Oldest(?) Quran fragments found in Birmingham.

[Valmy]

in any case: Always interesting how fragments of ancient tekst turn up in weirdest of places.

Yeah. Though usually it is in some antique dealers stall in Alexandria.

[The Brain]

Ancient texting wasn't much better than today's.

[crazy canuck]

IDK how wrong that theory is, TBH, and it's probably more right that "Islam emerged Athena-like as a fully formed new Abrahamic tradition".  I think the Monks would have rightly recognized a lot of similarities with Judaism, especially as the lines between Christianity and Judaism were still a bit iffy at this point.

There clearly is a connection to Judaism.  That is clear enough from Sura 2.  I don't think that the Hagarism theory adds much light to this connection.  And it's not like Christians of this period had a coherent understanding of Jewish belief and theology (as they arguably had centuries earlier).

We are not talking about the Christians in the Latin West.  Iirc these were the educated Christians who could still read the Gospels in the original Greek and who had a good historical perspective.

[Queequeg]

IDK how wrong that theory is, TBH, and it's probably more right that "Islam emerged Athena-like as a fully formed new Abrahamic tradition".  I think the Monks would have rightly recognized a lot of similarities with Judaism, especially as the lines between Christianity and Judaism were still a bit iffy at this point.

There clearly is a connection to Judaism.  That is clear enough from Sura 2.  I don't think that the Hagarism theory adds much light to this connection.  And it's not like Christians of this period had a coherent understanding of Jewish belief and theology (as they arguably had centuries earlier).

7th Century Byzantine Scholars would have been ignorant of Judaism? 

[crazy canuck]

IDK how wrong that theory is, TBH, and it's probably more right that "Islam emerged Athena-like as a fully formed new Abrahamic tradition".  I think the Monks would have rightly recognized a lot of similarities with Judaism, especially as the lines between Christianity and Judaism were still a bit iffy at this point.

There clearly is a connection to Judaism.  That is clear enough from Sura 2.  I don't think that the Hagarism theory adds much light to this connection.  And it's not like Christians of this period had a coherent understanding of Jewish belief and theology (as they arguably had centuries earlier).

The Christians could have claimed anything, why did they pick that one out? And some of those guys had been living under Arab occupation for awhile. It has the nice side benefit of providing an ideological motivation for the invasion of the Levant. It also accounts for some weirdness is Arab inscriptions and coinage which suggests it took awhile for Islam to really take form. Or it could be wrong, and this suggests it was.

But then I am not sure what 'shedding light' on it means in this context. The tradition is pretty clear the Mohammed and company had lots of Jewish allies at first no?

Monks don't really get out a lot, so their experiences with actual Muslim religous practice is probably minimal.  You should read what Westerns thought of it.  In the song of Roland, Muslims are Polytheist idolators. 

Obviously not all of Islam came out fully formed.  Commentaries on the Koran were compiled over hundreds of years.  Islamic jurisprudence was constantly evolving. I'm not sure any serious academics think Muhammad was not a real person anymore.  Unlike Jesus, Samuel, or Pythagoras he made a big impact on the world in his own day as a conqueror.  I see no reason to believe that Muhammad didn't conquer Arabia, and if he did lots of people would be interested in writing down his sermons both quickly and accurately.

You will have to explain to Tom Holland that he is not a serious academic.  This isn't a particular safe view to hold these days so I am not surprised a lot of Academics are not eager to go public with their views given that people are being killed over cartoons.  You may have no reason to disbelieve, but the reasons some academic do doubt the story is true is well explained in Holland's book.

http://www.amazon.ca/In-The-Shadow-Of-Sword/dp/0349122350

[Queequeg]

I think one of the most interesting topics, and one that we're just now starting to dig in to, is that Islam and contemporary Christianity seem in conversation in a way that we would not have assumed previously.  The emergence of Iconclasm in the Empire is just the most famous feature of a revival of Old Testament belief typical of the Empire from the time of the later Byzantine-Sassanid Conflicts.  Christianity was growing more Old Testament and martial, and then Islam came in and the two competed to out-Old Testament-martial each other. 

[garbon]

You will have to explain to Tom Holland that he is not a serious academic.  This isn't a particular safe view to hold these days so I am not surprised a lot of Academics are not eager to go public with their views given that people are being killed over cartoons.  You may have no reason to disbelieve, but the reasons some academic do doubt the story is true is well explained in Holland's book.

http://www.amazon.ca/In-The-Shadow-Of-Sword/dp/0349122350

Isn't the term academic generally used for someone who has some sort of affiliation with a university? I suppose there is something to be said regarding some sort of self-made man though that probably doesn't have the same weight and/or distinction of being an academic who has...say teaching functions or other scholarly duties? Or more fiction works to their name than historical ones.

Historian, I guess sure - though the book you noted does seem to get a lot of criticism from other historians.

[crazy canuck]

I think one of the most interesting topics, and one that we're just now starting to dig in to, is that Islam and contemporary Christianity seem in conversation in a way that we would not have assumed previously.  The emergence of Iconclasm in the Empire is just the most famous feature of a revival of Old Testament belief typical of the Empire from the time of the later Byzantine-Sassanid Conflicts.  Christianity was growing more Old Testament and martial, and then Islam came in and the two competed to out-Old Testament-martial each other.

That is a good point.  Also, I don't think the conversation between Islamic and Jewish scholars should be downplayed either.  As odd as that sounds in today's context.  Iirc Holland makes a point that two major centres for both during that period of time were less than 30 miles apart.

[crazy canuck]

You will have to explain to Tom Holland that he is not a serious academic.  This isn't a particular safe view to hold these days so I am not surprised a lot of Academics are not eager to go public with their views given that people are being killed over cartoons.  You may have no reason to disbelieve, but the reasons some academic do doubt the story is true is well explained in Holland's book.

http://www.amazon.ca/In-The-Shadow-Of-Sword/dp/0349122350

Isn't the term academic generally used for someone who has some sort of affiliation with a university? I suppose there is something to be said regarding some sort of self-made man though that probably doesn't have the same weight and/or distinction of being an academic who has...say teaching functions or other scholarly duties? Or more fiction works to their name than historical ones.

Historian, I guess sure - though the book you noted does seem to get a lot of criticism from other historians.

I am not so sure one should be critical of an academic who went on to private commercial success writing about history.  And I am not sure why it is surprising that people might take issue with his view.

[garbon]

You will have to explain to Tom Holland that he is not a serious academic.  This isn't a particular safe view to hold these days so I am not surprised a lot of Academics are not eager to go public with their views given that people are being killed over cartoons.  You may have no reason to disbelieve, but the reasons some academic do doubt the story is true is well explained in Holland's book.

http://www.amazon.ca/In-The-Shadow-Of-Sword/dp/0349122350

Isn't the term academic generally used for someone who has some sort of affiliation with a university? I suppose there is something to be said regarding some sort of self-made man though that probably doesn't have the same weight and/or distinction of being an academic who has...say teaching functions or other scholarly duties? Or more fiction works to their name than historical ones.

Historian, I guess sure - though the book you noted does seem to get a lot of criticism from other historians.

I am not so sure one should be critical of an academic who went on to private commercial success writing about history.  And I am not sure why it is surprising that people might take issue with his view.

Well again, I'm not sure why we would call him an academic. I'm also not sure why someone would bring him up as a  refutation that serious scholars have backed away from such approaches for reasons beyond simple fear of Muslim retribution.

Maybe serious scholars haven't but your evidence is...flimsy.

[jimmy olsen]

Unlike Jesus, Samuel, or Pythagoras

There are people doubt that Pythagoras lived? 

[crazy canuck]

You will have to explain to Tom Holland that he is not a serious academic.  This isn't a particular safe view to hold these days so I am not surprised a lot of Academics are not eager to go public with their views given that people are being killed over cartoons.  You may have no reason to disbelieve, but the reasons some academic do doubt the story is true is well explained in Holland's book.

http://www.amazon.ca/In-The-Shadow-Of-Sword/dp/0349122350

Isn't the term academic generally used for someone who has some sort of affiliation with a university? I suppose there is something to be said regarding some sort of self-made man though that probably doesn't have the same weight and/or distinction of being an academic who has...say teaching functions or other scholarly duties? Or more fiction works to their name than historical ones.

Historian, I guess sure - though the book you noted does seem to get a lot of criticism from other historians.

I am not so sure one should be critical of an academic who went on to private commercial success writing about history.  And I am not sure why it is surprising that people might take issue with his view.

Well again, I'm not sure why we would call him an academic. I'm also not sure why someone would bring him up as a  refutation that serious scholars have backed away from such approaches for reasons beyond simple fear of Muslim retribution.

Maybe serious scholars haven't but your evidence is...flimsy.

Or, I am busy and he is the first one that came to mind. 

[The Brain]

Unlike Jesus, Samuel, or Pythagoras

There are people doubt that Pythagoras lived? 

Everybody dies. Not everyone lives.

[Razgovory]

You will have to explain to Tom Holland that he is not a serious academic.  This isn't a particular safe view to hold these days so I am not surprised a lot of Academics are not eager to go public with their views given that people are being killed over cartoons.  You may have no reason to disbelieve, but the reasons some academic do doubt the story is true is well explained in Holland's book.

http://www.amazon.ca/In-The-Shadow-Of-Sword/dp/0349122350

If you introduce me to him, I'll be sure to explain it to him.  Just as explained to you that Tom Harpur was hack when you demanded I read his books about similar nonsense.  You seem very susceptible to this sort of historical baloney.  Is there are reason why?

Often being political incorrect means you have to be factually incorrect as well.

I am not so sure one should be critical of an academic who went on to private commercial success writing about history.  And I am not sure why it is surprising that people might take issue with his view.

The guy who wrote the 1421 had lots of commercial success and not surprising lots of people had taken issue with his views.  People often take issue with nonsense presented as history.  I do for instance.

[Razgovory]

Okay, I'm unclear, are you still defending the Hagarist position or not?

I am not sure what you mean by 'defending' considering I have been saying this manuscript suggests it is not the case. Also I thought the Hagarist case suggested that Mohammed was possibly different than the tradition stated not that he didn't exist at all.

Also you say it was obvious that Islam did not come out fully formed...well if the Quran was complete at this early of a time it kind of suggests it was at least if we are discussing 'come out' as being the pre-Umayyad period.

I was sketchy on what exactly you were arguing.  When I say it did not come out fully formed I'm talking about the state it is today.  Naturally Averroes works are not going to be found in a stone tablet dating to same period the Quran was written.