3,454
edits
Historical Errors in the Quran: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (→Crucifixions in ancient Egypt: Strengthened against various apologetic counter-arguments) |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 681: | Line 681: | ||
Traditional exegetes commenting on this verse unanimously date the battle falling during Ramadan,<ref>''E.g. [https://quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/3.123 Tafsir Ibn Kathir Verse 3:123]''. Ibn Kathir d. 1373.</ref> and link it to other verses such as {{Quran|8|41}} (which it is not mentioned by name in). However, as British historian Tom Holland notes (''citation 50: refencing Crone (1987a), pp. 226–30: The papyrus fragment is Text 71 in Grohmann),'' an earlier (than the Islamic historians/exegetes) manuscript mentions the Battle of Badr, but does not lists a date in Ramadan, which raises questions on the traditional interpretation of these verses. | Traditional exegetes commenting on this verse unanimously date the battle falling during Ramadan,<ref>''E.g. [https://quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/3.123 Tafsir Ibn Kathir Verse 3:123]''. Ibn Kathir d. 1373.</ref> and link it to other verses such as {{Quran|8|41}} (which it is not mentioned by name in). However, as British historian Tom Holland notes (''citation 50: refencing Crone (1987a), pp. 226–30: The papyrus fragment is Text 71 in Grohmann),'' an earlier (than the Islamic historians/exegetes) manuscript mentions the Battle of Badr, but does not lists a date in Ramadan, which raises questions on the traditional interpretation of these verses. | ||
{{Quote|Holland, Tom. In The Shadow Of The Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World (pp. 39-40). Little, Brown Book Group.|Why, when the savage Northumbrians were capable of preserving the writings of a scholar such as Bede, do we have no Muslim records from the age of Muhammad? Why not a single Arab account of his life, nor of his followers’ conquests, nor of the progress of his religion, from the whole of the near two centuries that followed his death? Even the sole exception to the rule – a tiny shred of papyrus discovered in Palestine and dated to around AD 740 – serves only to compound the puzzle. Reading it is like overhearing a game of Chinese whispers. Over the course of only eight lines, it provides something truly startling: <b>a date for the Battle of Badr that is not in the holy month of Ramadan.</b> 50 Why should this come as a surprise? Because later Muslim scholars, writing their learned and definitive commentaries on the Qur’an, confidently identified Badr with an otherwise cryptic allusion to ‘the day the two armies clashed’ – a date that fell in Ramadan.51 Perhaps, then, on this one point, the scholars were wrong? Perhaps. But if so, then why should they have been right in anything else that they wrote? What if the entire account of the victory at Badr were nothing but a fiction, a dramatic just-so story, fashioned to explain allusions within the Qur’an that would otherwise have remained beyond explanation?}} | {{Quote|Holland, Tom. In The Shadow Of The Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World (pp. 39-40). Little, Brown Book Group.|Why, when the savage Northumbrians were capable of preserving the writings of a scholar such as Bede, do we have no Muslim records from the age of Muhammad? Why not a single Arab account of his life, nor of his followers’ conquests, nor of the progress of his religion, from the whole of the near two centuries that followed his death? Even the sole exception to the rule – a tiny shred of papyrus discovered in Palestine and dated to around AD 740 – serves only to compound the puzzle. Reading it is like overhearing a game of Chinese whispers. Over the course of only eight lines, it provides something truly startling: <b>a date for the Battle of Badr that is not in the holy month of Ramadan.</b> 50 Why should this come as a surprise? Because later Muslim scholars, writing their learned and definitive commentaries on the Qur’an, confidently identified Badr with an otherwise cryptic allusion to ‘the day the two armies clashed’ – a date that fell in Ramadan.51 Perhaps, then, on this one point, the scholars were wrong? Perhaps. But if so, then why should they have been right in anything else that they wrote? What if the entire account of the victory at Badr were nothing but a fiction, a dramatic just-so story, fashioned to explain allusions within the Qur’an that would otherwise have remained beyond explanation?}} | ||
Academic scholar Gerard Hawting also discusses these issues in his 2015 paper 'Qur’ān and sīra: the relationship between Sūrat al-Anfāl and muslim traditional accounts of the Battle of Badr'.<ref>Hawting, Gerald. “[https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbtznq1.6 QUR’ĀN AND SĪRA: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SŪRAT AL-ANFĀL AND MUSLIM TRADITIONAL ACCOUNTS OF THE BATTLE OF BADR.]” In ''Les Origines Du Coran, Le Coran Des Origines'', edited by François Déroche, Christian Julien Robin, and Michel Zink, 75–92. Editions de Boccard, 2015. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbtznq1.6</nowiki>.</ref> | |||
Other scholars have noted parallels between the details from previous Judeo-Christians stories, e.g. Austrian orientalist Hans Mzik, notes the similarities in his 1915 paper 'The Gideon-Saul Legend and the Tradition of the Battle of Badr', which may have been used to shape the account, such as the number of fighters for Muhammad. | Other scholars have noted parallels between the details from previous Judeo-Christians stories, e.g. Austrian orientalist Hans Mzik, notes the similarities in his 1915 paper 'The Gideon-Saul Legend and the Tradition of the Battle of Badr', which may have been used to shape the account, such as the number of fighters for Muhammad. | ||
| Line 694: | Line 694: | ||
=== Mismatches in law between the Quran and later Islamic texts === | === Mismatches in law between the Quran and later Islamic texts === | ||
As | As academic scholar Michael Cook notes, there are many differences in religious law between the Quran and the later recorded biographies and 'sahih/authentic' traditions. For example, in regards to stoning adulterers ''(read the primary texts in: [[Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Stoning]]),'' where there are many recordings of the prophet ordering stoning as punishment, whilst the Quran only prescribes 100 lashes. | ||
{{Quote|Cook, Michael. The Koran: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions Book 13) (p. 138). OUP Oxford.|The main point in favour of a hypothesis in which the Koran is off the scene for several decades is that it also accounts for another set of puzzles thrown up by research into the early development of Islamic law. Each of these involves an aspect of Islamic law which in some very fundamental way seems to contradict or ignore the Koran. For example, it is notorious that Islam prescribes stoning as the standard penalty for proven adultery (zinā), and accredited traditions about the legal activity of the Prophet portray him as reluctantly implementing implementing this punishment. Yet if we turn to the Koran, this is what we read: | {{Quote|Cook, Michael. The Koran: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions Book 13) (p. 138). OUP Oxford.|The main point in favour of a hypothesis in which the Koran is off the scene for several decades is that it also accounts for another set of puzzles thrown up by research into the early development of Islamic law. Each of these involves an aspect of Islamic law which in some very fundamental way seems to contradict or ignore the Koran. For example, it is notorious that Islam prescribes stoning as the standard penalty for proven adultery (zinā), and accredited traditions about the legal activity of the Prophet portray him as reluctantly implementing implementing this punishment. Yet if we turn to the Koran, this is what we read: | ||