8ball
Decolonise colons!
In case that was addressed to me (not sure), I didn't think it was trite so much as dull and overlong.
The best way to show up Fundie-nutjobs is with humour, but this film was utterly humourless.
Fitna the movie
- Thread starter Dhimmi
- Start date
In case that was addressed to me (not sure), I didn't think it was trite so much as dull and overlong.
The best way to show up Fundie-nutjobs is with humour, but this film was utterly humourless.
Andy the Don
Wise men say only fools..
Yes because the "Staggers" is so well known for its pro-Israel, pro-Zionism bias..
Do you remember the furore this front cover caused..??
Wansbrough is not an "Orientalist", I don't know why you would think he would fit into that profile. (Wansbrough and his - tiny amount of - followers have to date not much foot to stand on. His theory is interesting but he never could prove anything about it.)
Those labeled as Orientalist are of the "old school" Westerners who didn't intend as much to undertake an academic study of Islam & related issues as they were trying to get whatever suited them to support their worldview.
There is a clear culturally influenced bias even in the approach of someone like Nôldeke, but that never devalued his worth as a serious scholar. There is a reason why he is still regarded as the primary source (and not only for Western academics) when it comes to textual history of Al Qur'an.
The problem is that there are no external historical sources outside the Traditions. An other problem is that these stories were never intended as historical source or record. They were orally transmitted tales intended to preserve the memory of a prophet by those who followed his teachings and hence wanted to stay as close to his example as possible.
Approaching the Hadith compilations, let alone interpreting them, is not something I recommend to people who are not aware of the various time-linked influences they contain. Some of the stories clearly show Christian influence, other show cultural influence of patriarchal societies, other have a political background.
(To any Muslim asking about it I always say: Remember these are stories told by humans. If you find anything, even one letter, that goes against the commands and teachings of Al Qur'an, you must dismiss that hadith as invalid.)
Nevertheless they provide us with a unique insight in the early periods of Islam and of its societies and cultures. There is to date nothing else an academic can rely on to provide him with the same.
?
salaam.
Fictionist
Serving Eargasms....
Ald,
A quick reply to the last part of the above post, where you have left a question mark after the quotation taken from an earlier post of mine.
The reason I noted your use of the term textual history in relation to the Koran was because, in my experience, there are some individuals who deny the idea of there being such a thing as a textual history in relation to the text. This is obviously problemmatic (that word again) as there are conflicting traditions which purport to explain the formation of the Koran and how it came to be 'fixed' in to its present form (and the purported role of Mohammed in this process).
A quick reply to the last part of the above post, where you have left a question mark after the quotation taken from an earlier post of mine.
The reason I noted your use of the term textual history in relation to the Koran was because, in my experience, there are some individuals who deny the idea of there being such a thing as a textual history in relation to the text. This is obviously problemmatic (that word again) as there are conflicting traditions which purport to explain the formation of the Koran and how it came to be 'fixed' in to its present form (and the purported role of Mohammed in this process).
Fictionist: "The term is not neutral.": That is, forgive me if I offfend you because honestly that is not my aim, nonsensical academic blather. It is the same as saying "Pre" or "Post," what difference does the term make really. You can say "Advent," you can say "Lightness," in the end it all denotes a before and after with regard to a central event or era.
Per ibn Warraq? It sounds as if you doubt I am reading him. I happen to own 2 of his books, "Why I am not a Muslim," and the one I am rereading for the third time, "The Quest For the Historical Muhammed" which truth be told is a compendium edited by him, and not authored per se. I have read as much of him as I can, and regularly read critical analysis of this issue and many others that I hold an interest in.
I like to examine issues from every possible facet before committing myself to one position and even then try to allow myself some open mindedness should some here to fore unknown bit of important info surface.
"Lack of curiosity is strange.": As explained above, the term is of little consequence to an observer, it matters only to the believer. However, this particular Arabic term is widely accepted within the Arab and Islamic World(s) so that it tends to weed out argument (at least it usually does -smile) over terminology.
Per ibn Warraq? It sounds as if you doubt I am reading him. I happen to own 2 of his books, "Why I am not a Muslim," and the one I am rereading for the third time, "The Quest For the Historical Muhammed" which truth be told is a compendium edited by him, and not authored per se. I have read as much of him as I can, and regularly read critical analysis of this issue and many others that I hold an interest in.
I like to examine issues from every possible facet before committing myself to one position and even then try to allow myself some open mindedness should some here to fore unknown bit of important info surface.
"Lack of curiosity is strange.": As explained above, the term is of little consequence to an observer, it matters only to the believer. However, this particular Arabic term is widely accepted within the Arab and Islamic World(s) so that it tends to weed out argument (at least it usually does -smile) over terminology.
8Ball: Yes it was directed towards you and I apologise for not perosnalising the post. However, I did not see it as overly long nor boring, just shallow. The information presented was run of the mill albeit toally on point. He would have better served his purpose I believe had he shown some real insights. For example, Ahamdinejad's administration (in Iran) claiming that the American cartoon "Tom and Jerrry" is a Jewish ploy for world domination..
Alternatively he could have shown al Akhsa TV, the Gazan HAMAS TV station and some of its programming like Farfour the lovable bumblebee that makes children promise to blow up Jews.
My references are all doing with Jewish and/or Israeli issues here but I could have just as easily went to the vignettes of Arabs tossing candy and gunshots into the air after just hearing of 9/11 and the then predicted 5,000 plus dead Americans.
I could also just as easily have shown one of Khaddafi's sons swearing that the Pope "better convert to Islam" or el;se for his having done the unthinkable, and bless a crowd containing a well known Italian Muslim who himself was under HAMAS fatwa.
So many things, so little time as the saying goes.
Alternatively he could have shown al Akhsa TV, the Gazan HAMAS TV station and some of its programming like Farfour the lovable bumblebee that makes children promise to blow up Jews.
My references are all doing with Jewish and/or Israeli issues here but I could have just as easily went to the vignettes of Arabs tossing candy and gunshots into the air after just hearing of 9/11 and the then predicted 5,000 plus dead Americans.
I could also just as easily have shown one of Khaddafi's sons swearing that the Pope "better convert to Islam" or el;se for his having done the unthinkable, and bless a crowd containing a well known Italian Muslim who himself was under HAMAS fatwa.
So many things, so little time as the saying goes.
Fictionist
Serving Eargasms....
Briefly.
Wansborough is often considered as being an Orientalist, it is an easy 'one size fits all' label which can be conveniently deployed against individuals seeking to examine the various elements which make up what is now understood to constitute Islam. Wansborough is interesting as he was often criticised by other scholars for being an apologist in some instances for Islamic traditionalists - this despite the fact he helped to move Islamic studies forward significantly.
Wansborough's "tiny amount of followers", as you describe them, have produced some very interesting work regarding the origins and development of Islam. Were they a small group? By nature, given their area of expertise and the nature of the specialism they pursue they are a select group, but that has no bearing on the quality of the scholarship produced. The work produced by Crone and Rippin (for example) is often extremely challenging to the predominant narrative that seeks to place the Koran and the ahadith within a consistent and coherent narrative.
You state that there are "no external historical sources outside the traditions". Which traditions do you refer to? The traditions found and exemplified by the ahadith? The tradition as encapsulated and exemplified in the work of Ibn Ishaq?
This leads on to your next point regarding approaching the ahadith. You state that they contain various "time linked references". What do you mean by this? Can you clarify this point?
And lastly, regarding the individuals that I mentioned in an earlier posting who I described as being puzzled by the notion of a textual history for the Koran. I can not name those individuals (obviously) - but I would ask you to accept that I work within a context where these issues and questions are considered and debated constantly.
Well, you must be in touch then with people who have no idea what an academic research entails, who qualifies as an academic and who doesn't.
Claiming that Wansbrough (it is not Wansborough) fits into the description of an "Orientalist" is as riciculous as one can get.
His ideas and approach are not interisting because they are criticized. They are interesting because of being a different approach.
He hasn't helped to "move Islamic studies forward significantly". He just provided for an other approach and like I said, he could not provide for any evidence. Other like Patricia Crone have no such evidence either. Theories ad suggestions are good, solidly underscoring them is an other thing.
You seem to think that it is enough to follow a path that somewhat differs from others to be "significant". Sadly, that is not the case, interesting as such approaches may be. You also seem to think such people have more expertise than all others working in the field. (I wonder how you come to all such strange conclusions).
ibn ishaq doesn't mention any other hadith then what can be found in the currently existing Hadith compilations. The novelty of his work was that he incorporated them into the text of what later would be regarded as the first biography of Muhammed, which means: He is regarded as the one who was much more complete in this than for exapmle ibn zubair, ibn abu bakr, ibn umar and others (names one encounters often in the isnad preceding a hadith).
It is highly questionable how much of his original work is reproduced in what is commonly known as the sira, containing extracts of his life-work, a world history in four volumes. Starting with the creation of the world, over the early prophets (Adam to Jesus), the second volume was dedicated to the life of the Prophet Muhammed until the hidjra, the third covering the Medinian period and the fourth the Caliphs.
Of this vast work only sections are preserved. The last volume is almost completely lost, from the first volume long excerpts are cited by later authors (where obviously parallel text reading is needed), second and third part are thought to be almost completely preserved.
Many question if there ever was more than one manuscript of the whole work. ibn ishaq used to cite out of his work to students, who then wrote everything down and iut is through that material the work got preserved by later citations in other author's works.
One of them was abd al-malik ibn hisjaam (died circa 830AD in Egypt) who edited and published the material of ibn ishaq concerning the Prophet Muhammed. Not without adding own material or letting out what he found unacceptable, for some reason. (All that becomes clear when reading at-tabari on the same subjects) .
So what now is taken for ibn ishaq's work can be questioned on its authenticity, and for all of the above cited reasons and more. (It is the version of ibn hisjaam that is the most widely spread and known.)
Time-liked references refers to influences of the societies where a certain hadith saw life, was transmitted orally before being noted, before and up to being researched upon the validity of its isnad and its evaluation.
Everything inevitably happens within the frame of its time-period. It is no novelty nor should it be surprising that tales about a revered person, his time and everything and everyone related to that undergo these influences.
What context?
Every Muslim knows the written edition of Al Qur'an has a history, but that is not what I refer to. Or do you think I could write a doctorate on that. It was somewhat more complex and time consuming.
salaam.
By the way: I don't feel for it to spend more of my time on a thread dedicated to an idiot.
If you like to discuss such things seriously, please open a thread at the philosophy forum
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=27
salaam.
If you like to discuss such things seriously, please open a thread at the philosophy forum
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=27
salaam.
Discussing an idiot, or his works, on a thread, does not mean that thread is dedicated to the idiot.
A discussion dedicated to Wilder's "movie" at the same time generates the attention he wanted to get for himself with it.
I don't feel for spending any more of my valuable time on a non-related discussion in such a thread. (Why you want to spend time to comment is anyone's guess.)
salaam.
The dismissivness you continually display for other people's views is one of the attributes of Islam that I most heartily detest.
So I take it that you find this "movie" a marvelous piece of art then, and everyone who doesn't displays by doing so a dismissiveness of other people's view.
By the way, every post you make to or about me indicates you are suddenly blinded whenever you come across one of my posts and tries to read it. Could it be innocent prejudice or is it that my English is so very bad?
salaam.
First you accuse me of thinking the movie is a marvelous piece of work and then you accuse me of not reading your posts. Talking to you is like talking to the local imman.
So you don't find it a good movie, hence you are dismissive about other people's view? Is that because you have no religion or just because you are you or what other reason? (Your "local imam" which I doubt you even know, surely isn't me.)
You obviously don't read my posts or you wouldn't write I am "dismissive" and even "always" of other people's views.
salaam.
You obviously don't read my posts or you wouldn't write I am "dismissive" and even "always" of other people's views.
salaam.
Fictionist
Serving Eargasms....
Briefly again.
If you read through what I have written you would have noticed that I have not called Wansborough an 'Orientalist' -I pointed out that the term has been deployed against him by those who are critical of his approach to the Koran and the ahadith (principally that it was literary and concerned with offerring a salvation history for the Arabs in the 7th and 8th CE. I also stated that this term was also used to describe some of the individuals who were influenced by his work (Crone and Rippin for example). Is the approach adopted by these individuals different in approach to that which preceeded it? That of course depends on the work against which they are being compared -to the work of other Western scholars who preceeded them, or to the predominant narrative regarding the origins and emergence of Islam?
But it is important to note that these individuals were prepared to look afresh at the evidence that was available to them, and to consider alternative explanations as to what the sources available to them might suggest. That doesn't mean that they were always right, or that their conclusions are not open to question (Crone has modified her views regarding the emergence of Islam but remains highly sceptical of the narrative set forth by the Islamic traditionalists).
And it should be remembered that whilst Crone et al admitted to being influenced by Wansborough they were not wholly accepting of his conclusions!
Regarding Ibn Ishaq. As you rightly state, there are questions to be asked of this, apparently the earliest extant biography (sira) of Muhammad. You are aware that it exists through a recension attributed to Ibn Hisham (having been transmitted by al Bakkai and others).
All of this is widely known, and available to read. I'm not sure how the information you provided answers my original question?
Fictionist
Serving Eargasms....
By the way: your insinuations as if it is so remarkable that I "am aware" about this or that and that I refer to "textual history of Al Qur'an" are quite funny, where it not that you come across as unbelievable uninformed and up to denigrating prejudiced.
You seem to think academic degrees do not involve academic study. Which makes me question your background, your motives and who on earth you think you are talking to.
And again: it is Wansbrough, not Wansborough.
Just this: I did that without having to know about Wansbrough or anyone else at an age I could still avoid running into tables, by walking under them. It is a normal thing to do if you use your braincells properly and an absolute necessity if you commit yourself to no matter which research.
You on the other hand seem to think the work of a historian generally consists of copy and paste what others have written before.
salaam.
You seem to think academic degrees do not involve academic study. Which makes me question your background, your motives and who on earth you think you are talking to.
And again: it is Wansbrough, not Wansborough.
Just this: I did that without having to know about Wansbrough or anyone else at an age I could still avoid running into tables, by walking under them. It is a normal thing to do if you use your braincells properly and an absolute necessity if you commit yourself to no matter which research.
You on the other hand seem to think the work of a historian generally consists of copy and paste what others have written before.
salaam.
Fictionist
Serving Eargasms....
I think you are mistaken here Ald, deeply mistaken, and I regard your accusation regarding 'cut and paste' as unfounded and unfair. I'm surprised by the level of hostility that you have exhibited here - perhaps it betrays a degree of uncertainty on your part - perhaps you assumed that your writing in respect of Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq was revelatory or would be considered as powerful testimony to your knowledge in respect of Islam.
"Uninformed" and "denigrating prejudice" (note the grammatical adjustment) - not at all.
As to "who on earth... (I)... think..(I am)..talking to"? I have no idea. As I made clear at the beginning of this thread, I accepted your claiming to be a scholar. No more and no less.
Lock: "Thread dedicated to an idiot." That sir, said it much better than I ever could. Threads meander here and there changing course with the impulse of the contributors and that is what makes it so interesting. Limiting one's participation due to discussion (partly) of one unpalatable character (in that poster's opinion) seems non-sensical.
Another thought you and I apparently thoroughly agree upon is the dismissiveness oif both Islam and some of its adherents.
No offence Alderberan, and I really, really do not want this to seem as if I am trying to generate a gang up on you but an analogy would be every thread having to do with Israel and its military actions and my interjecting that no matter what anyone else says, I am an IDF officer and therefore the other poster could not possibly understand the dynamic as well as me and that is just plain ridiculous.
As I stated earlier , and to which I was completely ignored (and that in itself is quite telling but of course your right), it seems as if you roll out your credentials as a way of shutting down true discourse. That is a shame in the worst way because I would think the entire point of this and other similar forums is to foster discourse.
If one merely wished to hear one's opinion coming out of the mouth of others, or the keyboards of others, why even bother posting? It seems so futile to me but then who am I to question anything in the end, just my two shekels.
Another thought you and I apparently thoroughly agree upon is the dismissiveness oif both Islam and some of its adherents.
No offence Alderberan, and I really, really do not want this to seem as if I am trying to generate a gang up on you but an analogy would be every thread having to do with Israel and its military actions and my interjecting that no matter what anyone else says, I am an IDF officer and therefore the other poster could not possibly understand the dynamic as well as me and that is just plain ridiculous.
As I stated earlier , and to which I was completely ignored (and that in itself is quite telling but of course your right), it seems as if you roll out your credentials as a way of shutting down true discourse. That is a shame in the worst way because I would think the entire point of this and other similar forums is to foster discourse.
If one merely wished to hear one's opinion coming out of the mouth of others, or the keyboards of others, why even bother posting? It seems so futile to me but then who am I to question anything in the end, just my two shekels.
I know him well enough. My neighbour, Hans, a convert to Islam, introduced me. His hope that I'd be interested in conversion proved illusory.
Yes Rach. I do find myself thinking that you often have a lot of sense on your side.
Your post gives only a confirmation.
I'm sure of it that what I write here is informative to a lot of people. You on the other hand sound more and more like a student who would like to be the professor and at some point imagines he is. You come across as someone who read a book (I'm about sure you can make nothing at all of it would you read Wansbrough, and notice -again- the correct spelling of his name) and now thinks he knows it all.
You seem to have not much of an idea what you write, then.First you make assumptions that I don't even know that the text of Al Qur'an has a history (all while I said I dedicated my first doctoral research on the very subject. You thus must be far from reality to assume that doesn't involve a textual history) and next you come with words like " you are aware of " as if that is such a miracle.
Next I am "hostile" because I can't take you serious and I am therefore "insecure" at that. Ask anyone who reads my posts here and they will say a lot of things about me, but "insecurity" about myself, my religion, my knowledge on Islam and no matter what I ever posted on, shall not be among their remarks. (Please go play with children if you want to talk as if we are in Kindergarten.)
Nevertheless, any correction on my grammar is welcome. Not only because I am severely dyslexic but foremost because I have no clue about English.
No you don't.
If you want a debate with me, prepare yourself adequately. If you try to challenge me be warned that you can't.
That's all.
salaam.
Fictionist
Serving Eargasms....
But you have not entered in to a debate here Ald, thus far you have merely shown a disregard for a very simple mistake (the spelling of Wansbrough). Beyond that you have reacted with hostility and now seek to claim some form of refuge in an apparent inability to understand English.
As I said before you claim to be a scholar but I have seen little evidence to support this. You made reference to the textual history that supports Ibn Ishaq and appeared to think that this would be considered suficient evidence of your learning and knowledge - and then have the temerity to suggest that I was engaging in little more than 'cut and paste' (an accusation which you have not yet substantiated).
I get the impression that you claim to know a great deal, and yet thus far (considering your posts in this thread) there is little evidence of this, only an immediately hostile reaction which lead to a public and incredibly arrogant dismissal.
I'll happily debate Islam with you in a thread.
As I said before you claim to be a scholar but I have seen little evidence to support this. You made reference to the textual history that supports Ibn Ishaq and appeared to think that this would be considered suficient evidence of your learning and knowledge - and then have the temerity to suggest that I was engaging in little more than 'cut and paste' (an accusation which you have not yet substantiated).
I get the impression that you claim to know a great deal, and yet thus far (considering your posts in this thread) there is little evidence of this, only an immediately hostile reaction which lead to a public and incredibly arrogant dismissal.
I'll happily debate Islam with you in a thread.
Exactly.
Which debate?
You don't even know that when someone writes a PhD (like the Anglo-Saxon world calls it wrongly) on the textual history of Al Qur'an, that person talks about the textual history of Al Qur'an. (to name only one of your very strange and dubious reactions.)
If writing "I can't name names" and other such nonsense as support for your "arguments" is for you "debate", I suggest you find out what you actually want to achieve with that.
?
Everyone on this board knows that English is a language I never studied. That doesn't mean I don't understand it. (Where exactly do you see me posting such nonsense?) It means that when it comes to grammatical knowledge, I am in the dark and I mean: completely in the dark. Same counts often enough when it comes to vocabulary and being in touch with particular finesses any language possesses.
You are more than a bit arrogant, aren't you.
Why on earth would I "need" to prove anything, let alone thinking about doing so, to a complete stranger who - anonymously - jumps into a message board where I am a member of for a few years.
And by the way, editor didn't delete any of the posts I ever made on this board. If you are too lazy you surely don't expect to be spoon-fed, let alone by me.
You obviously don't like it that I posted a bit of info on ibn ishaq as a normal reply/follow up on one of your posts. Makes anyone wonder why on earth you then found it needed to bring the subject up.
Furthermore, you display overall a very strange, arrogant and extremely suspicious attitude regarding your "interpretation" of my posts.
See you when you actually prepared yourself for serious discussion and are able to enter one. So far I see no such capability or intend. Be prepared for defeat if you have no rock solid ground to stand on and be warned again that you can't challenge me.
salaam.
Fictionist
Serving Eargasms....
Utter nonsense.
Have you written a PhD that relates to the Koran? If you have and you are prepared to let me read it please feel free to post up a link on this thread or send me a pm. I would be more than happy to read through it.
Regarding my not naming names - that was in regard to my comment about meeting Muslims who were unwilling to discuss (or in some instances the possibility) of there being such a thing as a 'textual history' of the Koran. As I said in that post I engage with such questions on a daily basis -and it would be entirely wrong for me to identify
who those people (or groups) might be. I also asked you to accept that this was indeed the case - in the same spirit that you ask to be accepted as a scholar.
Regarding your apparent inabilities with English - I can only take your word for it. I have not been a member of this forum for years, and as I stated in one of my first posts I was prepared to accept and engage with fellow posters without any reference to their previous posts or threads. Hence my shock expressed at your hostile reaction to some of my questions. Your post relating to Ibn Ishaq and Hisham appeared to be nothing more than a restating of the traditionalist position, nothing more and nothing less.
What would you like me to say? 'Wow!! I didn't know that!!!'
For anyone with a genuine interest in Islam (Muslim and non-Muslim) it should be obvious that Ibn Ishaq would be worth reading, especially as it is the earliest extant text that we have relating to Muhammad. The fact that it exists in a recension by a later scholar (Hisham) - possibly derived from a student of Ishaq - is something that we can discuss if you so choose. I suspect (as I have already said) that you thought this would be considered 'revelatory' or would be sufficient proof of your expertise in this subject.
And you still have yet to substantiate your accusation relating to 'cut and paste'.
Unlike you Ald I have never claimed to be a 'scholar' - yet you have on more than one occasion (in this thread and in the others that I have had the opportunity to read). I am interested in debate and discussion and learning, yet you seem unable to engage on even the simplest of questions. In my last post I indicated that I would be more than happy to debate with you regarding Islam, and you yet again resort to arrogant dismissal (when I am actually prepared "for serious discussion").
And given your insistence on reminding me of my mistake in respect of spelling (as if this in some way was a demonstration of something else) I can only again return the favour by drawing your attention to the last line of your previous post:
'So far I see no such capability or intend".
Ignoring (again) the implicit arrogance of this I would suggest you meant to write:
'So far I see no such capability or intention'.
Cough...cough...cough...contented grin.
There is no link to it. I never gave permission for that type of publishing. I got that degree long before the use of the WWW became mainstream and as common as it is today. I doubt you know the language I used. Even if you would, you must be a bit naïve to think I would give you or anyone else my identity.
So that is the source of your "argument"? Only confirms your demonstrated inability to make distinction between pub-level talk and someone with an academic background.
There is no shock needed because there is no hostility but maybe from your side.
I give you the academic approach. If you want pub-level approach, you need to find someone else to talk to.
I don't think ibn ishaq is any more worth reading than others, and like I said, to find traces of his work one need to read others. My interest comes from historical text critique angle.
Of course, why didn't I think of it... Something deep inside me needs some total stranger who posts anonymously on a message board to convince him that I am who or what I am.
I started writing on English forums as an experiment to find out how long it would take me to write this language more or less coherntly. It took me a few weeks but like I said: That doesn't mean I know the language.
You could for example start with reading my posts more carefully. I referred to your exposed idea that historians do nothing else but cut and paste the work of others. You must live in a wonderful land of dreams.
Someone who doesn't even seem to realize that writing on the textual history of Al Qur'an involves a textual history of Al Qur'an and hence reacts as if he is surprized that I meantion a textual history of Al Qur'an can't be taken serious by me. And that is only one of the mistakes you made.
If you find my conclusion about you "arrogant" you better think about how your posts (and especially those parts of them) come across.
salaam.
Similar threads
