Rich Oliver

When and who wrote the Koran?
When and who wrote the hadith?
Is there a mysterious lack of interest in Muhammad during the 7th century similar to the lack of interest in the Galilean preacher crucified under Pilate in the early Christian documents.
Is it plausible that Mecca was a major trading or religious center in the 6th century CE?

Cheerful Charlie

Ibn Ishaq wrote the first major biography of Mohammed about a century after his death. His biography was based on earlier works, many of which are no longer extent. His work as such disappeared some time later but was recovered as large sections of his original book were copied by later writers. It is still the major biographical work on Mohammed. It does not seem to be online.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq

Hadith collections began a century after Mohammed's death but drew on
earlier works and oral tradition. Bukhari is considered the best major collection and is about 200 years after Mohammed's death

CC

Rich Oliver

I recently read Islamic Mysticism: A Secular Perspective (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Ibn Al-Rawandi. This is the first book I read that seemed to show a real interest in the early history of Islam as apposed to regurgitating Islamic fairy tales. He seems to draw heavily on Wainsborough and Crone. Has any thing been written more recently developing their work or critiquing it in a serious manner.

Clouseau

It is quite difficult to answer that. There are several theories as to how it was committed to writing, and there were apparently several contrasting versions before a single recension was made, and even that has minor variations extant. This is surprising in view of the high regard in which it is held by its devoted readers. The Islamic view is that the Qur’an is uncreated, eternal, but was permitted to be read by just one man, with only that one man’s witness as to the truth of any of this. It reminds one of the origin of the Book of Mormon, revealed on golden plates to just one man, the plates then disappearing for ever. The Qur'an itself reports the deity as stating that his revelation was made slowly, in "well-arranged stages, gradually". Now surely, if it was of paramount importance to get the wording precisely correct, the deity would have made far more efficient and creditable arrangements than actually seem to have transpired. Sporadic revelation over twenty-three years is what one might expect of someone having to give his own very careful thought to make the right presentation, and perhaps not very skilfully- not actually revelation at all.

Those aforementioned readers frequently assert as ‘proof’ that the Qur’an is of the greatest literary quality. However, Gibbon described it as an ‘incoherent rhapsody’; and the McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states:

‘The matter of the Koran is exceedingly incoherent and sententious, the book evidently being without any logical order of thought either as a whole or in its parts. This agrees with the desultory and incidental manner in which it is said to have been delivered.’

The chapter titles of the Qur’an are symptomatic of its seemingly aleatory character, these usually being purely incidental, not descriptive. A single chapter may contain grand platitudes regarding the deity, re-writes of history, and warnings about unsuitable behaviour. The noted incoherence may be due to a haphazard building of the book- but on the other hand, it may be no accident. The jumble has an advantage: it has been observed that the whole book contains several self-contradictions, arguments that may be used contra varied positions, but these are spaced well apart, and are noticed only by those who read carefully. There may be method in the apparent madness.

The Qur'an was, it is claimed, revealed over 23 years from 610 CE, a revelation from the deity via an unseen agent. It contains little if anything that can certainly be said to be prophetic that is not already contained in other writings, and is largely exhortatory. Where claiming to be factual, it is retrospective long after the event, and contains no eyewitness record of current events. It claims to have historic value, as a 'corrective' of earlier claimed historic revelations, the most recent of which is reported to have taken place around 600 years previously, the earliest occurring perhaps 2600 years before this writing. One wonders why a deity would permit incorrect revelation to be given to a nation and a continent for at least 600 years, and then to a single individual with no relationship to either nation or continent. The final and correct divine revelation is claimed to have been given to an Arab, Muhammad, who, as far as is known, had no ethnic, tribal or other connexion with the people on whom, and, one might reasonably suppose, for whom, he passed comment. Muhammad had no particular personal qualities that marked him out as deserving of special revelation, in fact his personal reputation is somewhat uncomplimentary.

The divine agent who passed on the revelation, over a period of twenty-three years, was claimed to be the Angel Gabriel, yet in all this time no-one other than Muhammad witnessed his presence, if indeed anyone did. Muhammad could have taken the name of this agent from existing claimed revelations that had widespread credibility at the time. Others claimed Muhammad to be demon possessed, and they have as much credibility. The Qur’an has no qualities that an ordinary person with limited literary skills, but with access to other literature, could not give a book over 23 years- or over 23 weeks, for that matter. It is, in the final analysis, very predictable of an amateur but prejudiced writer, having every appearance of plagiarism of both style and content, attempting to usurp the then supreme authority of another claimed set of revelations, while flatly denying their central, cosmic feature and purpose. It may be said that the religion which the Qur'an proposes has no central idea or purpose of its own. It is distinguished chiefly by its negative, even peevish nature; it is useful because it is not another, competitive religion which it seeks to oust.

James

in the "Pre-Christian Jewish scholars interpretation of Isaiah 7:14" thread Clouseau wrote:

No refutations contemporary with Christ and the apostolic church are on record. As you say, most Jews stayed as they were, yet there is no contemporary record of their intellectual justification for doing so.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=214379&page=4


in this thread he said:




by the 8 th century muslim scholars and theologians themselves were divided into various groups and sects,the mutazilites, among others, were debating various theological issues including the nature of the qur'an as the "uncreated word of god". yet none of these divergent groups allude even indirectly to "several contrasting versions" or "gradual evolution" of the qur'an.muslims came in hostile as well as peaceful relationshps with the persian and byzantine powers; and christian and jewish scholars were holding debates and discussions with their muslim counterparts about islam and the quran.Yet there is no allusion whatsoever in the greek, byzantine or other non-muslim sources to the "gradual evolution" or "several contrasting versions" of the qur'an.

Goathead

It is as far as i have learned, a poor retelling of basic xtian and jewish thought.

Nothign remarkable, and it explains its complete form just appearing on the scene.

And didnt they used to write poems about wine in the early years?

And can anyone finally answer me, is the Muslim prohibition on alcohol a reaction to hellenistic culture in teh region?

premjan

My guess is that alcohol impairs judgement, and being a Muslim involves some exercise of mental judgement - it is not predicated on love, as in Christianity.

Blui

There are many contradicting accounts, and of course bias, because we only have the early Muslims account of their history, distorted of course to make it divine and true.

If we take the ahadith, and Ibn Ishaq, then the Islamic point of view is thus:

-Muhammad preached what would later be written down as verses in the quran, beginning in now Mecca
-He was expelled for presumably mocking their Gods (they were predominantly pagan)
-He went to Medina and continued preaching, and raided Meccan caravans
-Got a large following, killed, conquered, converted
-He died, Abu Bakr ordered Zaid to compile all the saying of Muhammad which existed mostly in oral traditions into a book (Quran)
-He hid it, numerous Qurans sprouted, each differed, the Caliph (cant remember, Uthman?) got sick of the different qurans and wanted a standard one, got Zaid's one (which we are led to believe to be the true Quran, obviously a self-justification by early Muslims)
- He burnt all rival Qurans, continued editing the Quran and adding to it
- The Quran is incomplete, many ahadith confirm that, and early Muslim accounts as well.

As to your question of Mecca being a hub of trade routes, i believe so, the continuous reference to their bountiful caravans in the ahadith support that.

It is also reported that Muhammad received a delegation from leaders of then Mecca (the Quraysh) stating he can preach so long as he does not ridicule their god's, i infer that, if this was given as a general rule, it would be a religious hub.

Clouseau

If this an attempt to discredit Clouseau, not an entirely unknown phenomenon, may Clouseau be permitted to point out that he referred to two separate religions in these quotes?

Not after acceptance of the recension, of course.

Note the false quote in the above.

Hex

I believe that the concepts of not drinking alcohol, gambling, charging interest on loans and not making a great profit when dealing with other muslims draws on the importance of the 'community' of the umma. Alcohol and gambling are non-productive and can hurt the physical and economic well-being of the umma (especially if you have to purchase your alcohol from outside the umma).

I don't know of any direct correlation with Hellenistic influances, but Islam does tend to make it's adherants somewhat insular ...