousands of changes, irregularities, and wholesale departures from the supposedly “pure” Qur’an.
It’s bare fact written in copies of the Qur’an, this is not “conjecture” “supposition” or “simple mistakes of printing”. Note the arguments in Jay’s Debates with Qur’anic scholars. Whenever he quotes and shows emendations and changes, they deflect by going back to the “Traditions”.NOIT the text itself!
I’d say that is a damning fact they cannot and will not face.
To quote Yeshua Jesus:
Matt 13:13-14 This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’ 14 In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled: ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
Ohhh they have some strange stuff.Like you know Drinking water or milk(dont remember exactly)with a fly in it cures diseases?Yeah about that…They have a lot of questionable verses as well
Not strange for the C7th (or the C17th) Hadiths Volume 4, Book 54, Number 537: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said “If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease.” . You’ll have neighbours and members of your family with such superstitions now.
I said can be, not is.
So is it or isn’t it? Is the history of Christendom, and Islam flat wrong?
Please don’t take what I said out of context.
I won’t. This is the context. No qualified academician is wrong in the field of Christian-Muslim history or any other for very long. It’s usually the consensus that shifts with new evidence.
Are you talking about fictional narratives? My point stands.
How do you ask that?
That is true! It’s also pretty upsetting that different faith groups can live together peacefully for a long time and then suddenly explode in violence. See Jerusalem: The Biography by by Simon Sebag Montefiore
2 Likes
I’m not sure this is really the right way to think about the Quran or how the book is viewed in an academic way, but first something I think we would agree upon:
- When Muslim apologists make certain arguments (like a perfect, unchanging original Quran or that the Quran makes advanced scientific statements or that it contains a literal, perfect, modern historical recording of events), they are without merit from an academic standpoint
However, the same argument would hold for many apologetics arguments for the Bible as well:
- When Christian apologists make certain arguments (like a perfect, unchanging original Bible or that the Bible makes advanced scientific statements or that it contains a literal, perfect, modern historical recording of events), they are without merit from an academic standpoint
At the end of the day, I think that if you apply the same sort of scrutiny to the Quran that you do to the Bible, you find many similar sorts of things. This doesn’t mean that the books don’t contain historical value or can’t be touching upon the truth about the supernatural world, but that the typical ‘go-to’ apologetics of both Muslims and Christians often overlap. Christian apologists aim to counter Muslim apologists using modern tools like archeology, anthropology, science but yet Muslim apologists can make the same sorts of arguments right back. And both simultaneously claim that when you properly do archeology, etc. then their book is the one that really passes the test. But that’s not what we find when applying academic methods to either of them and that’s okay. It doesn’t diminish the truth claims for either, but it does mean we don’t get a free pass just selectively applying archeology with a lot of confirmation bias so our book is obviously the winner.
4 Likes
Ummm i think you are missing out how many things from the Bible have been confirmed by archeology.Not all of course but there are pretty good findings concerning people,sites,or locations in the bible.Saying thats not what we find its false
Dont know about the Quran but i guess archeology has confirmed locations,or people it mentions as well maybe
Sure… some of the names and such match real places which is also true for the Quran, but archeologists and historians don’t take the Old Testament as true, literal, history which also stands for the Quran or Hadiths or other ancient documents.
3 Likes