The Quran: based on Syriac Christian liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fnr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are being silly, Martin Jordan. Catholics of all people should recognize the legitimacy of extra-canonical traditions relative to the main canonical text of a religion (even if you reject the religion and the text itself, as I would hope every Catholic would with regard to the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira), since you very rightly reject “Sola Scriptura”. There are some Qur’an-only Muslims, but they are tiny fringe elements, unlike in Christianity (unfortunately).
 
dzheremi said:
You are being silly, Martin Jordan. Catholics of all people should recognize the legitimacy of extra-canonical traditions relative to the main canonical text of a religion (even if you reject the religion and the text itself, as I would hope every Catholic would with regard to the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira), since you very rightly reject “Sola Scriptura”. There are some Qur’an-only Muslims, but they are tiny fringe elements, unlike in Christianity (unfortunately).
Click to expand...
Ok. I thought this thread OP was about the Quran alone.

MJ
 
MartinJordan said:
I just read a very interesting article found on Pdf format which and I summarize here the Quran seems to be incorporating quite a bit of Syrian words as well as Hebrew and Ethiopian too. Say 70%, 5% and 10% respectively.

BTW In Syriac the word Kuran means “scriptural writing”.

Link: google.com.sg/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.muhammadanism.org%2FQuran%2Fsyriac_influence_quran.pdf&ei=-HFDUIfqI8_PrQfZzoGYCQ&usg=AFQjCNF1g49BqKqqVvmvyHD7x5aG07DMJQ
Click to expand...
Correction: Kuran “scriptural reading”

MJ
 
They share a common Semitic root, Q-R, denoting reading. Qur’an means “(the) recitation”, in fact. Related forms in Arabic are iqra ‘read’, qira’at ‘readings’, etc.
 
dzheremi said:
They share a common Semitic root, Q-R, denoting reading. Qur’an means “(the) recitation”, in fact. Related forms in Arabic are iqra ‘read’, qira’at ‘readings’, etc.
Click to expand...
In the Pdf article also shows that Arabic in the Quran shows form/shape of lettering is similar to the Syriac. Thus pronounciation is similar. As opposed to the Hebraic: Isaac, Ishmael, Israel and even Jacob.

MJ
 
MartinJordan said:
Ok, so the Quran isn’t Authoritative then? I just want to know.🤷

MJ
Click to expand...
You aren’t making any sense. You seem to be imposing a view of authority peculiar to one particular variant of one particular religion (fundamentalist Protestant Christianity) on a non-Christian religion. Why are you doing this?

Catholics think the Bible is authoritative, but Catholics also consult other authorities. Even Protestants for the most part rely on other authorities, while treating them as lesser than the Bible.

How about, once again, you let Muslims tell you what authority means in their tradition and which sources have just what kinds of authority?

Edwin
 
MartinJordan said:
Ok. I thought this thread OP was about the Quran alone.

MJ
Click to expand...
Well, you had no reason to think this.

Normally, when one speaks of one aspect of a religion, one considers it in the context of the religion as a whole.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Well, you had no reason to think this.

Normally, when one speaks of one aspect of a religion, one considers it in the context of the religion as a whole.

Edwin
Click to expand...
That’s why in some other posts I brought in “valid” Hadith in trying to illustrate the back-projection of 7th century Muslims of their current world into the 1st century. It produces a Catch 22 for Islam. If the Hadith is valid, Muhammad wrongly claimed that his contemporary Christian sectarianism was part of the 1st century. If it’s not valid, then it calls into question the edifice of Quranic interpretation via the Hadith, which is foundational to most modern Islamic understanding of the faith.
 
Contarini said:
You aren’t making any sense. You seem to be imposing a view of authority peculiar to one particular variant of one particular religion (fundamentalist Protestant Christianity) on a non-Christian religion. Why are you doing this?

Catholics think the Bible is authoritative, but Catholics also consult other authorities. Even Protestants for the most part rely on other authorities, while treating them as lesser than the Bible.

How about, once again, you let Muslims tell you what authority means in their tradition and which sources have just what kinds of authority?

Edwin
Click to expand...
It will be great to move on my friend.

MJ
 
fnr said:
That’s why in some other posts I brought in “valid” Hadith in trying to illustrate the back-projection of 7th century Muslims of their current world into the 1st century. It produces a Catch 22 for Islam. If the Hadith is valid, Muhammad wrongly claimed that his contemporary Christian sectarianism was part of the 1st century. If it’s not valid, then it calls into question the edifice of Quranic interpretation via the Hadith, which is foundational to most modern Islamic understanding of the faith.
Click to expand...
That is quite a dilemma. I suppose the Hadiths will likely not hint that Syriac language had anything do with the Quran.

MJ
 
dzheremi said:
You are being silly, Martin Jordan. Catholics of all people should recognize the legitimacy of extra-canonical traditions relative to the main canonical text of a religion (even if you reject the religion and the text itself, as I would hope every Catholic would with regard to the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira), since you very rightly reject “Sola Scriptura”. There are some Qur’an-only Muslims, but they are tiny fringe elements, unlike in Christianity (unfortunately).
Click to expand...
Indeed there ARE Qur’an-only Muslims, but they’re generally caught out by a massive number of issues for which most orthodox Muslims will consult the hadith. These include questions such as the following:
  • All Muslims pray the salah according to a specific format, which is NOT given in the Qur’an. How do you as Qur’an-only Muslims know the correct format in which to pray?
  • Why, given the hadith come from the same sources of transmission as the Qur’an, is the Qur’an held to be valid whilst the hadith are not?
  • How do you know how much to give in zakat to charity given the Qur’an gives no specific rules on how to do this?
  • There are allowances made to allow for a shortened prayer in times of danger. How do you know, without the hadith, when this is permissible?
Someone earlier in the thread asked about specific Qur’anic verses which prove the necessity of the hadith. Here are a few:

“Our Lord! send amongst them a Messenger of their own who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom, and purify them; for Thou art the Exalted in Might the Wise.” (Surah 2:129)

If ye fear (an enemy), pray on foot or riding (as may be most convenient), but when ye are in security, celebrate Allah’s praises in the manner he has taught you which ye knew not (before). (2:239)

This one seems odd to quote as proof of hadith, but there is nothing in the Qur’an which gives the exact formula used in salat. Only another source, the hadith, could give you this information!

Say: “If ye do love Allah, follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (31) Say: “Obey Allah and His Messenger”; but if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith. (3:32)

This one makes it clear that the Messenger of God is to be obeyed in all matters alongside Allah.

“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures);― in the Law and the Gospel;― for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil: he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him honour, him, help him, and follow the Light which is sent down with him― it is they who will prosper.” (7:157)

The hadith are intended to act as a guide to what is permissible, what is discouraged and what is forbidden. The Qur’an lists many types/acts of sin, but this is not a definitive list and often the Qur’an is silent on matters or at least vague. The hadith give an example int the Messenger (saw) as to what we should aim for in conduct and morality, and in correct worship

These are just a few I can remember.
 
I think it is probably best to compare (weakly; in an analogous fashion only, not in terms of content/truth claims) the Hadith to the writings of the Early Church Fathers, as they bear a similar relation to the main canonical text. Those questions that you have asked of Qur’an-only Muslims (good post, by the way!) are all familiar to any Catholic or Orthodox person who might discuss religion with a Protestant of the “Sola Scriptura” variety:
  • How do you know how to conduct a worship service? The Bible is not explicit about this.
  • How do you substantiate belief in Trinitarian theology? The Bible is not explicit about this. There are non-Trinitarian Protestants, such as “Oneness Pentecostals”, but they are dwarfed by mainstream Trinitarian Christians.
  • If you’re going to trust a person like St. Athanasius the Apostolic (the first bishop to compose the list of the 27 books of the New Testament) to compose the list of canonical books that you accept, why do you not trust the extra-biblical writings (festal letters, apologetic writings, etc.) of the Fathers of his generation and earlier? Are the Fathers only good for providing your Table of Contents, but cannot possibly have anything to say regarding how to UNDERSTAND those contents and the rest of the faith, even if they are just a generation or two removed from Christ and/or the Apostles? (St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Iranaeus, etc.)
I think we can agree that “BOOK ONLY” faith doesn’t work in any religion! 🙂
 
dzheremi said:
I think it is probably best to compare (weakly; in an analogous fashion only, not in terms of content/truth claims) the Hadith to the writings of the Early Church Fathers, as they bear a similar relation to the main canonical text. Those questions that you have asked of Qur’an-only Muslims (good post, by the way!) are all familiar to any Catholic or Orthodox person who might discuss religion with a Protestant of the “Sola Scriptura” variety:
  • How do you know how to conduct a worship service? The Bible is not explicit about this.
  • How do you substantiate belief in Trinitarian theology? The Bible is not explicit about this. There are non-Trinitarian Protestants, such as “Oneness Pentecostals”, but they are dwarfed by mainstream Trinitarian Christians.
  • If you’re going to trust a person like St. Athanasius the Apostolic (the first bishop to compose the list of the 27 books of the New Testament) to compose the list of canonical books that you accept, why do you not trust the extra-biblical writings (festal letters, apologetic writings, etc.) of the Fathers of his generation and earlier? Are the Fathers only good for providing your Table of Contents, but cannot possibly have anything to say regarding how to UNDERSTAND those contents and the rest of the faith, even if they are just a generation or two removed from Christ and/or the Apostles? (St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Iranaeus, etc.)
I think we can agree that “BOOK ONLY” faith doesn’t work in any religion! 🙂
Click to expand...
While In thank you for all this (which isn’t exactly new can we get back to Syriac Christian liturgy influence in the Quran? Have you seen the link?

Do the Hadiths talk about Syriac influence in the Quran?

MJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top