Bart D. Ehrman and Javad Hashmi: Comparing the Historical Problems in the Qur'an and the Bible
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 06. 2024
- In this video I interview Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and Dr. Javad Hashmi about the historical problems in the Qur'an and the Bible. We discuss a number of questions surrounding this topic like: can we use the gospels as sources for constructing the "historical Jesus"? Can we trust the narratives about the life of Muhammad? What historical information does the Qur'an give us about Muhammad? We discuss these as well as questions of violence in both scriptures.
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray distinguished professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is the author of many books on Jesus, the New Testament, textual criticism and more.
Javad Hashmi is a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard University and specializes in Islamic studies, with a focus on Qur’anic studies and the traditional Islamic disciplines. His research work focuses on the ethics of war and the sanctity of life in the Qur’an, and the doctrine of jihad in Islamic history.
If you enjoyed this discussion and want to learn more about the upcoming course you can find it here: BartEhrman.com/QuranandBible
I am looking forward to the course. Very interesting!
thanks! can we PLEASE get a weekly podcast with the same 3 people ? This was awesome !
Thank you for this- a good interaction.
Great job on this interview.
What about the Marcion gospel as the source. Professor Markus Vizent makes a compelling case for its being the first gospel composed or compiled.
Ebionites are better than Marcionite heretics!
Is it compelling because it appeals to things you already believe or because it aligns with historical evidence and the academy on the subject? I suspect it's not the latter given that it doesn't.
👏🙂
Wow. Great video.
What a treat!
Glad to see Dr Ehrman here, thanks Gabriel
How many writers of the gospel message did Paul mention in his letters?
Wasn’t Paul earlier than the Gospels?
@@tjbergren That's what they say, but how many writers did he mention in his letters?
@@tryme3969 He didn't. That's additional proof he was earlier-easily during the lifetime of many followers of Jesus. I'm not sure what your methodology allows but usually earlier is better and more reliable. I assume you agree that most scholars place the Gospels AFTER the journeys of Paul. So what's the problem with the lack of Gospel attribution in his letters to early congregations of believers?
Luke, Mark and John
He mentioned all of them except for Matthew.
Very impressive discussion. Thank you all for bringing a conversation bridge between religions.
I am excited to learn that the discussions are now started on Bible and Quran together! Congratulations Dr Bart Ehrman and Dr Javed Hashmi! I am hopeful that you will enlighten us with your research and discussions. I would request Dr Bart Ehrman to please keep on researching the Quran as he is honest and sincere person, and enlighten the world regarding his findings. I am hopeful resourceful people will come forward with more authentic knowledge regarding the place of Quran revelation.
Any serious scholar would never call the Quran a "revelation". It is clearly a product of the imagination of men with influence from Christianity, Judaism, Arab paganism and zorastrianism.
I too am excited to see Dr Ehrman get into the details of how the Quran was invented and subsequently standardised after many questionable preservation claims
Neither Mohamed of Islamic traditions, nor Mecca in the pre-islamic times existed. The standard islamic narrative of its origins is completely fabricated from falsehoods centuries later during Abbasid period. Arab empire invented islam as a tool for imperialism.
Dialogue should be based only on the Original Divined Bible and not on Men Written Scriptures.
@@salem4524 men wrote the Quran too bud.... And whatever they didn't like, they burned
The bible and the Qur'an are man-made equally
Thank you
Why is this session so short?
Because its just a teaser for the actual course.
Best wishes to all
No comparison between the historicity of the Bible and the Quran and it's a false disingenuous attempt. The massive effort put into studying the Quran is unmatched in any book in history.
Variants not from Gabriel? The Islamic position is that God permitted it so that people can actually speak and transmit the Qur'an. There's plenty examples of variants recorded in the hadith itself, this is not something that people didn't know about from the very inception.
Neither Mohamed of Islamic traditions, nor Mecca in the pre-islamic times existed. The standard islamic narrative of its origins is completely fabricated from falsehoods centuries later during Abbasid period. Arab empire invented islam as a tool for imperialism.
Correct. The problem with "modern critical scholars" is that they discount all of islamic scholarship and pretend to re invent it themselves. For example he said quranic study is in its infancy lol. He also made reference to hadiths can't be used, but they'll come to this conclusion from islamic scholars who deemed certain hadiths as weak or fabrications and then pretend they actually did something. It's a sad life. I mean look at our brother - he looks miserable.
Interesting. Are you saying that the variants were from the angel Gabriel??
@@manulajo1803 the ahrufs are not variants . Qiraats are variants..
@@roshlew6994 so how many qiraats are there?
Seeing the level of dogmatic comments by believers i can understand perfectly why this is a paid lecture series. They want to filter out all these people
Neither Mohamed of Islamic traditions, nor Mecca in the pre-islamic times existed. The standard islamic narrative of its origins is completely fabricated from falsehoods centuries later during Abbasid period. Arab empire invented islam as a tool for imperialism.
Haha triggered much? Can't take criticism?
I use to have regard for this effort with reservations but now with this production I will now watch with my reservations as my dominant eye Dr. Hashmi huh
3 of my fav scholars all together. It's truly a treat.
I assume you are Muslim
I am disappointed that Dr. Ehrman did not talk about how it is important to understand the historical context of early Christianity and what kind of social environment Jesus of Nazareth was likely speaking in. That, more than anything else, is important to keep in mind when evaluating whether Jesus was preaching 'non-violence' or 'violence' (or any of the other New Testament sources). The same goes for the Quran and Muhammad. When one understands that Jesus was speaking in an environment (even a 1st century CE Jewish one) of deep honor-shame values where males were expected to retaliate against any threat to their reputation and to seek to one-up others in social standing, the Gospels (and Pauline letters) statements about de-escalating confrontation and violence become much clearer. The difference in Jesus' understanding of the character of Yahweh to that of others, including his former teacher John the Baptist, also become clearer. The same may be said for Muhammad, who lived in an environment of intense tribal loyalty and hierarchical domination, where male-dominated blood feuds were rampant and it was difficult to get people across blood lines to trust each other.
he may elaborate on that later on. this is just an introductory video to their upcoming course
If you don’t have a context for Bart Ehrman’s work, he certainly takes this into consideration. Honestly, he’s one of the best in terms of historically contextual framing. The issue is that Jesus is regularly sanitized even more than you’re sanitizing him here. Fundamentalists have conflicting beliefs concerning Jesus being the reason for what they like about enlightenment thought, and the idea that Jesus/the Bible is presenting any kind of objective moral truth. While you’re absolutely right that he certainly has beliefs that are ahead of his time, I think it’s misleading to present him as a progressive in ancients’ clothing, as we really can’t speculate about how much of a humanist he would be, were he born in the modern world.
Javad is either ignorant or disingenuous to mention that Hadith criticism is a modern thing
Never ask a man his salary and Javed hashmi to recite ayat Al kursi 😂
Mr Hashimi should know how many biblical references the Quran has mentioned ? & which past the Prophet event the Quran has described in detail.....Just cross examine with Mr Bart & asked Question to build up more deeper discussion....
Stay only Quranic details not translation..... Or early century Islamic Scholars interpretation of Quran...
Look forward to the episode....
Mecca was a trading town. It had Christian , Jewish, and Pagan visitors. However, these people were also traders and did not stay in Mecca. It was controlled by one tribe. Probably outsiders would not be able to survive in a tribal society.
But the clear answer to that is that the Christians, Jews, and pagans themselves belonged to tribes and those tribes had members who lived in the settlements of the Hijaz. Many tribes of Arabia were of this sort, as Fred Donner in his book 'The Early Islamic Conquests' shows.
You can't be a trading hub and also intolerant of outsiders. Then again the traditional view of Mecca as a trading hub is questionable - it's in the middle of nowhere. It just doesn't make sense to have a trade market somewhere so isolated.
@@Sinleqeunnini Yes, they were territorial. Mecca belonged to one tribe. Mohammad had to go to those tribes to learn about their religions. There is no evidence, that I know of, of his extended interactions with them, of if they had the means to teach him.
Mecca didn't exist in pre-islamic times. The earliest historical evidence for Mecca is from 741AD, which is over a century after islam supposedly began as per islamic traditions
Neither Mohamed of Islamic traditions, nor Mecca in the pre-islamic times existed. The standard islamic narrative of its origins is completely fabricated from falsehoods centuries later during Abbasid period. Arab empire invented islam as a tool for imperialism.
Is javed an Islamic scholar?
Or......
No. He is not a muslim.
@@idontknow00272Doesn't he accept Quran as holy?
@@luckheartnoble6718 he don't believe in it.
@@idontknow00272 He accepts it
@@luckheartnoble6718 its not about accepting. Its about submitting. He don't agree by quranic law at all.
[6/5 18.14] Janson Xl: Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala berfirman:
فَاِ نْ طَلَّقَهَا فَلَا تَحِلُّ لَهٗ مِنْۢ بَعْدُ حَتّٰى تَنْكِحَ زَوْجًا غَيْرَهٗ ۗ فَاِ نْ طَلَّقَهَا فَلَا جُنَا حَ عَلَيْهِمَاۤ اَنْ يَّتَرَا جَعَاۤ اِنْ ظَنَّاۤ اَنْ يُّقِيْمَا حُدُوْدَ اللّٰهِ ۗ وَتِلْكَ حُدُوْدُ اللّٰهِ يُبَيِّنُهَا لِقَوْمٍ يَّعْلَمُوْنَ
fa ing thollaqohaa fa laa tahillu lahuu mim ba'du hattaa tangkiha zaujan ghoiroh, fa ing thollaqohaa fa laa junaaha 'alaihimaaa ay yatarooja'aaa ing zhonnaaa ay yuqiimaa huduudalloh, wa tilka huduudullohi yubayyinuhaa liqoumiy ya'lamuun
"Kemudian jika dia menceraikannya (setelah talak yang kedua), maka perempuan itu tidak halal lagi baginya sebelum dia menikah dengan suami yang lain. Kemudian jika suami yang lain itu menceraikannya, maka tidak ada dosa bagi keduanya (suami pertama dan bekas istri) untuk menikah kembali jika keduanya berpendapat akan dapat menjalankan hukum-hukum Allah. Itulah ketentuan-ketentuan Allah yang diterangkan-Nya kepada orang-orang yang berpengetahuan."
(QS. Al-Baqarah 2: Ayat 230)
* Via Al-Qur'an Indonesia quran-id.com
[6/5 18.16] Janson Xl: Ulangan 24:1-4 (TB) "Apabila seseorang mengambil seorang perempuan dan menjadi suaminya, dan jika kemudian ia tidak menyukai lagi perempuan itu, sebab didapatinya yang tidak senonoh padanya, lalu ia menulis surat cerai dan menyerahkannya ke tangan perempuan itu, sesudah itu menyuruh dia pergi dari rumahnya,
dan jika perempuan itu keluar dari rumahnya dan pergi dari sana, lalu menjadi isteri orang lain,
dan jika laki-laki yang kemudian ini tidak cinta lagi kepadanya, lalu menulis surat cerai dan menyerahkannya ke tangan perempuan itu serta menyuruh dia pergi dari rumahnya, atau jika laki-laki yang kemudian mengambil dia menjadi isterinya itu mati,
maka suaminya yang pertama, yang telah menyuruh dia pergi itu, tidak boleh mengambil dia kembali menjadi isterinya, setelah perempuan itu dicemari; sebab hal itu adalah kekejian di hadapan TUHAN. Janganlah engkau mendatangkan dosa atas negeri yang diberikan TUHAN, Allahmu, kepadamu menjadi milik pusakamu.
alkitab.app/v/069d0f900d33
Ada masalah? Memang 2 hukum tsb berbeda. Di Al-Qur'an di jelaskan bahwa hukum Al-Qur'an turun untuk mengurangi beban hukum yang ada di taurat. Dan itu real, bukan sebelum umkris yang menghapus hukum itu semua diganti dengan penebusan dosa langsung surga
Muhammad Salla Allahou Alaihi Wa Salama.
Okay & I've no initials in front of My Name - Is there A Complete Original Texts for either any version(s) of the koran & the bible? To Me ( What weight/influence do I have?) Fragments & Partials do not count. So - in other words, What is the earliest complete texts for the koran & the bible? I'm not asking about textual comparison.
The early 95% full Old Testament corpus we have is the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have been dated to 300 - 100 BC
------
- The earliest full Gospel corpus / NT (MMLJ + Acts + Epistles) we have physically is Codex Sinaiticus, based on carbon dating and epigraphy it was written between AD 330 and 360
- There are no singular, full Gospel accounts older than CS-only fragments such as P45 or P1
- Codex Vaticanus was made in a separate place and almost at the same time as CS and is also full. However it is agreed to be just slightly newer made
------
- The Paris Codex is a 100% full Qur’an manuscript dated to AD 670-830
- The Mashhad/Tashkent Codex is a 98% Qur’an manuscript dated to AD 670-830
- The Birmingham Codex is a few Surahs dated to AD 568-645, however controversy has come about from this dating because some of the researchers tried to pin it down to singular years, which is not possible with carbon dating. It is only accurate to decades
- The Sana’a Codex is a few Surahs dated to AD 670-830
------
All in all, all three traditions have robust preservation.
You have Birmingham manuscript and Sanaa manuscript. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanaa_manuscript
@@lawyer73 Nope - Perhaps I was not clear. Partials & Fragments do not count.
@@tonypalughi9541 Sanaa manuscript is total Quran.
@@lawyer73 The Sana'a Manuscript is not a whole Qur'an. It has about 60 Surahs, and parts of about 20 Surahs, so a bit over half.
To answer OP's actual question (my original comment didn't go through for some reason), the oldest full Quranic manuscript we have is the Birmingham Codex, carbon dated to AD 570-650. And yes, it is a full manuscript.
The oldest Old Testament corpus is from the Dead Sea Scrolls collection, various books were written from 300-100 BC.
The oldest full singular Gospel & entire NT corpus is the Codex Sinaiticus, dated to AD 350.
The existence of one or two variants of the Quran is not proof that variants existed but that someone messed up in its writing.
The simplest proof of the Quran's preservation is that memorization of its verses was done by the first Muslims which meant that any alterations would have been discovered and corrected in the beginning eliminating any chance of variants surviving.
The fact that all Muslim reciters through all of recorded history the world over have been reciting the Quran in the same exact way letter for letter word for word from beginning to end is a clear proof of the Quran's preservation.
It is therefore strange for anyone who knows these two simple facts of the Quran to say that the Quran is not preserved.
Sorry I disagree, the Reason Uthman gathered some companions to write Quran in Qureshi and burn the rest was to minimise the variations that already existed. Ibn Masud had 112 chapters and Ibn Kaab had 116 in their version of the Quran. Furthermore, the Sunna manuscript is clear evidence of big differences. None of the oldest Quranic manuscripts are complete or even word for word the same. The reason Muslims quote it the same is most use the Hafs version. Easy to explain.
@@senkat8747
They did not burn Qurans. They were burning hadith which is a whole different discussion.
Both Sunni and Shia schools agree that hadith were plagiarized.
This fact is even admitted to by even hard core Salafis who hold most of those same questionable hadith to the level of the Quran.
Shias do not accept the variants nor do they accept that the Quran was not compiled during the time of Muhammad.
Such a belief contradicts the entire revelation narrative since verses were revealed as Muhammad spoke them indicating chapter and verse number for each. It is unreasonable to accept that the Quran was not already in circulation when many Muslims already memorized it to heart and they had 23 years to put it together.
It is impossible for variants to flourish when the Muslims were memorizing each verse as it was revealed which would have made it impossible for mistakes or variations to even last long enough to circulate before it is corrected.
The reason why critics of Islam rely only on Sunni hadith and not on Shia hadith is that Sunnis accept contradictory narrations about the Quran that contradict basic Islamic teachings on the Quran and because they hold contradictory and questionable hadith to be on the same level as the Quran.
Many Sunnis go so far as to say hadith can override the Quran.
The Shia categorically reject that anything is above the Quran and that anything that contradicts it is to be thrown away.
@@senkat8747
Everything you said here is absolutely wrong....
Dr Bart is very interesting with his info. Respect
yes! so are the other 2 men in video
Ended so soon..
So The Sira and the Hadiths are now considered by some academics as "unreliable and doubtful"? That's great to know.
Because Quran go back to Prophet time but hadeeths are 100 to 200 years later
@@TheGoatOfMMA: There's *no hard evidence* that the Qur'an dates from the prophet's time, or even if the prophet was one man who received revelations. A large amount of the Qur'an is a repetition of Jewish and Christian doctrine, but told in a slightly different way. For example, the story of Jesus was totally changed by Islam. Maybe it was all invented to serve a political narrative? Islam seems to be on shaky ground...🙄
@@sandytatham3592 🙄 even hadeeth has more authenticity than both the old testament 1500 years later than moses and new testament 400 years later than jesus. Hadeeth just 100 to 200 years later but with the chains of narrations and all rules.
@@sandytatham3592 Quran indeed go back to Prophet time the sana manuscripts and 100s of manuscripts are carbonated and compared by the Professor Marjin Van Putten from the lifetimes of companions.
@@sandytatham3592 As for copying from the old scriptures that just blatant lie, yes there are stories from the previous scriptures just like in new testament from old testament but Quran dose not revolve around the previous stories from old testament it just correct those stories it always refute the corruption of man, affirm what is right and if it dose copy it would be full of contradictions like both gospels, but it's not. It new testament who literally revolve around the old testament contradict the old testament and itself.
Dr. Ehrman has eloquently presented his views on the Gospels' historical problems in many books and written articles (many scribes in many languages with different translations /trans creations and to top it ...at many time junctures).... by contrast, I found Dr. Hashmi's views as clear as mud on historical "problems" ...but he promised that it will be clarified/elaborated in the "course" he will be giving
I hope the course material will include some material for reading to enlighten us with his thesis
I'm calling BS. If he can't put the basics over in this chat .. then .. spoiler alert .. he never will.
This is because the so called "modern" Islamic research, that has been going on for 300 years or so, is still horribly biased and incomplete. I don't really take any of their general claims seriously.
The Corpus Coranicum is the largest historical research project about Qur'an. The project has mainly achieved the first step of research, aggregating the relevant data. They haven't reached any conclusive evidence that contradicts the historicity of the Qur'an (and none of their findings are impressive in my opinion). They instead gave really vague statements to the mainstream media casting doubt on the historicity of Qur'an. The head researchers also stated that the research was being done for Germans and other Europeans, not Islamic fundamentalists (politically correct way of saying that they don't care to discuss their findings with Muslims).
Considering the previous state of the western "Oriental studies"; which was comprised of mostly xenophobic conspiracy theories, along with modest and respectable scholars who did useful research and didn't claim to revolutionize the field; this is a way in the right direction.
Your observation is correct, and the reason is that the historical critical Islamic scholars don't have anything systematic at hand, let alone anything sophisticated. I try to listen to the lectures of respected Muslim scholars; and compared to them, the historical critical scholars I've seen seem to be completely unaware of the works on exegesis of Qur'an, and they also seem to have only superficial understanding of Fiqh (Jurisprundence), methodology of Hadith, and Kalam(theology). They seem to be focused on historical texts for the most part.
"A lot in the Qur'an to know about the historical Mohammad " !!??
*Truth Stands Out Clear From Falsehood*
In full disclosure, Dr. Hashmi needs to make clear the distinction between the Quran (oral recitation) and a 'Mushaf' (i.e. physical book).
Apologia has stress on the second o in English. This whole apoloGEEa trend is baffling.
great, the idea that the quran/muhammad is outside the traditional area is pretty much reasonable
Bart Erman as western scholars they usually used secondary and 3rd sources not primary sources.
It was so exciting when the Rebbe Schneerson was expected to rise from the grave as the Messiah. We were watching the birth of Christianity all over again.
I just realised that Bart D. Ehrman in Swedish means 'One dies naked'.
yea, we all do...naked in coffin...
bart dör man 😂
You made my day
So I just had to look up Ehrman. From Yiddish meaning virtuous and honest.
Sweeden will become a Islamic caliphet very soon :)
Just finished watching.
In a word: outstanding!
What an outstanding episode and what a wonderful surprise for all fans of Historical Critical Biblical & Qur'anic Studies!
The whole essence of what the show is meant to be has been captured in this one episode.
And I think I speak for all the fans when I say that we really do want to see more interaction between Biblical and Qur'anic Scholars and to be questioned by a host who is well versed with both traditions.
So well done Gabriel in bringing Javad and Dr. Bart Ehrman together.
My only negative about the episode is that 24 minutes was far too short. I really hope to see them both back for a much longer future episode. 🙂
-Omar
Do u really believe in the absurd islamic cave story with jibriil and muhannad 😂😂😂😂
@@trinitymatrix9719what's funny about that?
Try to lough when it is justifiable otherwise u r making fun of urself.
@@pulpfiction9725 @TheMuslimApologist
In the 7th C, religion was practiced but wasn't yet a concept. Just like trading, an economic activity, had been practiced for ages even before the invention of theory of economics. People practiced trading for ages without having the knowledge of economics as a theory.
English adopted the word religion in 1200 AD. The Arabic DYN was never translated into English as religion before the 20th Century.
So, what was ISLAM before religion? If there was no religion of ISLAM in the 7th century, what was the main message that the prophet spreading? When was ISLAM become the brand of a religion, a modern concept?
Find an actual Islamic scholar to learn from then! Javad is barley out of kindergarten and doesn’t hasn’t even scratched the surface of Islamic knowledge.
Hashemi said that "traditional Islamic scholars viewed Muhammad as 'totally Pagan'". No idea where he got that nonsense from.
Bart is d1s1ng1nu0us. That's why he didn't bring up a heavyweight on the discussion. As it is, it's not the eyes which are bl1nd but the h3arts.
he didnt say that, he was comparing how the historical-critical scholarship suggest more jewish and christian presence than the traditional view that the hijaz was mostly pagan with little jewish and no christian presence
If they considered him believer, then they'll admit him as holy man.
And that would contradict their religious beliefs.
Yes. According to traditions prophet (pbuh) was Ummi which means he could not read and write. Also he was born in a pagan society and all the people around him worshiped imaginary several gods. It was affter the first revelation when he was 40, the mindset changed.. This is why people around him hated him as he was saying some thing contrary to their ancestral belif
@@iqbalmaqsood8720 Stop this nonsense, he never bowed to an Idol, but was one of the Hunafa. Go get some education before you utter this nonsense.
Did Islam bring anything new to monotheism?
A false prophet?. Sex slaves,?
What do you mean?
Do you want islam to consider mhamed and holy spirits as God?is that what u believe is monotheism? 3 gods but one God?
Try harder Neila!
It has a list of godly attributes. It rejects some Judaic and Christian descriptions of God.
Such as (some?) Jews claim that God got tired on the seventh day. Or that God is poor, the people are rich so he needs them, or that Jews and Christians are children of God.
(I am being intentionally vague to avoid interpreting the text, since how to distinguish between metaphors from literal speech about God is a huge debate)
@@eeeqqq7582 haha so bcs islam doesn't belive that God can sleep or get tired that means is not monotheism?? U guys r in drug or what ?
And who says that Jewish and Christian scripture is reliable in the first place.
Next time think about what u say
wow, such a dumb question. you must know nithing about it . learn the basics before saying anything
Looking forward to the course and learning from esteemed scholars.
The big 3🔥
You should invite Dr. Ali Ataei to speak on this topic from the Quran.
Strange that its always one sided discussion on this channel.
My humble explanation to Dr Hashmi is that the details of those previous prophets were not included in Quran not because the Arabs knew these stories from Jews and Christians but the narrations were limited to explain the historical context of that those previous prophets preached the same message and underwent similar difficulties in preaching it and how successful they were at the end. Later the Quranic scholars expanded these stories based on what was found in the previous scriptures Torah and Injeel.
In my view Dr Bart and the agnosticism principality is totally out of touch with the reality world where violence is part of nature and human beings character.For example he laughs off the verse that says Jesus also came with the sword.Many interpretation arises of course but the literal meaning is the clash between family and people with each other violently.That is a reality happen in human lives
Where is the Christian scholar in the panel to Compare the Historical Problems in the Qur'an and the Bible ?
Jay smith ?
Jay Smith...? You seriously call him a scholar. You're really clueless mate
@@----f
he is the jack if not master.
He gathers information from many sources specially debunking Islam's foundational claims
@@----f I agree. Smith is very good at what he does but he is a polemicist not a scholar.
@lesmen4
He's not good or a scholar. Most of his ideas are taken directly from extreme revisionists such as Patricia crone and others who have ostracized by the academic community.
@@spatel353 Agreed. That’s why he’s classified as a polemicist. Do you argue against his polemics or do you just set up ad hominem arguments? Not just against Smith but Crone et al?
Gospel of Luke chapter 1, verse 2, just as those from the beginning were eyewitness and ministers of the word delivered them to us,
cool
Who is luke?
The Quran is most likely a consensus among various monotheistic communities such as Jews, Christians, heretic Jewish-Christians, Manichean Christians, and Zoroastrians in Southern Iraq or Trans-Jordan. This is likely why the Quran contains bits and pieces from these traditions and frequently refers to Christians, Jews, and Sabians (manicheans?) as people of the book. This consensus was most likely intentional by the Arab elites to be in a neutral position both before and after the conquest (to make it easier for the caliph to govern the vast territories) and continued for a few decades until Abdul Malik declared it a separate religion from Christians and Jews.
Do you say that angry parts of quran was written during time of 4th caliph? Around 40years after prophet?
That's not possible, it totally would contradict history and countless evidence contain both Quran and aHadith. In addition linguistically you would find exact language similar to the biblical narrative in the Quran and it's not.
www.masjidtucson.org/submission/monotheism/monotheismnaturalinstinct.html
John was an eyewitness.
Gospel according John was anonymous written and was not by John the disciple. John was a Jew and probably not educated but the earliest gospels were written in Greek while Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic language.
@@yusufshaibu418 How do you know it isn't by John the Apostle ? Also, it is not because Jesus' disciples are not greeks that it mean they can't speak Greek. People were speaking Greek in Egypt (and many more places) at the time of Jesus.
@@user-om3pl9jh5kbecause it was written around 100 ad, john died in 99
@@apenguicitis4395 what's your evidence that it was written around 100 AD ? Also, what's your evidence John died at 99 AD ? There isn't. All claims, no evidence. Scholars says, isn't evidence. Conjectures are not evidence.
@@apenguicitis4395 Can you provide solid evidence for those dates ? Or is it another made up fact ? By the way, conjectures are not evidence for a method that claims to be better than tradition. Because anyone can do conjectures to prove their points 👍.
The variation in reading the Quran was transmitted to ud from the mouth of the Prophet. This variation does not change the concept of the verse.
Quran is mainly transmitted orally from generation to generation since the days of the Prophet. The Muslims take care enormously in memorizing it and preserving from alteration or changes.
No, Uthman criminalised whatever didn't agree with his codex. The oral transmission of the Quran was cut off by Uthman, after him the written word was the law. And we do know that he tried to ban readings that used to be legit, like ibn Masud's.
@@phun1901 that is all false, there is only one gurand
If Uthman tried to corrupt the Quran, other Companions, especially Ali, would have militarily confronted him. @@phun1901
@@pankaja7974 Kitab al Masahif is a book all about several rasm variants, written by Abi Dawood. And if you want to know about it ibn Masud's codex was important to the Hanafi school, it had different rasm and different fiqh in a few places like S 6:65 and S 5:89.
Neither Mohamed of Islamic traditions, nor Mecca in the pre-islamic times existed. The standard islamic narrative of its origins is completely fabricated from falsehoods centuries later during Abbasid period. Arab empire invented islam as a tool for imperialism.
Does Hashmi have anything to say about Mahund's brides?
Yes actually, he has a video on it on his channel
Advice to javad hasmin who has studied a western view point looking into history of islam but has not studied the traditional study of Islam. Before he casts his thought and point of view and write books he should study in depth the traditional Islam and then hold his opinions and thoughts.
Anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusions as you is immediately tarred and feathered as being paid by Mossad agents to do it anyway or something, doesn't matter who he is, but particularly if he is from a Muslim background. We see this in another comment right here on this thread by
@user-kj8yl6sn2z , almost the exact same knee-jerk, childish reaction. The sad fact is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims have zero capability for tolerating dissent and criticism. And the most ironic thing, vis-a-vis the comment of the user I just mentioned, is that he isn't aware that it's often Muslims paying loads of Westerners either in obviously apologetic contexts like Keith Moore and all those Saudi-paid scientists in the 1980's, or in actual scholarly endowments in major universities to produce scholarship with agendas. Thankfully the latter hasn't become overwhelming and hopefully never will.
What is it that you feel one may learn in a traditional madrasah that they will not learn in a more secularized university?
I want his opinions and thought before any of that
He has studied from Al madinnah
He needs to study under an actual scholar who will rectify his ideas when they are not according to the original teachings.
Just looking to get some traction.
We are a group of ex-muslims/atheists who challenge the fundamentals of Islam but mostly taking a philosophical bend to it and citing scriptures in support of our arguments only if needed.
What about Islam do you challenge?
@@abdullahimusa9761 Just look at its textual criticism. It’s a mess..
@@shayalynn may you refer me to a book or video?
@@shayalynn what's exactly is a mess about the scripture of Islam?
And what ur religion in other words u r judging our values based on what values
Are those values objective ? Or subjective?
Angelika Neuwirth FBA (born 4 November 1943, Nienburg) is a German Islamic studies scholar and professor of Quranic studies at Freie University in Berlin. She covers all your doubts in the video.
czcams.com/video/qHCeYSvazY4/video.htmlsi=PuYJ4yOEA3lW6s64
Right from the beginning, Bart starts lying on the gospel writers. It's so annoying
what he says is mainstream. literally acknowledged by almost all critical scholars in the field. there is no name attached to the gospels themselves, and no amount of coping + apologetics is gonna fix the fact that. and no, inspiring philosophy's video about gospel authorship is not convincing, rather it's only persuasive to those desperate/inclined to believe they aren't.
the arrogance you have to talk down to a well-accomplished scholar and accuse him of lying is absurd. i should also add that this fact (anonymous authors) does NOT break faith. many scholars in the field are christian and have no problem in accepting it. maybe get better educated about critical scholarship and then come back.
@edgytulip2003 Paul mentioned Luke in his letters more than one time, yet the so-called Bible scholars refuse to accept that he's obviously talking about the gospel writer named Luke.
Luke mentioned the gospel writer Mark in his letters, yet the so-called Bible scholars are refusing to accept that he's obviously referring to the gospel writer named Mark.
@@ThroneofDavid8
- paul mentions luke
- luke must therefore be the writer of an unnamed gospel
is this even a serious argument, or have i misunderstood?
@@edgytulip2003Actually that’s incorrect, every single gospel we have physically including the fragments from AD 100 have names attached to them, and it always follows the formula of “The Gospel According to x” where x is M M L or J.
@@jeremias-serus source?
I imagine a people’s court scenario where the announcer does the opening monologue and the judge asks the first question “so, can the gospels lead us to Jesus?
“Well sort of. The Bible was written by man…”
Then the courtroom empties. Lots of shuffling and closing of briefcases.
People say “excuse me” and avoid eye contact.
The Judge sits still and silently till the room is empty.
“What happened?”
“You lost!”
“What about the other guy?”
“What other guy? This case was about the Bible scholar.”
Not sure about Dr Javad Expertise. On the preservation of the Quran, Dr Ali Ataie has an excellent, well researched, 3h long video on BT. He references Dr Hythem Sidky who is a specialist on Quran manuscripts. As to the Hadiths, this topic is very well known. Curious to see the content of his course. In my opinion, it takes many years of scholarship to talk about this topic, and Dr Javad may not have the required depth of knowledge.
Totally agree, actually I just recently discovered him and it feels like he totally disregards other academical works that are not fitting hiw view point (for instance the recent "Quran of the Historian" in which Dr. Reynolds participated, among many other scholars, such as Dr. Amir-Moezzi, Dye or Imbert). I think he doesn't have the experience yet to make a distinction between his academical researches and his personal beliefs. Looking forward to seeing what the course will be like.
Maybe Ehrman should discuss with a Muslim scholar of equal or greater bona fides such as biblical scholar Professor Ali Ataie who speaks Biblical Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and who actually understands this material far better than Hashmi. Hashmi can share his 2c but Ehrman could have done a lot better.
BART!
If Mecca cannot be proven to have existed from Abraham to Mohd. How can any of the Quranic stories be accepted.
Bart Ehrmann is a Bible critic and Javed is sympathetic to Islam. Do you see a problem in this??
Where do you get this information? Josephus literally talks about Mecca, the Bible itself talks about trading routes through the center of Arab tribes, the valley of Becca.
@@pakilla4578source either of these things
Neither Mohamed of Islamic traditions, nor Mecca in the pre-islamic times existed. The standard islamic narrative of its origins is completely fabricated from falsehoods centuries later during Abbasid period. Arab empire invented islam as a tool for imperialism.
Mecca is literally mentioned in the Quran. And according to mainstream academia, the Quran is preserved from the time of Muhammad(pbuh), so therefore it can be used as primary source material to support Mecca did exist.
@@spatel353 there is no historical or archeological evidence for existence of Mecca prior to 8th century. Only islamic scriptures mention it.. even going by that Mecca would be located somewhere in Jordan region..
Why he look like his , he wants to scare us. And by the way compare bible and weak hadith and we talk after that.
There is only one variant of quran to say otherwise is misconceptions of common Muslim if we analyse history and tradition of Muslims u will be shocked to know how much little u know names like warsh and nafi of hafs and asim are common misconceptions among the young daees today
Kitab al Masahif is a book about rasm variants of the Quran. Ibn Masuds codex had a different rasm to Uthman.
@@phun1901 how different? What percent of Ibn Masud's codex differed from Uthman's?
@@phun1901 so is the the works of suyuti and zarkashi refer to itqaan fi uloomi quran and burhan also u can refer to abu bakr ibn mujahids works also these are all works on different narrations to reading of quran narrated by one or two individuals basically debate about how one or two words r read or sometimes different word is read these few narrations are against the tradition of Muslims reading quran in a single way for 1400 years without any disconnect in the tradition
@@phun1901 moreover kitab al mashaif means books of codecs which discusses script differences i:e differences in writing
@@kaiserbeighThe tradition got it wrong early.
"Modern Historic Critical scholars are of consensus that the hadith and seerah are not reliable" - Javad
This is such an outlandish an misleading claim. There are some ahadith that are not reliable, but then there is a huge plethora of hadith that are very much reliable. Which consensus?
What an arrogant pathetic statement.
250 years of Chinese whispers recorded by genocidal Umayyad sympathizers and Abbasids who forbade narrations from the Kufan resistance and used extreme torture with their Mukhabarat constantly spying on them.
Enjoy your fake hadith.
On the issue of preservation, I think there is one fundamental difference between Quran and Biblical texts. While Muslims were aware of preservation issue from the very beginning and had mechanisms in place for this purpose,
the apologusts of the Bible became aware of issue thanks to Muslims. In fact, being adaptable is a Biblical feature. Bible has a long history, and was maintained by a cast of people who drived their livelihood and prestige out of these books, usually with exclusive access to their content. They had a motivation to change or enhance them for personal gain. These books were most likely very expensive to write and maintain. Most likely the interval between rewrites were stretched, which increased the likelihood of loss of content. The lost content must have been supplied from memory. In fact, they would destroy the old copy after a new copy became available. The purpose of that must be to avoid any controversy relating to the text. So, there are several intrinsic mechanisms resulting in textual distortion. In the case of Quran though, it was the community, not Osman in charge of preserving it, through memorization. The community would object to any perceived corruption. Writing and paper technology had also improved. The prophet himself seems to have supervised, and made corrections to the written text. That indicates he knew how to write, although he was not schooled. The narrative around the
very first revelation indicates to me, that he was able to read. Quran was written down in several copies as it was revealed.
The Hadiths clearly suggest that he couldn't read. The Hadith of the first revelation is the direct proof of this. He supervised writings by dictating and hearing.
You were making up so much contrived nonsense about the Bible manuscripts.
Uthman tried to criminalise every reading that didn't agree with his own, including Ibn Masuds. Ibn Masud was not impressed, and refused to switch to Uthmans reading - which had different rasm.
Uthman really did try to erase readings that used to be legit. That's the most sus thing ever.
@@phun1901 I did not say anything about Bible manuscripts. Most of what I know about it, is through Bart Ehrman.
Uthman introduced diacritical marks into Quran, to help non-Arabic speakers who don't know Arabic to be able to read it. An Arabic speaker does not need them. Even today, Arabic print does not use them. It looks like it is a non-issue. Criminal thing? Probably you are making up.
You can learn from Bard how trinity was introduced into Bible. Read more, you will find that they say something in the middle of the text, and deny it at the end. They acknowledge that Gospels
have been tempered. The authors of for Gospels are unknown. That means whoever produced them, did not want to reveal his identity. Not good. My hypothesis is that the authors were not Christian themselves. Paul's letters are not from Paul. Bart calls them fraud.
I simply made a remark that material used for writing was expensive, was not durable, was under the protection of cast of people, with privilege passed through inheritance. These people relied on revenue from the believers, and I suspect they used these texts to attract more revenue to their coffers. There must be some good reason for rewriting them, like wear, tear, loss, fire, war and change in theological thinking. When they rewrite, some letters, words, sentences or sections or books would be missing from the original which need to be replaced. In the process, they use a language to reflect the opinion of their sect, and destroy the old copy.
That is why you don't find much old OT material. There are at least 2-3 tracks of OT material.
I am just a messenger. Insulting me does not change anything.
Neither Mohamed of Islamic traditions, nor Mecca in the pre-islamic times existed. The standard islamic narrative of its origins is completely fabricated from falsehoods centuries later during Abbasid period. Arab empire invented islam as a tool for imperialism.
@phun1901 he burned all scribal copies. Why would he allow any random person to have quranic parchment that may have errors, notes, rework still in circulation to cause confusion to a community that was growing exponentially, After they painstakingly just compiled a Quran in the presence of the companions of the prophet?!
Seems like a no brainer.
Bart cintradicts himself on his stands on the NT compare to the discussion he had with Muhd Hijab. No sharp, at all.
Did he how so?
To me Al Quran speaks what is the truth no sugar coating beating around the bush.The books touch all the subjects that is relevant with human behaviour and what comes out of it.The traditions,customs and principles of every ideas in almost all society
Try to listen and learn, stop pushing your ideology into science
In the 7th C, religion was practiced but wasn't yet a concept. Just like trading, an economic activity, had been practiced for ages even before the invention of theory of economics. People practiced trading for ages without having the knowledge of economics as a theory.
English adopted the word religion in 1200 AD. The Arabic DYN was never translated into English as religion before the 20th Century.
So, what was ISLAM before religion? If there was no religion of ISLAM in the 7th century, what was the main message that the prophet spreading? When was ISLAM become the brand of a religion, a modern concept?
He’s a kaafir if he denies the preservation of Quran
The recitations of the Quran are multiply attested and the people who attest to them are known in books (I’ll come back, edit this message with some book names shortly) with biographies of them in ilmul rijal (science of men) so we have reason to accept the faith claim despite no historically acceptable evidence to prove. Furthermore, the Quran’s existence as a stable and standardised text so early on (650) lends itself to the credibility of the claim of Quranic variants going back to the prophet due to the scrupulousness of the early people in the early standardisation.
Additionally, the hundreds of thousands who had known the entire Quran by heart since the time of the prophet would further guarantee the preservation of the different variant readings, and the most popular of these reciters (hafs, assim, ibn Kathie etc) were documented in books with their chains to the companions. It was both a living tradition with thousands participating but also a tradition reliant on tutelage.
*And even if someone does doubt the connection of every reading variant back to the prophet, there is no material evidence that contradicts the claim that it goes back to him*
It’s like doubting the existence of god, you can speculate it but can never disprove God. And there is more positive evidence for God than what is required to believe in Him.
You don't need a PhD from Yale to know that if you want to write about Jesus you have to talk to people who knew Jesus or his followers. It is absurd to assume that all eyewitnesses have died by the time the gospels were written. A gospel according to Matthew doesn't necessarily mean that he himself has written the gospel but it could mean that it was written by someone else according to stories told by Matthew or by people who directly heard the stories from him. The Book of Revelation is a symbolic book. It is not meant to be interpreted literally. It was written to comfort and encourage persecuted Christians and to tell them that the final victory is to God who will establish justice.
Thanks to the memorizers of the holy Quran we have the original Quran with us even today. Also, the Quran was written down in front of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). So, we have a dual way of check and balance that is not there for any other religious text except the Holy Quran. Alhamdulillah for Islam
Are the worst of men [Q98:6]
• Are convicts/ sinners [Q2:276, 30:12, 77:46]
• Are the lowest of the low [Q4:145, 37:98, 95:5]
• Are liars, hypocrites, treacherous [Q4:105, 4:107, 4:140, 6:28, 8:58, 22:38 , 45:7]
• Allah hates them [Q3:32, 3:57, 3:118, 3:140, 4:144, 5:51, 40:35, 58:22, 60:4]
• Allah forsakes them [Q32:14, 45:34]
• Allah brought down destruction upon them [Q47:10, 86:15-16]
• Allah's curse is on them [Q2:88, 2:159, 2:161, 4:46-47, 48:6]
• Allah despises them [Q9:79; 17:18]
• Allah abases/ disgraces them [Q2:85, 2:114, 3:192, 5:33, 17:18, 22:18]
• Allah mocks them [Q2:15]
And we have not even explored what Allah tells Muslims to do (Q9:73, 2:193, 9:5, 47:4, 66:9, 9:123) when they meet up with kuffar!
What is your point?
We have a violent image of the Quran because that is what we've been fed for decades.
No verse in the Quran says to kill infidels. The Quran only allows self defense after first being attacked and commands fighting to cease if the enemy is subdued or stops fighting. At a time when prisoners were executed or enslaved Muhammad offered them freedom by ransom or by educating Muslims to read.
Which ancient ruler other than Muhammad ever offered teaching as a means of buying one's freedom?
Just reading the verses out loud is all it takes to clear up any doubt.
Violent hadith however do exist such as death for apostates and blasphemers and the permissibility of killing women and children in war.
These made their way into Islam by Jewish and Christian advisors to early Muslim rulers who translated Old Testament Laws into Arabic falsely attributing them to Muhammad in the form of hadith.
These false hadith allowed rulers to indiscriminately kill civilians or eliminate opposition by simply accusing them of blasphemy or apostasy making their execution agreeable to Muslims who by themselves would do the killing.
All of which is forbidden in the Quran.
If anything seems violent in Islam it is from questionable hadith and not from the Quran itself.
If Islam wasn't violent then why did Mohammad's successors resort to extreme violence after Mohammad died in an attempt to claim the caliphate? Abu Bekr had to force the Arabs back into Islam in Ridda War and the Fitna wars involved multiple waves of violence.Be honest everything seems to be nothing but violence in early Islam.Every major figure was either a warlord or similar. Just be honest with us!
Interesting can you reference where in the Hadiths traditions it is permissable to kill women and children in war?
Also is there proof "Jewish and Christian advisors to early Muslim rulers who translated Old Testament laws falsely attributing them to Muhammad in the form of Hadith"?
For example
Qur'an 9:29
Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.
@@manulajo1803
Why don't you post the verses before and after?
Because doing so would prove the Quran only allows defense.
Keep posting anyway.
Millions are drawn to and converting to Islam because of the constant attention put up on the Quran by people like yourself.
The Muslim world thanks you.
@@SI00000 O believers, the idolaters are indeed unclean; so let them not come near the Holy Mosque after this year of theirs. If you fear poverty, God shall surely enrich you of His bounty, if He will; God is All-knowing; All-wise. 9:28
The Jews say, 'Ezra is the Son of God'; the Christians say, 'The Messiah is the Son of God.' That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted! Qur'an 9:30
When you try to talk about Islam and the Quran bring someone with a little more expertise. I know you are looking for someone to critique Islam, the way Bart critique your religion but you need to try to be less bias. Something the church followers are unable to do especially when it comes to Islam.
9:07, the prophets stories in the Quran are not about the biography of a specific person or his people. They are about the lessons. They correct the confusing stories in your Bible full of lies as I m sure you are aware.
And watch the debate between this Javed character and doctor Shadee Elmasry to see his level.
his level is awesome and the course they’re collaborating on is may 5/6th
You don't seem to be interested in a critical analysis of the Quran as a text in history. I know that that can be frightening to some people, particularly when they don't understand what the most enduring and worthy aspects of their own religious tradition are, and it is true that approaching a text like the Quran in this way is not the most important thing in life, but you should at least acknowledge how little you understand what these people are talking about here. The view that 6th century CE Arabia was not pagan in the sense of the 1st century CE Mediterranean, and tended more towards late antique pagan views of monotheism, is quite well supported by the historical sources and archaeology.
@@SinleqeunniniI don't see any early Islamic scholar saying that Arabia was completely pagan. We've always known that there was considerable diversity throughout different regions. Jewish tribes in the Northwest and some in the southwest, Christians near the Ghassanid and Ethiopian end of Arabia. It was MECCA that was 95% pagan. The rest were monotheists and some Christians as written in the Hadiths.
The so-called historical critical scholarship is a cult of hyper-skeptic blue-haired secular crackpots. If you're expecting neutrality from people who's already made up their mind about testimonies from people of a certain creed, you're not gonna learn anything. I mean some of these deny Muhammad's existence and none of them arrive at the same conclusions. I'm hardly frightened by people who make up their narratives by fitting them into their modern worldview.
The stories in the Quran just homogenise everything, smooth out all the flaws and original lessons. Mohammad put his own words into their mouths, he just manufactured credibility for himself from them by stealing their names.
@@phun1901Can you talk like normal human being? What do you mean by homogenize? How about you give an example? I’ll give you one first: Haroon( or Aaron) did not make an idol for his people to worship, it was a man named Samiri.
It is quite interesting that Muhammad was a pagan who grew up in a pagan environment. We can see many pagan ideas and practices that made its way into the Quran and Islamic teaching
This was a great discussion!
Lol where the hell u get your information from? What's your evidence that Muhammad was ever a pagan?
you missed it , it’s ok
Pagan practices and teachings in Islam ? Name one please . We are free of paganism and idolatry . Our belief is : laillaha Ilalah .. I bear witness that none is worthy of worship but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger . Pure monotheism . Nothing more
@@saburrashid5566 I'm well aware of the propaganda script. There are many pagan practices in Islam such as circulating the black cubic shrine. I know the excuse, "Abraham built it". However there is not a shred of evidence supporting the Islamic claim.
Many other things such as animal sacrifices for eid, the throwing of stones to an anthropomorphic statue representing "shaytan", ofcourse this is not to mention that Muslims speak directly to Muhammad in the tashahud portion of their salat.
Islam is far from "pure monotheism" but I understand how you reached this misunderstanding as this is what's been circulating tiktok, Instagram and the likes of
@@saburrashid5566 I'm well aware of the propaganda script dude. But that's not true. Aside from plagiarizing from Jewish and Christian sources, the authors of the Quran and hadiths also drew inspiration from pagan practices including circulating the black cubic shrine/temple known as the kaaba. The throwing of stones on the anthropomorphic representation of Satan during hajj and many many more
Not to mention that Muslims speak directly to Muhammad in the tashahud portion of their prayers
In comparison to historical Jesus and historical Mohammed it is evident that life of Mohammed was an open book. All verses revealed in Mecca before the migration and in Medina after the migration were chronologically recorded. All events happened in the life of the prophet after the migration were recorded with proper Hijri (migration) timeliness.
Gospels in New Testament are the mixture of 3 things. One, Injeel which is the word of God, two, what Jesus said and three what others saw in Jesus. It's a third party account of the above three.
In Islam, Quran is the revelation from God. Hadeeth is what prophet Mohammed (pbuh) said and Seerah is the historical details of the prophet and his companions.
Quran has the highest accuracy of preservation, Hadeeth is only accepted if authentic narrative is confirmed by reliable sources and Seerah is taken only at the historical context.
How convenient of you to make such a claim without any evidence. The Gospels didn't exist before they were written. It was only some sayings of Jesus and oral stories floating around with epistles of Paul and other educated christians. There was never this idea among the early 1st century Christians that Jesus brought a revelation of "Gods speech".
In fact Jesus was seen as the risen Messiah and his teaching about the Kingdom and the coming Age was his central message. But not an earthly kingdom like Islamic caliphate, but one that is invisible but still on earth.
Also Hadith science is proven to be false. Most of what is contained in "sahih" Hadith is false stories and a game of telephone.
@lukavukcevic6429 Agreed that the onus is on me to give evidence.
All messengers received their messages in their mother tongue. It's logical that Jesus conducted his ministry in his mother tongue, Aramaic language and all sayings of Jesus were in Aramaic. That's why when he was on the cross he cried in his mother tongue not in Greek language.
Mathew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.
The original teachings of Jesus were what the early Christians including the apostles were following in Jerusalem. Jesus received his scripture from God in Aramaic language.
The Gospels from Apostles were removed from the New Testament in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea. The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
The Christian writers of the first period mention the existence of the Gospel called "Logia", which means words, written in Aramaic. In addition, some Western scientists who started to research the Gospels beginning from the eighteenth century state that there was one single Gospel known as Q-source before the current four Gospels emerged and that the current Gospels were written based on that Gospel. You would find identical verses in the synoptic Gospels Mark, Mathew and Luke. However, Aramaic manuscripts were lost and the earliest manuscript found was a credit card size copy of Greek Gospels in second century AD.
My apologies for such long discourse because it was a heavy subject that Catholic Church doesn't want the Christians to know about. Please feel free to ask if you need any further clarification.
As for the preservation of Quran , a Qur'an manuscript held by the University of Birmingham has been placed among the oldest in the world, thanks to modern scientific methods. Radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment on which the text is written to the period between AD 568 and 645, during which the Quran was revealed.
The Western scholars have confirmed that the codex of Quranic manuscript in the university of Birmingham has 96.4% conformity with Quran that is currently available .
@@nakeebissadeen1606 You are ignorant of history. No books were "removed" at the Council of Nicea. You are just making things up. Go do some real research.
@lukavukcevic6429 All the books that were not conforming to the Nicene Creed, also called Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, a Christian statement of faith, were called "heresy " or heretical.
Even though the 27-book New Testament were first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa, the council of Nicaea (325) gave the approval for the five principal "fringe" books later to be omitted from the canon proper. They are: the Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Clement.
Please ask your church fathers what happened to the above books.
@@nakeebissadeen1606 non of that is books being removed. You are playing with words and using naked rethoric to gain points. There isnt a single document from the time of Nicea that shows they discussed the Canon.
From the beginning when hashimi says Islamic hadith is not reliable shows he wants to put doubts , he has been challenged by Daniel haqauti . He is not a scholar
sorry he isn't a traditionalist like you but the field is leaving you guys behind
@@AS-lm2yv OK so I presume you not aware this guy has been challenged by Daniel haqquti lol
@@shahanulhaque7086 I watched the entire 6 hour debate
@@shahanulhaque7086 the point is that people don't really like the fundamentalist view of Islam and also modern scholarship is showing that there are many issues with the standard narrative
Who is Daniel😂 Daniel has a participation award from Harvard. Dr Hashemi is a PHD in Islamic studies
It's hilarious you use a youtuber as an authority when he got humiliated by an ex Muslim in his last debate
Damn, the comments are godawful.
Jesus didn't EXIST in timeline of Roman JUDEA Qur'an Masih is a title not a name jesus son of Mary Hebrew Miriam Egyptian origin two words meri amun ( meaning beloved of god)The word Messiah is not from Hebrew its origin is ancient Egyption title MESSU ( Hebrew eshu/yeshu Arabic masih ) to anoint a king to be with crocodile 🐊 fat Jews NEVER baptised Egyptian used to baptise in Nile and circumcised kept there hair side locks long Jews NEVER addressed god as the father ancient Egyptian kings address god as father and kings was known as son of god as title yes they had many throne titles the MESIAH was known as the saviour redeemer salvation of it's people no historical archaeology evidence of suleman temple in Jerusalem it's in Egypt Hebrew shelaman= peace of Amun Jerusalem Hebrew ur shelem ( place of peace) its the temples name not a TOWN isiah 53 Immanuel In Hebrew is amunel meaning Amun is El (god)
Hashimi is not a scholar of ISLAM. So exactly how can his opinions be seen as objective to say the least. This obviously makes anyone highly suspect as to the aims and objective of this exercise.
He is a Muslim critical scholar of the Quran. Obviously, he would be more trustworthy than an apologist
@@thetopface
Not really...
@@Logia1978 of course he would. You’d be stupid to think otherwise. Even before entering a phd program, scholars have already had experience teaching courses. Honestly, I’d trust someone with an undergraduate degree more than an apologist.
I dont believe Dr Hashimi, a medical doctor should be talking about Islamic History as an expert, he has not presented the Islamic belief across different sects. With due respect to him. Pls have specialists next time.
no , I want him exactly , and nobody else
Interesting, I know Dr Javed is a very open minded scholar which I appreciate but his recent debates have been nothing but stinkers but shockingly he seemed to be able to control himself in this, was it only because he wasn't debating? Or rather just debating against himself, and that's why he was in a calm manner?
I too am a Muslim but a very progressive and more of a Qur'an-Centric Muslim, not a prey for the hadith dogmatist, more of a hadith relativist and I think this is going to be a great lecture in the future.
P.S. He's right about the different variants, one is for example the Warsh version which is only used 3% of Muslims mainly in North Africa, the rest 97% is the Hafs version which is used by the majority of the Muslims and meanings can change in the two of them, so no, not every vowel has been preserved as the way we think it is, it can differ, we've been sold a lie by our scholars unfortunately, I too was a victim of that in the past but it's ok, I've come to accept it, the Qur'an can be dynamic and flexible and still carry on the same message with a different wording.
Also the presenter just pronounce the Qur'an just as the Koran, it sounds forceful and bad.
😅🙏
Wow, you are a great liar.
Try more, you can be a great christian preacher becouse without lie no-one can be a good christian preacher.
@@mehedihimel354 What are you even on about?
The Quarn never teaches you how to pray but tells you to pray to God. This is among many things the Quarn says but further explanation is needed. Hadith is needed. Quarn is the most important scripture is Islam. Yes. Rejecting hadith however goes against the quran itself which tells you to follow the teachings of the prophet pbuh (the hadith).
Also you may have a misunderstanding of both the quran and hadiths.
Both were taught orally. The Quran was written down before the passing of the prophet pbuh.
The hadiths were not written until later to avoid confusion between the Quran and Hadith.
The Hadith where later written down by many scholar who all where able to link there hadiths back the the prophet pbuh. In many cases with reliable sources AND duplicates that also had reliable sources.
While the quran was written down during the prophet's life. It was later complied and standardized by Uthman. They used the same document that was written during the prophet's life. This standardized quran was aim for a specific issue and is the reason it has no diacritics markings.
What is the issue?
The Quran was actually sent in 7 Ahruf (dialects). The Sahaba all had different combinations of the Ahruf and when spreading islam this caused disagreement on whos quran is correct. When both where correct. Leaving out diacritic markings helped solve this issue.
Again the Quran is an Oral text. And the current recitations we have are linked back to the prophet.
The difference in meanings between recitation never cause contradiction. They actually add more meaning to the quran. It's just another deminsion to study the Quran in.
All Qira'at are preserved, for instance "Ma'aki" in Surat Al Fatiha means owner is right and you can "Meliki" which mean king
Both preserved and the prophet PBUH have accepted them as both Quran that we can choose which to use.
So yes it is preserved.
@@Re-Destro
In the 7th C, religion was practiced but wasn't yet a concept. Just like trading, an economic activity, had been practiced for ages even before the invention of theory of economics. People practiced trading for ages without having the knowledge of economics as a theory.
English adopted the word religion in 1200 AD. The Arabic DYN was never translated into English as religion before the 20th Century.
So, what was ISLAM before religion? If there was no religion of ISLAM in the 7th century, what was the main message that the prophet spreading? When was ISLAM become the brand of a religion, a modern concept?
Quran is a book for all humanity,so naturally, the stories about previous prophets and messenger were addressed to people of the book, i.e., the Christians and the jews.
The prophets stories in the Quran assume that the audience are already familiar with these accounts?? That they are somehow dysfunctional if you are not already familiar with them?? Don't think so, when I first read the Quran I had never read the Bible and was not already familiar with these stories but that was never an issue, the stories and their morals came thru easy and clear, never had a sense of frustration that I had to go lookup another source or text to understand them.
Yhh personally Javad Hashmi should not be doing this course with Bart Ehrman. He's literally a juvenile *with all due respect* compared to Bart Ehrman. I Wish Gabriel Said Reynolds did the course with Bart Ehrman because he has a wealth of experience and knowledge compared to Javad 🤷🏾♂️
DON'T BE FOOLED ! BART EHRMAN SPEAKS WHAT HE ASSUMES, HE DOESNT REPRESENT US. GET A CHRISTIAN TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF CHRISTIAN. NOT AN ATHEIST AND A MUSLIM, NOT FAIR.
🤣 yes get a biased clueless christian to speak. Dude bart studied NT for 50 years of his life and he is presenting scholarly consensus not his opinions. Learn how academics work. Sorry you know nothing about your own religion
Whenever Bart laughs he sounds weird, like he no case there. He needs to present in a more profound manner
Bart is a great expert in the area when it comes to not answeing question about islam and shuffle it to another topic.
Well he doesnt know much about Islam, he even said that.
When
3 of them don't know anything about islam
He actually has done interviews with a dawahgandist and addressed some points about the Bible and Quranic preservation.
It's not his area of expertise, so why should he wade in on Islam.
He’s not much better on Christianity, to be fair.
Hashmi should make it clear from the outset that he does NOT represent proper internal Islamic Scholarship. He is representing a modern SECULAR perspective on religion.
There is no internal Muslim scholarship. Muslim scholars are scholars in Hadith literature, which we know now is largely ahistorical. This would be like you saying “Bart Ehrman doesn’t represent internal Christian scholarship” if internal Christian scholarship based fact on works such as The Acts of Pilate or The Gospel of Mary. It’s all completely unreliable and thus you cannot convince someone who isn’t already bought into your religion of it. Secular scholarship is the only fair and unbiased source of learning about religious history as fact.
@@jeremias-serus Bart has done the work to ensure his scholarship is valid. Javad is barley out of kindergarten!
@@Salion404 Dr. Javad is far from the only secular scholar working on deconstructing Islam just like the scholars deconstructed Judaism and Christianity in the 18th C to 21st C. Can you name even one secular Islamic scholar that thinks that the majority of canonical Sunni Hadith literature is reliable/accurate?
@@jeremias-serus until you understand how the Hadith are compiled and authenticated it’s worthless in giving you names! There is a very stringent methodology to ensure the validity of Hadith before it’s confirmed as authentic. First study that!
@@Salion404 We already know how the Hadith collectors *claimed* they collected them. However, their own information betrays them. Just like we can deconstruct Christian tradition with the very words they wrote, the same is being done to Islamic tradition.
It's not very stringent. And the Hadith literature itself admits this. Allegedly 80-90% of Hadith created up to 100 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad were fabrications. The earliest Hadith collectors straight up told us that mass Hadith fabrication and attribution to Prophet Muhammad and his companions was going on for 100 years after his death.
Our secular scholars have already fully learned how the traditional process of supposed authentication works. It's bunk and doesn't work because even right now many Sunni canonical Hadith are logically contradictory.
50 years after the events in the life of Jesus do not mean that there were no more witnesses of these events because that is such a short period of time.
lol, no
50 years *before we see any writings* - That's like an article on Elvis's last words, written in ... 2027.
It should be noted that Javad Hashmi speaks for a small percentage of Muslims with their Atheist influenced belief that reform in Islam is necessary.
This view is in complete contrast to the whole of the Muslim world whether Sunni or Shia who believe that if Islam needed change then it would not be from God rendering it as flawed and as useless as any man-made ideology.
'Atheist-influenced' is inaccurate. More like 'rationalist-influenced'.
@@thecrimsondragon9744How is rationalist influenced supposed to be more accurate??😅😅😅
He's not speaking for Muslims at all. He's speaking from an objective perspective as a scholar of the quran.
@@integrationalpolytheism Objective perspective lol how is his perspective supposed to be objective????
@@integrationalpolytheism
First of all he is not a scholar of the Quran.
It takes decades of learning not only classical Arabic but the history, jurisprudence and hadith to warrant such a claim.
Nor is he speaking objectively.
Speaking objectively is to say what history proves which is that the entire Quran is traceable to Muhammad but when your goal is to introduce change then you will hand select sources that support your bias.
He is attempting to reform Islam as was done to Christianity and Judaism.
If you feel Islam is flawed or disagree with it then just say it.
Don't lie about its history or its interpretation and misrepresent what is written in plain Arabic.
Instead just make your own religion.
Just one request to Hashmi that you should be truthful and won't say something just to please the secular and skeptic Western audience,as you know, that you have to answer the God on the judgment day.
Respectfully, Bart D. Ehrman is rather like Sean Anthony - neither of whom could ever claim to be objective in any way, and both try to hide their 'precommitments' from an unwary and unlearned audience.
respectfully get lost
exactly
@@tawan20082008u guys are bad at hiding your biases. not even good at lying. u give it away with your anger
@@tawan20082008 Would you like a reading list Tawan? Would that help? Ehrman and Hashmi 'teamig up' amounts to little more than Islamic apologetics.
Finally a reasonable moslem ... huh
It doesn't even matter whether he's right or not so much, the most fundamental issue is whether free inquiry and scholarship can be tolerated and even encouraged by Muslims without immediately labeling others as traitors, threatened or at least being dismissed, mocked, insulted, pressured or cancelled. It's the most tribalistic, base, cult behavior. Personally I blame it on a deeply rooted, twisted honor culture, and a very good dose of subconscious cognitive dissonance due to an inferiority complex. Of course there's also the factor that the mental concept of God in Islam is so utterly ruthless that your all-consuming reaction would be one of absolute terror of ever being on the wrong side and letting others steer you or your loved ones or other people from that narrow path. Just a horrible situation all around.
@@nonomnismoriar9051if you aren't Muslim, then why do you care how Muslims approach their religion?
@@arefinkamal7654 First and foremost because the attitude can be and sadly often is dangerous towards non-Muslims (and towards Muslims with 'wrongthink' by the way). Secondly it pisses me off just like Christian apologetics piss me off even if they have no effect on me whatsoever, just from an intellectual point of view.
@@nonomnismoriar9051 you are spamming the same message under every comment directed at you.
@@arefinkamal7654 it is an important message.
The Quran can never be changed.
It was revealed to be memorized that is why it doesn't go into details about biblical stories
The Quran narates what is important.
The Quran was not meant to be written as a book because it can easily be changed and corrupted.
What makes the Quran preserved and impossible to be corrupted is the fact that hundreds of not thousands of the prophet's companions memorized it completely during his lifetime and millions have memorized it to this day and age.
The claim that versions of the Quran were burnt is ridiculous because the authors had memorized them .
If they were different versions as some claim those authors would have taught their children their versions and it would have survived to this day.
Those manuscript contained personnal notes and maybe mistakes that's why they had to be destroyed.
Dude!?? Are you seriously serious right now.....after all that the scholars have said?
@@LilDeezyDreez Of course I am.
Bring your evidence.
To what end?....You won't even accept evidence from scholars
@@LilDeezyDreez
That's your assumption.
I havenn't seen any evidence here. If they provided some please share with me .
I hope you know what evidence means.
@@LilDeezyDreez "all the scholars have said" who are these "all" the scholars??? But Muslims are for centuries reciting the same Quran, that does not count as evidence?
I didn't understand the purpose this course. Dr. Bart is expert in his field ie NT and i agree that NT is mostly paul self-appoinred apostle work. But Javed is not the expert in the Quranic studies so why he is being interviewed? Quran and prophet Muhammad are interlocked.
One problem I have with this characterisation that the audience had to be biblically literate is that it just dismisses the estensive textual evidence of the Quran that these stories are unknown to the prophet and his audience. Fine if you think the prophet pbuh was faking not knowing it, but the use of phrases “has the story of Moses reached you” is highly suggestive that these stories were not common oral stories narrated to the early audience of the Quran. I think the Quran references and alludes to stories of the prophets to then spur those who wish to pursue knowledge to ask and learn about those prophets. So when it only references Enoch, it is only to spur the audience to learn from people of the book on who these people are, but more importantly, focus on specifically the aspects of the story that the Quran is emphasising. So when the Quran says he was raised, WHY was he raised is what the Muslim focuses on. The other detail is not necessary to improving our lives as Muslims.
That's exactly what I think as well. The Qur'an says that the bible is an inaccurate source of information as it has been "corrupted" i.e changed. So it mentions these stories mentioned within the bible in more detail just to show which parts of the bible are accurate even though contemporary biblical scholars consider them just to be metaphorical like the story of Noah. The Qur'an mentions these stories and in cases "corrects" them indicating which parts are wrong when it's saying bible has been "corrupted"
@@aashirali2172where does the Quran say it?
@@thecoin5394 Nowhere, it's just a dawah meme (apart from one verse taken out of context). The Quran repeatedly implies that the Bible is well preserved.
@@helman41 the Quran is a non trinitarian text. It's a Christian text.that is why the Quran confirms that Jesus is the messiah.moreover, religion is a modern concept. In the 7th century people didn't understand religion as a concept.they practiced it just like they practiced economic activities such as trading for ages, but the economics theory came much later after the invention of the printing machine,
English adopted the word religion in 1200AD. What was Islam before religion? Can muslims answer this question?
@@thecoin5394what a fool, Trinty didn't exit during Jesus life.
You have to prove Quran is christian text when historical source is against you on all. Odda
Javed is a NATO Muslim.
@@moonAwake247 tell that to your intentionally decietful NATO BF who likes to distort facts.
He is ignorant
Ex-Muslim and Ex-Christian talking about Quran and Bible.
I think Hashmi still identifies as Muslim.
While Ehrman is undoubtedly qualified to speak on errors in the Bible since he knows the languages.
Hashmi however is not an expert on Quranic Arabic or its complete history to say that the Quran can not be completely traced back to Muhammad.