"Dr. Javad mentions that the majority opinion among modern historical-critical scholars is that traditional Islamic sources, such as the Sira and Hadith, are considered unreliable for reconstructing the historical Muhammad, leaving the Quran as the primary source. Could you clarify which specific scholars or works support this view and contribute to this consensus?"
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.
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
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 @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?
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.
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.
@@Sinleqeunnini lol. Non of the nonsense these guys are talking bout frighten anyone. I m just marveling at the level of mental gymnastics a pagan church follower can do to prove to himself Islam is just as bad as his false believes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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?
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.
@@MohamedShou haha typical. It’s you who cannot take criticism. Of course, if you have been told your Kuran is a perfect book and your prophet is a perfect man, than you cannot stand criticism. You are still living in the middle ages.
This discussion stunned me because Dr Ehrman rarely touch Islam matters in his previous dicussion. This is the second session that Dr Ehrman touches the Islam matter. There was once a while in his discussion with other Bible scholar question about Islam came up. Usually, Dr Ehrman didn't response to the question or just short answering it and in general
Coming from a family of both muslim and christian, i love this podcast where it does comparitive religion. Although i have done my research and have come to my own conclusions, but it will be refreshing to see what Mr. Ehrman will reveal.
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.
[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
how ironic renowned scholars of the bible and early christianity like Dr. Tabor, Dr. Eisenman and more agree that the historical jesus is presented more accurately in Islam then orthodox christianity
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.
@@miko67 Yeh saying that he could talk as an infant and that he could make clay birds come alive and that he didn't die on the cross but substituted by another -all in the koran -is more historically accurate. GET REAL
@@miko67 firstly, there is no Jesus in Islam. Isa is not Jesus. According to Ahmad Al-Jallad, the word "isa" has no connection with the Hebrew word "Yeshua" (Jesus), because the Arabic word for Yeshua is "Yasu". Based on Arabic inscriptions, Ahmad Al-Jallad suggested the origin of word "Isa" is "sy", the ancient Arab diety. Secondly, how can it accuratley presented in Islam, when Islam come almost 700 years after Christ? It histrorically nonsense. Because Islam have no eyewitnesses that ever saw Jesus to begin with.
@@miko67 so I think you are telling lies, because there is no way Dr. Tabor or Dr. Eisenman agree with a narrative that come 700 years after Jesus Christ as the more accurate narrative.
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.
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.
professor Ehrman was fabulous as usual, but the Iranian guest was really disappointing, superficial and slippery, no clear cuts, no deep engaging, and no broad explanation. BTW, average Muslim would give better and deeper responses
No it wouldn't, you just like Ehrman beacuse he debunks christianity, that's how pathetic and petty you are. If Erhman engaged with the historical problems of the quran or islam in general, you'd be attacking him too.
@@americaeaustraliaepius4338 I would love if Ehrman or others engaged in academic and non-biased discussion about historicity and text critics of Quran, I believe it would be marvelous. Actually you sound unhinged a little bit, you can express your ideas with a softer tone!
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.
@@Dawah-Quest 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!
@@Dawah-Quest 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.
When the question was asked about the violence in the Koran, a clear answer was not given, it was dodged. Very disappointing, it was like listening to a politician.
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!
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
@@thenun1846your last point just shows your dishonesty. We don’t speak to anyone but god, you equating sending blessings to him is like saying we speak to dead relatives when we make dua for them. Nice to know you exposed yourself as ignorant
@@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 Hashimi needs to inform the audience how the verses of the quran were revealed to prophet Muhammed,and how it was verified and who the scribes were to verify. So to Jesus received inspiration from God and was written by Desciple Thomas,as when I read it, it is very eloquent, intelligent, verses and I think that the source can only be God. The quran has many numerical, scientific information which now can prove.
Are you talking about the Gospel of Thomas? I personally think it is a Godsend, especially considering when it was discovered (read on). It's a shame it got left out of the New Testament as it contains pre-Pauline material from our earliest source, Q, which Matthew and Luke selectively drew from (insofar as it fit their narrative). Q which is primarily a sayings text,, like Thomas and unlike Mark, doesn't show any Pauline influence; it is therefore believed to have been written fairly early. You won't find anything about vicarious atonement or anything resembling Trinitarianism in it..nothing that indicates Jesus was divine. However, he was a Jewish mystic, a prophet who taught communion with the divine; for him and his immediate followers, God was one, ever-present and all-pervasive. This is the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas, which preserves some of the missing core material of Q (and maybe other sources) some of which only makes sense in a Semitic context. I think it also preserves Jesus' core teachings, some that we wouldn't otherwise have had access to.. Very often the gospels will give us an idea of the ethical principles Jesus was preaching, but there's very little on the actual tools needed to raise human consciousness in order to reveal full meaning of Jesus' parables. GThomas is literally a Godsend, and perhaps it's no coincidence that the gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945, the concluding year to the most brutal war in human history...at time when we needed, more than ever, that higher messianic consciousness that Jesus was calling for, that would usher in the Olam ha'Ba, the messianic age of universal brotherhood and peaceful coexistence.
Quran decrees that it is not history book, it is not biography book, it is not science book neither is a law book, but the whole thing is mentioned in Quran in order to improve the way people think and to ensure people to believe in God, the creator of all following every example showing by figures and community that is mentioned in Quran including what was shown by previous prophets.
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.
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.
@@sapapi33 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..
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
@@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.
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
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.
I am glad to know that Dr. Bart Ehrman has started to touch Islam. I think this is a good step for him in understanding Islam more comprehensively. The initial capital is that he has let go of the doctrines embedded in his mind as a Christian and can be open-minded now. Hopefully he can find the real truth by continuing to study Islamic knowledge and get guidance in the end.
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.
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.
Javad Hashmi, the name is deceptive. I was able to picked the fact that he is not a Muslim from his first few sentences. He is either not knowledgeable enough for something like this or he is not sincere with what he knows. Very few Christians can speak the truth about Islam without clearly showing their bias. May God guide them.
Bart Ehrman is knowledgeable especially that early Christianity is a mystery. But the guy that talks about Islam is ignorant. The stories in The Quran are not for Jewish and Christian audiences, those stories were told to strengthen the prophet and the believers. They were going through the same circumstances.
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.
No, God is not a human and so incapable of despising any of his creatures. His nature is Love itself, so he does not hold petty grudges or spite. If we go against God's will we do so at our own peril, but we always have the choice to return to righteousness, and God welcomes us back. Have you read the parable of the prodigal son? That's exactly what Jesus is talking about there, and I do know that Muslims regard Jesus as a true prophet and teacher of righteousness.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@@sapapi33 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?
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.
@@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. ruclips.net/video/qHCeYSvazY4/видео.htmlsi=PuYJ4yOEA3lW6s64
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
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
@@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
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
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
Ehrmann’s takes on “violence” in the NT are hilarious. This “brilliant scholar” imposes his biases on nearly everything he says and writes. Every Bible 101 student is taught to be sensitive to genre, context, and symbolism. But Ehrmann insists on a crudely literalist fundamentalist reading when it allows him to ridicule the straw man of his own making. What a joke.
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.
Hi. For my study purpose, could u direct me to any reference material which can throw light as to how the Quran was compiled. I know the prophet recited the verses in multiple fragments, multiple verses in multiple places, and the scribes recorded it on leaves, animal skins, tree barks and inscribed it on stones. I want to understand the methodology Zayd ibn thabit used to collect, verify and compile all these different fragments as i am given to understand, this was not an easy task and moving a mountain would have been easier, as he narrates in Sahih Bukhari 4986.
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.
@@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 👍.
First of all , Let’s not say “ prophet Muhammad “ since it’s not certain he was a “ prophet “at all . Who says he was a prophet , well the book says so ! Who says Jesus was “ son of God “ or God ? . Bible says so ! Both man made books with huge claims and no proof , in fact contrary to reality and more like a fantasy.!😮😮😮 People have suffered for thousands of yrs bcz of this myths . These fake man made religions have kept humanity in darkness for centuries. 😮
Christian scholars not only believe Muhammad was a genuine prophet of God but also teach it in the highest academic level.... Scholarship Vs Bigotry...
@@Logia1978 I disagree,! all so called “ prophets “ were fake . they may have had some mental abilities beyond normal people but representing God and talking on Gods behalf is a fake claim .
@@Logia1978 no they don’t. As Christians they have no need for any “prophet” after Jesus. As historians they may accept that he and his followers regarded him as one, that’s a different matter
@@joygibbons5482 what you believe and what is taught are two distinct things.... Uneducated people vs real scholarship... Let me teach you the official position of Catholic Church wich is Half of christians:
@joygibbons5482 Official teaching of catholics, which are half of Christians in the highest academic circles: Professor *Gavin d Costa* , Oxford university: VATICAN 2: Catholic doctrines on Jews and Muslims page 160: The following doctrines on the Muslims are taught at the Council. First, Lumen Ggentium contains a clear doctrinal statement on the nature of God worshipped by Muslims: that this *is the same God worshipped by Christians* . Second, the development is that Islam is now seen to operate within an Abrahamic typology, not in historical covenantal lineage to Abraham, but in a typology of faith: seeking submission to God. This renders Islam, as seen by implication in Dei Vverbum, as a pre-Mosaic-type religion, but *also as having supernatural elements* . Third, Nostra Aaetate reinforced both these developments: *Islam had elements of supernatural divine revelation* ; and Islam operates within an Abrahamic typology, thus sharing the faith typologically of this great Patriarch
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 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.
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.
@@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.
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
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.
@@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.
@@professorparadox795 not at all If you study Islam academically setting the origin of the Quran in west Arabia in the early 7th century is non sense The he Quran is the first text to point its origins in a diffeeent context
@@thenun1846 what's funny about it ? Are you intellectually slow and can't disprove or have a good argument against the religion that's why you forcibly make a laugh so you can sleeps at night ?? Have a life. Dodo
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.
@@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 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.
This guy is not a islamic scholars ...we have million of kids common muslim who memorize the koran you tell me this guy who have to memorize the koran is a scholar of the kora
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.
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.
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.
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 🤷🏾♂️
There were many Jews and Christians in Mecca at time of Muhammad , there is no doubt , Khadijah , Muhammad’s wife was one , There were some outcast sects of Christianity too , Many Arabs were converted to Christianity as well , not all Pagans .
Mecca is not a liveable place at the time of Muhammad because its a desert and no agriculture yet. The interaction between Jews and Arabs is in the Northern part of the middle east such as Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Infact Mecca is not found in 500AD maps because precisely there are no people there yet.
@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome it means the commenter is actually trying to "cope" by stubbornly sticking to their delusion of so-called traditional analyses (rather politically correct echo chamber takes) of the religious sources
when one looks at the traditional interpretations holistically, instead of cherry-picking from those who identify with one's political convictions, you see plenty of diversity in thought and plenty that supports Javad Hashmi's scholarship
@eeeqqq7582 considering the traditional Islamic narrative is found wanting I have no problem with javad trying to find a systematic way to interpret Islam coherently.
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.
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.
From the 37 different Arabic Qur'an's we read "in the past Allah turned some Jews in to monkeys and pigs"so from this we can understand who Mohammad was.
@@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?
Never ask a man his salary, a women her age and Javed hashmi to recite ayat Al kursi 😂
"Dr. Javad mentions that the majority opinion among modern historical-critical scholars is that traditional Islamic sources, such as the Sira and Hadith, are considered unreliable for reconstructing the historical Muhammad, leaving the Quran as the primary source. Could you clarify which specific scholars or works support this view and contribute to this consensus?"
With that claim, you could look it up, no? Tell us what you find.
@@Nobody-qh7hk the point is no scholar of Islam would or has claimed this 💀
Exactly..based on Rubbish...
Thank you for this- a good interaction.
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
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
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.
@@iqbalmaqsood8720 @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?
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.
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.
@@Sinleqeunnini lol. Non of the nonsense these guys are talking bout frighten anyone. I m just marveling at the level of mental gymnastics a pagan church follower can do to prove to himself Islam is just as bad as his false believes.
Very impressive discussion. Thank you all for bringing a conversation bridge between religions.
Glad to see Dr Ehrman here, thanks Gabriel
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.
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
Complete nonsense
I am looking forward to the course. Very interesting!
Javad is either ignorant or disingenuous to mention that Hadith criticism is a modern thing
He probably means from a systematic critical theory pov
He's referring to criticism by Western academia (secular approach).
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.
Great job on this interview.
What's javid's religion please?
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?
@@MohamedShou haha typical. It’s you who cannot take criticism. Of course, if you have been told your Kuran is a perfect book and your prophet is a perfect man, than you cannot stand criticism. You are still living in the middle ages.
This discussion stunned me because Dr Ehrman rarely touch Islam matters in his previous dicussion. This is the second session that Dr Ehrman touches the Islam matter. There was once a while in his discussion with other Bible scholar question about Islam came up. Usually, Dr Ehrman didn't response to the question or just short answering it and in general
👏🙂
Wow. Great video.
Coming from a family of both muslim and christian, i love this podcast where it does comparitive religion. Although i have done my research and have come to my own conclusions, but it will be refreshing to see what Mr. Ehrman will reveal.
What a treat!
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.
3 of my fav scholars all together. It's truly a treat.
I assume you are Muslim
He is literally super ignorant
@@professorparadox795 witch one?
@@-MO22 Javad
[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
Isa in the Quran is 100% legend and mythical.
how ironic renowned scholars of the bible and early christianity like Dr. Tabor, Dr. Eisenman and more agree that the historical jesus is presented more accurately in Islam then orthodox christianity
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.
@@miko67 Yeh saying that he could talk as an infant and that he could make clay birds come alive and that he didn't die on the cross but substituted by another -all in the koran -is more historically accurate. GET REAL
@@miko67 firstly, there is no Jesus in Islam. Isa is not Jesus. According to Ahmad Al-Jallad, the word "isa" has no connection with the Hebrew word "Yeshua" (Jesus), because the Arabic word for Yeshua is "Yasu". Based on Arabic inscriptions, Ahmad Al-Jallad suggested the origin of word "Isa" is "sy", the ancient Arab diety. Secondly, how can it accuratley presented in Islam, when Islam come almost 700 years after Christ? It histrorically nonsense. Because Islam have no eyewitnesses that ever saw Jesus to begin with.
@@miko67 so I think you are telling lies, because there is no way Dr. Tabor or Dr. Eisenman agree with a narrative that come 700 years after Jesus Christ as the more accurate narrative.
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.
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.
professor Ehrman was fabulous as usual, but the Iranian guest was really disappointing, superficial and slippery, no clear cuts, no deep engaging, and no broad explanation. BTW, average Muslim would give better and deeper responses
No it wouldn't, you just like Ehrman beacuse he debunks christianity, that's how pathetic and petty you are. If Erhman engaged with the historical problems of the quran or islam in general, you'd be attacking him too.
@@americaeaustraliaepius4338 I would love if Ehrman or others engaged in academic and non-biased discussion about historicity and text critics of Quran, I believe it would be marvelous.
Actually you sound unhinged a little bit, you can express your ideas with a softer tone!
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!
@@Dawah-Quest 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!
@@Dawah-Quest 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.
Why is this session so short?
Because its just a teaser for the actual course.
Dr Bart is very interesting with his info. Respect
When the question was asked about the violence in the Koran, a clear answer was not given, it was dodged. Very disappointing, it was like listening to a politician.
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?
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
@@thenun1846your last point just shows your dishonesty. We don’t speak to anyone but god, you equating sending blessings to him is like saying we speak to dead relatives when we make dua for them. Nice to know you exposed yourself as ignorant
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 Hashimi needs to inform the audience how the verses of the quran were revealed to prophet Muhammed,and how it was verified and who the scribes were to verify.
So to Jesus received inspiration from God and was written by Desciple Thomas,as when I read it, it is very eloquent, intelligent, verses and I think that the source can only be God.
The quran has many numerical, scientific information which now can prove.
Are you talking about the Gospel of Thomas? I personally think it is a Godsend, especially considering when it was discovered (read on).
It's a shame it got left out of the New Testament as it contains pre-Pauline material from our earliest source, Q, which Matthew and Luke selectively drew from (insofar as it fit their narrative). Q which is primarily a sayings text,, like Thomas and unlike Mark, doesn't show any Pauline influence; it is therefore believed to have been written fairly early. You won't find anything about vicarious atonement or anything resembling Trinitarianism in it..nothing that indicates Jesus was divine. However, he was a Jewish mystic, a prophet who taught communion with the divine; for him and his immediate followers, God was one, ever-present and all-pervasive.
This is the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas, which preserves some of the missing core material of Q (and maybe other sources) some of which only makes sense in a Semitic context. I think it also preserves Jesus' core teachings, some that we wouldn't otherwise have had access to.. Very often the gospels will give us an idea of the ethical principles Jesus was preaching, but there's very little on the actual tools needed to raise human consciousness in order to reveal full meaning of Jesus' parables. GThomas is literally a Godsend, and perhaps it's no coincidence that the gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945, the concluding year to the most brutal war in human history...at time when we needed, more than ever, that higher messianic consciousness that Jesus was calling for, that would usher in the Olam ha'Ba, the messianic age of universal brotherhood and peaceful coexistence.
Quran decrees that it is not history book, it is not biography book, it is not science book neither is a law book, but the whole thing is mentioned in Quran in order to improve the way people think and to ensure people to believe in God, the creator of all following every example showing by figures and community that is mentioned in Quran including what was shown by previous prophets.
Muhammad Salla Allahou Alaihi Wa Salama.
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.
@@Pakilla64source 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.
@@sapapi33 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..
"A lot in the Qur'an to know about the historical Mohammad " !!??
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.
Where is Harvard thing?
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.
it’s not God who’s violent it’s Human , God showed the good and bad path it’s up to u what u gonna chose
I am glad to know that Dr. Bart Ehrman has started to touch Islam. I think this is a good step for him in understanding Islam more comprehensively. The initial capital is that he has let go of the doctrines embedded in his mind as a Christian and can be open-minded now. Hopefully he can find the real truth by continuing to study Islamic knowledge and get guidance in the end.
You’re delusional lmao
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.
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....
Completely wrong.
@@senkat8747
@@SI00000 they were not burning hadiths stop lying
Hod says fight with them if they fight with u but if they r peaceful just leave them and take care of them
Javad Hashmi, the name is deceptive.
I was able to picked the fact that he is not a Muslim from his first few sentences.
He is either not knowledgeable enough for something like this or he is not sincere with what he knows.
Very few Christians can speak the truth about Islam without clearly showing their bias.
May God guide them.
Bart Ehrman is knowledgeable especially that early Christianity is a mystery. But the guy that talks about Islam is ignorant. The stories in The Quran are not for Jewish and Christian audiences, those stories were told to strengthen the prophet and the believers. They were going through the same circumstances.
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?
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.
@@Dawah-Quest What ideas does Dr. Javad have that are not original to the Qur'an/Sunnah?
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?
No, God is not a human and so incapable of despising any of his creatures. His nature is Love itself, so he does not hold petty grudges or spite. If we go against God's will we do so at our own peril, but we always have the choice to return to righteousness, and God welcomes us back. Have you read the parable of the prodigal son? That's exactly what Jesus is talking about there, and I do know that Muslims regard Jesus as a true prophet and teacher of righteousness.
Thank you
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
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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?
You should invite Dr. Ali Ataei to speak on this topic from the Quran.
Strange that its always one sided discussion on this channel.
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.
@@sapapi33 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?
Love Dr. Hashmi!
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.
ruclips.net/video/qHCeYSvazY4/видео.htmlsi=PuYJ4yOEA3lW6s64
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
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
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
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
Ehrmann’s takes on “violence” in the NT are hilarious. This “brilliant scholar” imposes his biases on nearly everything he says and writes. Every Bible 101 student is taught to be sensitive to genre, context, and symbolism. But Ehrmann insists on a crudely literalist fundamentalist reading when it allows him to ridicule the straw man of his own making. What a joke.
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.
Lmao with the anti semitic conspiracy theory straight away. You people really don't surprise me.
Hi. For my study purpose, could u direct me to any reference material which can throw light as to how the Quran was compiled. I know the prophet recited the verses in multiple fragments, multiple verses in multiple places, and the scribes recorded it on leaves, animal skins, tree barks and inscribed it on stones. I want to understand the methodology Zayd ibn thabit used to collect, verify and compile all these different fragments as i am given to understand, this was not an easy task and moving a mountain would have been easier, as he narrates in Sahih Bukhari 4986.
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.
@@Abyssal-r8dbecause 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 👍.
First of all ,
Let’s not say “ prophet Muhammad “
since it’s not certain he was a “ prophet “at all .
Who says he was a prophet , well the book says so !
Who says Jesus was “ son of God “ or God ? . Bible says so !
Both man made books with huge claims and no proof , in fact contrary to reality and more like a fantasy.!😮😮😮
People have suffered for thousands of yrs bcz of this myths .
These fake man made religions have kept humanity in darkness for centuries.
😮
Christian scholars not only believe Muhammad was a genuine prophet of God but also teach it in the highest academic level....
Scholarship Vs Bigotry...
@@Logia1978
I disagree,!
all so called “ prophets “ were fake .
they may have had some mental abilities beyond normal people but representing God and talking on Gods behalf is a fake claim .
@@Logia1978 no they don’t. As Christians they have no need for any “prophet” after Jesus. As historians they may accept that he and his followers regarded him as one, that’s a different matter
@@joygibbons5482
what you believe and what is taught are two distinct things....
Uneducated people vs real scholarship...
Let me teach you the official position of Catholic Church wich is Half of christians:
@joygibbons5482
Official teaching of catholics, which are half of Christians in the highest academic circles:
Professor *Gavin d Costa* , Oxford university:
VATICAN 2: Catholic doctrines on Jews and Muslims page 160:
The following doctrines on the Muslims are taught at the Council. First, Lumen Ggentium contains a clear doctrinal statement on the nature of God worshipped by Muslims: that this *is the same God worshipped by Christians* . Second, the development is that Islam is now seen to operate within an Abrahamic typology, not in historical covenantal lineage to Abraham, but in a typology of faith: seeking submission to God. This renders Islam, as seen by implication in Dei Vverbum, as a pre-Mosaic-type religion, but *also as having supernatural elements* . Third, Nostra Aaetate reinforced both these developments: *Islam had elements of supernatural divine revelation* ; and Islam operates within an Abrahamic typology, thus sharing the faith typologically of this great Patriarch
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 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.
Dr. Hashmi is the best!
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.
Did Islam bring anything new to monotheism?
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
Kinda yes. I think it is as a mutation of gnosticism that is completely divorced from the Christian canon of scriptures.
Islam is the only pure monotheistic religion!!! Fact!!!
Gospel of Luke chapter 1, verse 2, just as those from the beginning were eyewitness and ministers of the word delivered them to us,
Who is luke?
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.
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?
great, the idea that the quran/muhammad is outside the traditional area is pretty much reasonable
It's not lol, anyone with knowledge on Islam can debunk his argument and idea and how it's super unreasonable
@@professorparadox795 not at all
If you study Islam academically setting the origin of the Quran in west Arabia in the early 7th century is non sense
The he Quran is the first text to point its origins in a diffeeent context
@@torotorotaxi5367 sure
@@torotorotaxi5367 evidence
Imagine discussing Islam without any islamists experts 😂😂😂
They are literally professors in Islamic studies, other than Ehrman
The cope is real
@@thenun1846 😂😂🤣
@@thebrainwashedbeliever1inislam I know Islam is a funny religion and I laugh at it too 😂
@@thenun1846 🤣🤣
@@thenun1846 what's funny about it ?
Are you intellectually slow and can't disprove or have a good argument against the religion that's why you forcibly make a laugh so you can sleeps at night ??
Have a life. Dodo
Qur'an is not a historical book.
Whenever Bart laughs he sounds weird, like he no case there. He needs to present in a more profound manner
Best wishes to all
Javad is not credible
Please explain why? Otherwise, it's just a throw away comment.
lol
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?
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.
Ehrman never was a christian but peoples thought or believe he was
This guy is not a islamic scholars ...we have million of kids common muslim who memorize the koran you tell me this guy who have to memorize the koran is a scholar of the kora
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.
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.
The Quran is preserved like a cucumber is pickled.
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
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 🤷🏾♂️
There were many Jews and Christians in Mecca at time of Muhammad , there is no doubt ,
Khadijah , Muhammad’s wife was one ,
There were some outcast sects of Christianity too ,
Many Arabs were converted to Christianity as well , not all Pagans .
No. There were only four Christians in Mecca, three were uneducated slaves. One a very old man. Khadija was not Christian. Don't make things up
Mecca is not a liveable place at the time of Muhammad because its a desert and no agriculture yet. The interaction between Jews and Arabs is in the Northern part of the middle east such as Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Infact Mecca is not found in 500AD maps because precisely there are no people there yet.
Javed Hashmi is such a cope
Whats that mean?
@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome clinches to believe and modernity, by (justifiably?) cherry picking what to discredit in Islamic literature.
@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome it means the commenter is actually trying to "cope" by stubbornly sticking to their delusion of so-called traditional analyses (rather politically correct echo chamber takes) of the religious sources
when one looks at the traditional interpretations holistically, instead of cherry-picking from those who identify with one's political convictions, you see plenty of diversity in thought and plenty that supports Javad Hashmi's scholarship
@eeeqqq7582 considering the traditional Islamic narrative is found wanting I have no problem with javad trying to find a systematic way to interpret Islam coherently.
Damn, the comments are godawful.
Hashim has inferiority complex.He did not say cleary quran and bible are compatible as historical things
the quran is cut and paste from the old testament
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.
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.
50 years *before we see any writings* - That's like an article on Elvis's last words, written in ... 2027.
From the 37 different Arabic Qur'an's we read "in the past Allah turned some Jews in to monkeys and pigs"so from this we can understand who Mohammad was.
There are no "37 Qurans" as you falsely claim.
So what are the qiraats and ahrufs?@@TheMuslimApologist
@@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?
@@thecoin5394
It’s literally on the dome of the rock.
Was Christianity a religion before the 7th century?
@@rommy007Dialects
Looking forward to the course and learning from esteemed scholars.
3 non moslims wow
I believe Javad is a Muslim.
Takfiri dog wow