Tariq Ramadan

[Garudaman]

But you say is was a "different" Imran, who by sheer chance also had a son called Aaron (Harun) and perhaps another one called Moses...

a jew in youtube told me that Mary Jesus mother & Mary Moses sister has same letter, & Gospel have many Mary beside Mary the mother of Jesus, & dont forget there's two Jesus in the Gospel.

[Eagle]

the story of the sleepers is part of the Alexander romance which is not a Christian text... however, it is it true that there is also a later re-write of the story, the youths of Ephesus, as you mention, with a religious twist, something the original version is lacking.

So, some Christians took and old story and gave it a religious meaning, that does not suddenly make that old tale historical fact. The early church included in into the the GOLDEN LEGEND compendium, which means the story was seen as something edifying but not factual. This text dates from 478 AD, and was compiled under the orders of emperor Theodosius. So certainly when the church was still one, and "orthodox" and "catholic" were applied to all Christianity, there was no doubt at all as to what this story was.

The youths of Ephesus or the "sleepers" are not part of any romances. Their original source is a greek text now lost, which is itself based on oral tradition. The later integration into the golden legends with added embellishments and modifications, intermingling reality and fiction, is irrelevant in establishing the historicity of the original. Nobody ever argued that the golden legends stories are entirely false. They are inspired by ancient traditions drawn from multiple sources, including the New Testament, some having undergone more or less modifications.

Other threads will be openned to discuss the Ishmaelite prophet and the prophecies related to him in past scriptures, but here are links from within this thread so as to avoid any attempt at drowning away the inability to respond to the 3 latest untenable propositions namely:
- Mary being the literal sister of Harun
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&p=238560&sid ... 37#p238543" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- A Samaritan in Moses' time
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&start=20#p238325" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- An injeel in Moses' time
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&p=238560&sid ... 37#p238555" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[manfred]

The youths of Ephesus or the "sleepers" are not part of any romances.

Yes it is. Perhaps you like this article:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Seven_Sleepe ... _the_Quran" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3 latest untenable propositions

"untenable" or merely unacceptable to you because it shows up Islam for what it is?

[Eagle]

Nothing, even in that discredited link, speaks of the story as having its source in the so called alexander romance.

[manfred]

Nothing, even in that discredited link, speaks of the story as having its source in the so called alexander romance.

Well you obviously have not read it.
Here is an academic reference:

http://www.csc.org.il/db/browse.aspx?db ... T=keywords" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The legendary Alexander material originated as early as the time of the Ptolemaic dynasty (305 BC to 30 BC) and its unknown authors are sometimes referred to as the Pseudo-Callisthenes (not to be confused with Callisthenes of Olynthus, who was Alexander's official historian). The earliest surviving manuscript of the Alexander romance, called the α (alpha) recension, can be dated to the 3rd century AD and was written in Greek in Alexandria:

There have been many theories regarding the date and sources of this curious work [the Alexander romance]. According to the most recent authority, ... it was compiled by a Greco-Egyptian writing in Alexandria about A.D. 300. The sources on which the anonymous author drew were twofold. On the one hand he made use of a `romanticized history of Alexander of a highly rhetorical type depending on the Cleitarchus tradition, and with this he amalgamated a collection of imaginary letters derived from an Epistolary Romance of Alexander written in the first century B.C. He also included two long letters from Alexander to his mother Olympias and his tutor Aristotle describing his marvellous adventures in India and at the end of the World. These are the literary expression of a living popular tradition and as such are the most remarkable and interesting part of the work.[8]

The Greek variants of the Alexander romance continued to evolve until, in the 4th century, the Greek legend was translated into Latin by Julius Valerius Alexander Polemius (where it is called the Res gestae Alexandri Magni) and from Latin it spread to all major vernacular languages of Europe in the Middle Ages. Around the same as its translation into Latin, the Greek text was also translated into the Syriac language and from Syriac it spread to eastern cultures and languages as far afield as China and Southeast Asia.[9] The Syriac legend was the source of an Arabic variant called the Qisas Dhul-Qarnayn (Tales of Dhul-Qarnayn)[10] and a Persian variant called the Iskandarnamah (Book of Alexander), as well as Armenian and Ethiopic translations.[11]

The version recorded in Syriac is of particular importance because it was current in the Middle East during the time of the Quran's writing and is regarded as being closely related to the literary and linguistic origins of the story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Quran. The Syriac legend, as it has survived, consists of five distinct manuscripts, including a Syriac Christian religious legend concerning Alexander and a sermon about Alexander attributed to the Syriac poet-theologian Jacob of Serugh (451–521 AD, also called Mar Jacob). The Syriac Christian legend concentrates on Alexander's journey to the end of the World, where he constructs the Gates of Alexander to enclose the evil nations of Gog and Magog, while the sermon describes his journey to the Land of Darkness to discover the Water of Life (Fountain of Youth). These legends concerning Alexander are remarkably similar to the story of Dhul-Qarnayn found in the Quran.[12]

The oldest version of the seven sleepers is from Pseudo-Callisthenes, but there also later Christian legends, even in Syriac, and mist likely Mohammed "utilised" one of these. We have a number of similar stories, still today, and you can download them if you want.

Their original source is a greek text now lost, which is itself based on oral tradition.

Now, that, from you, is a fundamental statement. So you admit, clearly, that the Qur'an has human sources, and therefore cannot be "from Allah".

I an glad to read that.

[Eagle]

Still nothing in that reference speaking of the youths of Ephesus. The textual Greek source is unknown and lost. No such thing as the story being in Pseudo-Callisthenes. The above mentioned Jacob de Serugh writings by the way have been shown to be edited works that probably initiated towards the mid 7th century CE.

The Quran relates a true story attested to by ancient scriptures which are themselves preceded by oral tradition. Or does the divine origin of a text depend in its contents not being found in non revealed writings? So Jesus' story being found in revealed texts as well as extra scriptural writings cancels the divine origin of those revealed texts?

[manfred]

eagle, the youths of ephesus legend is a Christian version (a Greek one) of an older story. And nobody ever took as a factual account. I had this discussion not too long ago with garudaman, if I remember right. It is clear that the tale was known at the time of Mohammed, though, so much we do agree it seems.

So, by your own admission, the Qur'an contains an old folk-tale, in a slightly modified form. Now, the Qur'an tells the story as an actual event, something you appear to confirm by describing it as a "true event".

So not only is this part of the Qur'an plagiarised, it also misunderstands its source.

This 100% rules out any suggestion of a divine authorship. An all-knowing deity does not take some old folk tales and re-sells them as facts, but Mohammed, well, he certainly would.

And your comparison with apocryphal texts is rather a good one:

No, the NEWER versions of stories do not invalidate older ones, or indeed affect them in any way. They remain what they are before.

So the Qur'an, in paraphrasing an old folk tale, does NOT change that tale in any way. It remains what it was before the Qur'an included it. However, what it does mean is that the Qur'an's claim to be some divine word, literally, is completely discredited. It only takes one such thing to utterly destroy the claim that the Qur'an is "divine" in any way. And there are quite a few....

[Eagle]

Sure it is a Christian rewrite of true events, taken as factual very early on as is still the case within branches of Christianity, only doubted starting in the era of enlightenment.

The Quran brought back to light the story with its original spiritual implications. viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&start=20#p238347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[manfred]

The Qur'an does not mention any explanation or "spiritual implication".

And now I remember that post of yours you mentioned,thank you, and allow me to remind you of the reply it got:

... the story of the sleepers is part of the Alexander romance which is not a Christian text... however, it is it true that there is also a later re-write of the story, the youths of Ephesus, as you mention, with a religious twist, something the original version is lacking.

So, some Christians took and old story and gave it a religious meaning, that does not suddenly make that old tale historical fact. The early church included in into the the GOLDEN LEGEND compendium, which means the story was seen as something edifying but not factual. This text dates from 478 AD, and was compiled under the orders of emperor Theodosius. So certainly when the church was still one, and "orthodox" and "catholic" were applied to all Christianity, there was no doubt at all as to what this story was. Maybe some did believe the story as historical, but was never an article of faith in either church.

Finally while the old tale is at times still repeated in the Orthodox church (not in the Latin church), there is no requirement to believe that this story is historical, and few in fact do. It is told to speak of another message: the church grows stronger through persecution.

As to the orgins of the story...

Aristotle (Phys., IV, xi) refers to a similar tale about sleepers at Sardes; there are many more examples from various countries (Koch, pp. 24-40, quotes German, British, Slav, Indian, Jewish, Chinese, and Arabian versions). Frederick Barbarossa and Rip Van Winkle are well-known later examples. The Ephesus story is told in the Koran (Sura xviii), and it has had a long history and further developments in Islam (Koch, 123-152), as well as in medieval Christendom (ib., 153-183). Baronius was the first to doubt it (Ann. Eccl. in the Acta SS., July, 386, 48); it was then discredited till modern study of folk-lore gave it an honoured place again as the classical example of a widely spread myth.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05496a.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't get me wrong... a legend can and often does contain "truth".... but not of the historical kind. It was kept and became popular as a sort of teaching story...

Unfortunately the Qur'an also failed miserably to establish some kind of "moral" or purpose for the story. The closest it gets is when it says "Never put off anything off until tomorrow, unless you say if Allah wills"... presumably if you do, Allah locks you into a cave for 300 years, as a punishment.

What is interesting though is that Mohammed was clearly away of several versions of the story.... He refused to commit his version to the number of sleepers... (some say 7 some say 8, and one source has 4) and also to the length of stay which is also variously reported. In avoiding these bits, he hoped to stay out of controversy and people contradicting him, but he introduced a curious void... why would Allah be keeping that part to himself?

There is also this:

Then We sealed their ears in the cave for a number of years.

So Mohammed makes ALLAH the one who seals them in the cave!

[Eagle]

Some kind of convoluted answer was attempted, sure, but dismissed there viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&p=238584#p238570" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How exactly does bringing more extra Quranic references alluding to the story help the untenable and unproven position that the original is false? Just as was said previously, the story was never officialy doubted until the period of enlightment, as candidly explained in your own quote, by the cardinal Baronius.

As to the many spiritual implications, some, the elementary ones were given there viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18210&start=20#p238347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The ommission of their exact number is purposeful and serves a precise purpose highly relevant to the overall message...

[manfred]

eagle, you are repeating yourself. the stories of the sleepers are ALL legends, there are many of them, the earliest in Aristole. This has been made clear by the fact that they were first included in a book called the golden LEGENDS, very early on, as I had to tell you several times now. This text is much earlier than that, it was commissioned by Theodosius the Younger. What Baronius did, is merely confirm a long held position by the church, to settle a doubt or dipute. As I explained also before, there never was a requirement to believe in the historicity of the story of the sleepers, ever.

And you, as always, ignore the basic rules of evidence.

Your assertion: the Qur'anic version is historical, but the other versions of course are not... So your burden of proof. Good luck with that.

My refusal to accept the historicity of an old folk tale is "untenable and unproven", is it? Can you not see how absurd that is? One version, in fact one of the latest ones, is perfectly accurate, the others, upun this version is based, by your own assertion, are not...

Well, last time I looked, people do not get locked by a deity in a cave for 300 years (or just their ears?) and then happily wander about...

Are you going to tell me not believing in historical Red Riding Hood is "untenable" too, and pretend I should prove to that she did not exist in real life? Get real.

And the "spiritual implications" you previously posted amount to "Christians are bad"... OK, much as you would expect from such a profound book as the "Qur'an".

The ommission of their exact number is purposeful and serves a precise purpose highly relevant to the overall message...

Yes, I know... it serves to save Mohammed's skin. He did not want to answer questions about details, so he left them out.

His contemporaries had figured him out, and the Qur'an candidly admits that... they say Mohammed just tells "stories of the ancients" (6:25)

[Eagle]

"Stories of the ancients" is not aimed at discrediting the veracity of what the prophet Muhammad was stating. It was aimed at discrediting his claims of having received the information from a divine source.

Baronius, was the first Christian official to doubt the story of the sleepers as true, in the period of the renaissance.
No reference preceding Baronius representing official sceptical Christian position as regards the story was presented.

Multiple independent sources alluding in a more or less similar way to the story does not amount to proof as to it being "folk tale", it corroborates many elements of truth to the story despite later embelishments as was done in the rewrite of the golden legends, which was not the earliest textual account of the story, as was explained multiple times since the embelished rewrite came hundreds of years after other textual references to it, including the now lost original Greek source. As was already shown these golden legends intermingling reality and fiction, are irrelevant in establishing the historicity of the original, a lost textual Greek source no matter how "early" the original was integrated in it. Nobody ever argued that the golden legends stories are entirely false. They are inspired by ancient traditions drawn from multiple sources, including the New Testament, some having undergone more or less modifications.

As to the burden of proof, since no surviving artifacts attesting to the veracity of the story exists one can only turn to converging oral and textual testimony, the latter being ultimately dependent on the former that always precedes it in time. In this case the amount of independent sources, religious and secular, more or less agreeing to a basic storyline lean much more to it being true than false.

[manfred]

"Stories of the ancients" is not aimed at discrediting the veracity of what the prophet Muhammad was stating. It was aimed at discrediting his claims of having received the information from a divine source.

Well, as far as this story goes, he certainly didn't receive it from a "divine source". You said that yourself.

Baronius, was the first Christian official to doubt the story of the sleepers as true, in the period of the renaissance.
No reference preceding Baronius representing official sceptical Christian position as regards the story was presented.

eagle, I mentioned it was classed as LEGEND in about 450, several time now. It never was a big topic in Christianity. There were and still are a great many stories about saints and miracles around, some perhaps more believable than others. You don't seem to know how the Vatican works, and how things are done there. It is almost always REACTIVE, and it takes a long time before it says anything about something. Nothing is done in a hurry, and everything is considered over and over. (The last Pope is a bit of a rare exception to the rule) In fact, unless there is a perceived good reason for a pronouncement, it virtually never happens.

Baronius merely stated what has been held for centuries, in order to address an issue: people should remember and honour real saints, not legendary ones.Why then? Because in that era the church wanted to avoid being accused of "superstition".

As to the burden of proof, since no surviving artifacts attesting to the veracity of the story exists one can only turn to converging oral and textual testimony, the latter being ultimately dependent on the former that always precedes it in time. In this case the amount of independent sources, religious and secular, more or less agreeing to a basic storyline lean much more to it being true than false.

You are joking right? "testimony"? eagle, it is a STORY. A Greek one, known at classical times, and retold many times. A "tradition".

There are many versions, all having similarities and differences. People re-tell stories, and when they do they embellish. They add things, they leave things out. For lots of reasons, mostly for effect, but also sometimes to make a specific point.

Surely you have seen the occasional "re-make" of an old movie? Now imagine you have remakes of remakes of remakes.... There will be no "convergence"... there will be a core of the story remaining, but the variations keep on getting more.

I mean they are quite a number of "Harry Potter" books, I don't know, is it 6 or 7? Does this mean it must be real and the books are "testimonies"? I mean they made them into movies, they exist in lots of languages, they had lots of discussions in other texts.... Does that make them real... Maybe you do believe in witchcraft, do you? (Many Muslims do)

I can't believe I am having this discussion with an apparently highly intelligent man...

[Eagle]

God in the Quran rehabilited them as heroes of spiritual integrity, insisting and puting great emphasis that 18:13"We relate to you their story bil haqq/with truth/purpose/rightfully". The word covers that God takes back all rights to telling their story, it isnt the prerogative of the Christians and their false conjectures anymore. And by rehabilating their truth, restores the purpose of God's miracle through them and how they benefited themselves from it.

So as far as the Quranic position is concerned, its unique version as retold by the prophet Muhammad was divinely inspired.

Baronius was the very first Christian official to doubt the story as stated in your own quote, not because of some long time non existant Christian scepticism of which absolutely no trace exists, but because he was representing the thought process of his own time, which was all about discrediting anything medieval to raise the church's credibility to a highly sceptical, cartesian audience. And he did not discredit it based on evidence, nobody can prove or disprove oral tradition when the source is unknown and when that tradition is believed for centuries as true, but rather "improbability". Again, it is the embellished version that was subject to criticism and not the core story which can never be disproven. In a series of concessions to his cartesian audience, the cardinal selected that story among others because its not of primary importance to Christian tenets, contrary to the resurrection even though that story, based on the unreliability of its texts and many insurmountable problems in light of internal and external evidence, is no more credible than the seven sleepers.

The golden legends were redacted in the 13th century. Hundreds of years earlier, the story was told and retold in many independent documents, secular and religious, none of them classifying it as a "legend". Their commonality is that these independent sources all go back to oral traditions whose source and authenticity can never be independently verified. What can be independently verified and falsified, which is qhat you are doing, are the later embelishments that do not claim oral traditional precedence, as the ones in the golden legends. Despite these various embelishments, all share the common basics, going back to ancient oral tradition, the youths that were divinely protected from persecution for a long period of time in a cave. That is the difference between Harry potter, a proven invention, and certain characters or stories of religious scriptures like the youths of Ephesus.

[manfred]

Eagle I am not explaining the same thing to you a dozen times.

So as far as the Quranic position is concerned, its unique version as retold by the prophet Muhammad was divinely inspired.

Each and every version is unique. So why should that one be different? It re-tells the story with a Muslim twist, whereas earlier ones had a Christian twist.

And you are saying it is "divinely inspired" because the Qur'an say so? That is the reason you gave.

Honestly, eagle, I hoped better from you... Surely you understand what circular reasoning is?

And even if your curious insistence that in Christian churches this story was treated as fact and somehow equivalent to the gospel was true, which it is not, what would that do to your case? Nothing at all. Why? Because the story in the Qur'an is not the same, and because merely a belief held by some does not make something true. In India million believe in an Elephant headed god called Ganesh, for a long time, and there are tons of stories about him. By your logic, all these must be true too, right?

Baronius was the very first Christian official to doubt the story

No, that is not what it says. He was the first bishop to make an official pronouncement, recorded in the annals, to the effect that the sleepers of Ephesus were a legend. He could only do that if that was the official position of the church and had been for a very long time.

The golden legends were redacted in the 13th century.

How is this relevant? The legend of the sleepers was included from the start.

At best you can say that is your belief that this story is factual. To me that is a very silly belief to have, but you are entitled to it.

The account in the QUr'an is one of many, and there is absolutely no reason at all to treat it differently from the others.

I wonder, if Mohammed had got wind of of some other Greek stories, say, Odysseus and the Cyclops, and retold that one in the Qu'ran, would that be suddenly "true" as well?

I hate to break it to you, but people do not sleep for 300 years or thereabouts, and then go shopping, only to die shortly after.

[Eagle]

Nothing in those replies ammounts to an "explanation". The either contain repeated misunderstandings or previously falsified claims.

The Quran passage was quoted not in order to prove the divine origin of the Quran version, but to clarify what was wrongly assumed to be my belief.

Still nothing showing even a hint whether on a Christian official, scholarly, secular or layman level predating the opinion of Baronius as to the supposed scepticism to the story..

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05496a.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Baronius was the first to doubt it (Ann. Eccl. in the Acta SS., July, 386, 48)

Until any proof is shown on the supposed Catholic procedure of only allowing a Rennaissance cardinal to voice doubt as regards the historicity of an ancient religious tradition when "the official position of the church and had been for a very long time", your own official Catholic quote stands as it is: Baronius was the very first Christian official to doubt it and he never dismissed the core story but the embellished one for the clear reasons already explained..

As said previously, the variety of rewrites is irrelevant in trying to falsify a common core event corroborated by many independent sources, all going back to an oral tradition that can never be disproven and that was unanimously and unquestionably accepted as true from its onset and until the period of the Renaissance.

None of those rewrites claim to be the true version of the common events, much less coming from a non human source. Only the Quran does so, in an emphatic way, in addition claiming that its detailed version is one that comes from God. To refute the Quranic claim, the critic must show that the Book is not of divine origins, by doing just as the Book itself says, finding a single discrepency in it. Denigration of miracles does not amount to a refutation of religious scriptures.

[manfred]

None of those rewrites claim to be the true version of the common events, much less coming from a non human source. Only the Quran does so, in an emphatic way,

Absolutely. and that is the problem. It takes an old human story and sells as God's words.
And you still can't see that you have been duped?

And you belief the Qur'an because it CLAIMS to be the word of Allah? Anyone can make such a claim. Many people after Mohammed have claimed to speak for God, but you only believe this crazed, sex-mad Arab?

And about Baronius.. how many more times? A bishop may not make pronouncements that have no history. He merely stated what what common place at the time. He simply cannot "innovate", he would be excommunicated if he did that.

[Eagle]

Just as the now apparently abandonned strategy of denigrating miracles does not amount to a refutation of the divine origin of a text, baseless accusations towards the noble carrier of the divine text is no refutation.

Prove that Muhammad cannot be a prophet of God or thatthe Quran cannot be of divine origin

[sum]

Hello Eagle

Using your own approach can you prove that the Koran has a divine origin or that Muhammad was a prophet?

Of course you can`t.

sum

[manfred]

Just as the now apparently abandonned strategy of denigrating miracles does not amount to a refutation of the divine origin of a text, baseless accusations towards the noble carrier of the divine text is no refutation.

Prove that Muhammad cannot be a prophet of God or thatthe Quran cannot be of divine origin

I am not "denigrating" miracles... but, as has been said many times, extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary evidence. So you believe thse "people of the cave" really slept for 300 years, or there about, and all you have provided in support of that claim is that the Qu'an says so, and that is claim to be be accurate on this (and other) issues.

If I told you I was 300 years old, you would not believe me. If I told you that I am God and I have leved forever, you also would think me mad. But you take the words of a crazed Arab from the early middle ages and accept the most ludicrous things. Why is that?

What is with you, eagle? if you claim the Qur'an has divine origin then it is your duty to prove it (or to say that is merely your belief) You did say that you believe in the divine origin of the Qur'an because it makes that claim... and of course ot cannot be a lie, because it is a book written by Allah, right? Can you not see that is a very silly way to make a case, as it is circular reasoning.

And it is hardly "baseless" when I point out that Mohammed used HUMAN stories to peddle as divine words. There are a great many examples of this, from the Talmud and other rabbinic literature, classical texts, such as this example, medieval Christian apocryphal texts... and various others, but somehow all that poses no problem for you, because the Qur'an claims, well, whatever it claims... and because it is written by Allah, it must be true. And we know it is written by Allah, because it says so, right?

Seriously, eagle, you need to take a step back and take a good look at this approach of yours, as to any person, seeming apart from you, it is comical... You are a serious man, and you have much intelligence, you are well read, so please start using your head. No offence intended.