Portal talk:Islam/DYK/Archive 1

Archive 1

Qur'an unchanged

This is a point that I am sick of arguing ...

The current Christian Bible (New Testiment) is an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of Aramaic writings. We do not speak the same English as Shakespeare did, nor did he speak the same English as Chaucer, so documents written a millenium ago are virtually unreadable today, except by scholars. Couple this with the fact that nearly every Christian denomination has their own English version of the Bible, the authenticity of any one copy, including the King James Version of the Bible is suspect. ("The word is celebrate not celibate," says the old monk with tears in his eyes.)

OTOH, the Arabic language has remained unchanged for over 1300 years. I have been to the British Museum in London and seen copies of the Qur'an made in the 7th Century CE ... they use the same alphabet and have the same words as a copy printed last year in Lahore, Pakistan ... if you can read one, you can read the other. In any country in the world, you can obtain a copy of the Qur'an that has both Arabic and the local language translation printed on facing pages ... French, German, English, Japanese, Urdu, whatever ... all will contain the same text in Arabic, and people who speak both languages can compare the translation and agree that they both say the same thing.

-- Dennette 00:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you research this further, as historiography of the Qu'ran suggests otherwise.--CltFn 12:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that's only if you believe that the Qur'an wasn't compiled 20 years after the Prophet's death. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To CltFn: The two editions were sitting side-by-side in the display case in the British Museum when I examined them. Are you suggesting that the 7th Century one was a forgery planted to match the 20th Century one? Or maybe you consider what I saw with my own eyes is original research, and thus can be ignored and reverted? --Dennette 07:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you saw or think you saw, or wanted to see or would have wanted to see but it does sounds like OR .--CltFn 12:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw a 7th Century copy of the Qur'an next to a 20th Century printing, both opened to the same Sura, and the Arabic text was identical, even to someone who does not inderstand Arabic ... what's so hard to understand about that?? I call it confirming what I'd read elsewhere, not original research. --Dennette 13:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Muslim / Persian / Iran

In the flip-flop edits about Al-Razi having been "Persian" or "Muslim", the only link on the page for Muslim was lost, so I added it in the second bullet.

In the attempt to disamiguate "Persian", the link to Iran was not as accurate as Persian Empire, because reference to a 20th Century nation is an incorrect historical context to associate with a 9th Century scholar. (That's why I changed it.) --Dennette 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Who believes "unchanged"

To User:CltFn and User:BhaiSaab:

Can we please stop this constant edit war and agree on something like,

"... is believed by devout Muslims and many non-Muslim scholars to have remained unchanged ..."

For many Muslims, it's an article of faith, one of Allah's miracles from Qur'an that it would remain unchanged ... on the other hand, many (but no one can cite proof of most) non-Muslim scholars also believe it is unchanged.

Does that remove the false implication that everyone believes it without restricting the belief to Muslims (historiography notwithstanding)? --Dennette 18:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well only if you can cite the "and many non-Muslim scholars" portion. I think it is safer to simply say

is believed by devout Muslims to have remained unchanged ..

--CltFn 19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hagarism "Did you know"

CltFn, please stop inserting your "Did you knows" from Hagarism. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not from hagarism, its from the Doctrina Jacobi--CltFn 04:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the Bryn Mawr classical review indicates that this primary source is wrong. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It says what it says regardless of what any reviewer has to say about it. --CltFn 05:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Then don't present it as fact. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Doctrina Jacobi presents Muhammad as a Jewish Messianic priest. And further more why did you take out the other 2 lines?--CltFn 05:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You are attempting to portray Islam in a bad light as you always have been with your undocumented POV. Please go attack the portals of other religions and see if the people maintaining the portals give you a warm reception. BhaiSaab ^talk 13:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My comments: Here is what CltFn added. I will critique his addition and then try to defend parts of it.

1. ... that early 7th century eye witness historical sources record Muhammad as a Jewish priest?
2. ... that there is no record of Islam anywhere in the the middle east until the end of the 7th century?
3. ... that the earliest biography of the prophet was written by Ibn Ishaq over a century after his death?

1) Priest is not the proper word. The temple had been destroyed and while that doesn't mean he couldn't have been described that way--I don't see any evidence saying that he was. Don't like to Doctrina Jacobi with the text Jewish. It's misleading. It's an anti-Jewish source (according to Crone) by Byzantine Christians. You also want to state directly that the Doctrina says it... not make it passive voice. I also don't know how you got eye witness out of this. Nothing I have seen tells me that it is an eye witness source. Also if you are going to say "sources" then you must quote more than one source saying that there was a prophet in Arabia preaching Jewish messianism. Note that it's about a Prophet, these sources don't call him Muhammad. It just points to the same time and place where we traditionally believe Muhammad arose. I would also be careful and say "mid-7th century" or give a date range. 634 is not really early 7th century.

Possible alternative: "... that the Doctrina Jacobi, an early-mid seventh century Greek text, describes a prophet preaching Jewish messianism in Arabia in stark contradistinction to later Islamic sources about the prophet."

It states the proper text. It contextualizes it, and I don't think it reads as if you're trying to push a point. The Doctrina is very different than Muslim accounts--that's how it goes and I think that, while it could use some tweaking, that DYK? is better.

2) This is really off. The reason is because even if the prophetic tradition started as Jewish messianism it still became Islam. Therefore the Doctrina is a record of Islamic tradition. Now, it would be save to say that there is no known documentary evidence for the Qur'an until the late 7th century. But, saying there is no record of Islam is quite problematic... because you're denying that tradition can evolve. In fact, I'd argue that modern Islam is pretty different from many 8th century sources. I can't give you an alternative to this because I don't know what you're going for. This just seems like you want to say "Islam didn't exist" which, has no meaning. Take PERF 558. Is it an "Islamic source"? It's ambiguous and depends on how you want to read it. Now, if you want to state something factual then you'll have to do it... but, discuss it before you add it--especially when it's not straightforward and CltFn, this does look like you're just trying to push your view that Islam is made up--regardless of sources.

3) You'd want to explain how we have Ishaq through Hisham... and, you'd just need to do a better job. It's the earliest know Islamic documentary source biography. Etc., I don't feel like providing a good alternative now since I have class soon. gren グレン 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)