Revisionism and Islam
Revisionism and Islam
All forms of Islam depend on the assumption that Muhammad was a divinely appointed prophet, and the Quran a divinely transmitted holy book. All movements assume that, Sunni, Shia, Ismaili, even other movements such as the Bahai. HOWEVER, revisionist scholarship has re-examined the historicity and origins of Islam, and has come up with some very hard questions for Muslim apologists. If the Quran is a man-made book and Muhammad was not a prophet (something which anyway Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. don't believe), then what happens to Ismaili Islam? It loses all of its credibility and integrity, as do all the other movements. What do serious Ismailis think about this problem?
It is a personal belief which is shared by a minority. They are of course entitled to their position and whatever they believe in. If Islam was what the revisionists believe it is, then Islam as a civilization would not have impacted the lives of millions around the world. The Prophet and the Qur'an have had a major influence in the lives of millions. That would not have been the case if they were based on a lie.
Re: Revisionism and Islam
You wrote," If the Quran is a man-made book and Muhammad was not a prophet (something which anyway Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. don't believe), then what happens to Ismaili Islam? It loses all of its credibility and integrity, as do all the other movements. What do serious Ismailis think about this problem?Dovduv wrote:All forms of Islam depend on the assumption that Muhammad was a divinely appointed prophet, and the Quran a divinely transmitted holy book. All movements assume that, Sunni, Shia, Ismaili, even other movements such as the Bahai. HOWEVER, revisionist scholarship has re-examined the historicity and origins of Islam, and has come up with some very hard questions for Muslim apologists. If the Quran is a man-made book and Muhammad was not a prophet (something which anyway Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. don't believe), then what happens to Ismaili Islam? It loses all of its credibility and integrity, as do all the other movements. What do serious Ismailis think about this problem?
If some one say 4 Bibles are fake and Jesus was a fake propagandist or some one say Old Testament is a story book then what happens to Christianity and Judaism!!
You started with Islam and the Prophet and then targeted Ismailism and wrote,"...then what happens to Ismaili Islam?".
There are 20000 denominations in Christianity, there are thousands of sects in Hinduism, there are many divisions in Judaism, same way there are 72 main branches with thousands of sub sects in Islam but you specially pointed out Ismailism.
Shia Imami Ismailism is not a secret sect. It is like an open book. Ismailism is fluid, it is not rigid, it changes according to times. It is the authority of Imam to make changes. Ismaili believes Imam is Noor (light) of God. To understand Ismailism you have to start from Imam Jafar Sadiq till today. Aga Khan is a worldly title, religious title is Hazar Imam. Ismailis do not pray to Aga Khan but through Noorullah to Allah.
My suggestion is that You read the Preamble of Ismaili constitution. Preamble defines the Tenets of Ismailsm and read the meaning of Dua in English, both are available on this Forum that will settle your many questions.
I think you have not read the Islamic History or History of Ismailism properly, even you don't know the history of compilation of Quran.Dovduv wrote:You are right, but in this forum we are talking about Islam. For those revisionists who see that the story of Muhammad is not according to Muslim dogma, and the Quran was written after the time of Abdel Malik in the days of the Abbasids, then there is nothing to hold Ismaili Islam at all.
Quran was not compiled or written in times of Abdul Malik. Your words are, "Quran was written after the time of Abdul Malik in the days of Abbasids". Absurd, Abdul Malik belonged to Umayyid dynasty and not Abbasid. The first compilation was started in the tenure of Abu Bakar the first caliph.
I think you are impressed by the literature produced by western authors and scholars on Islam. You are following their lead instead of using your intellect to distinguish and compare the Islamic literature produced by Muslim scholars also. If Quran is a fake book according to you and others then all other revealed books be considered fake. Revealed books are the foundation of 3 major religions popped up in middle East. Problem is question of superiority among these 3 revealed religions that's why they keep attacking their literature.Dovduv wrote:It is not as simple as you portray it. There are various serious questions raised by eminent scholars of Islam, the Quran and Arabic about the origin of the Quran and the history of the Muslim religion as presented by the usual Muslim narrative.
Ismailism is the 3rd major sect of Islam. Regarding Ismaili Tariqa I mentioned to read Preamble and understand the meaning of Dua, this will clear the fog in front of your eyes. Your posts suggest you are/were an Ismaili not satisfied with some philosophical features and terminologies in Ismaili literature. The questions you are asking today have been discussed on this forum in past. you need to go through these topics and then come up with further questions.
Ismailis do not believe in flesh and blood dogma like Christians. This is your misunderstanding or you may have assumed that way. Ismailis follow the Quranic Ayat, 'LAKUM DEENAKUM WA LIYADEEN'. For you is your deen (religion) and for me is mine.
The first objective is to be able to answer clearly the challenges about the integrity of the Qur'an and Muslim history. That relates to everything connected with all Muslim movements, including the Ismailis, which is the subject of this forum. Whether the same criteria of analysis apply to other religious texts with the same rigor is the subject of other threads separately.
You may want to read The Collection of the Qur'an by Burton published in 1979 - it explains how the Quran was compiled and the challenges faced during compilation....
https://www.amazon.ca/Collection-Quran- ... 0521296528
The most surprising feature of the Muslim traditions on the collection of the Qur'an is their denial of any role in the process to Muhammad himself. The merit of assembling and preserving the record of the momentous divine revelations has been variously ascribed to some half dozen of the Prophet's associates or Companions, and these ascription have usually been treated as hopelessly conflicting. Dr Burton argues that they are in perfect agreement. Their sole function was the deliberate exclusion of Muhammad. Dr Burton demonstrates in his analysis of the original Muslim sources a series of subtle distinctions, the most significant being that between the Qur'ān document and source. This 1977 analysis of early Muslim traditions challenges existing scholarly interpretations, and Dr Burton argues his case with a wealth of detail. It is a book which all students of Islam will find required reading.
https://www.amazon.ca/Collection-Quran- ... 0521296528
The most surprising feature of the Muslim traditions on the collection of the Qur'an is their denial of any role in the process to Muhammad himself. The merit of assembling and preserving the record of the momentous divine revelations has been variously ascribed to some half dozen of the Prophet's associates or Companions, and these ascription have usually been treated as hopelessly conflicting. Dr Burton argues that they are in perfect agreement. Their sole function was the deliberate exclusion of Muhammad. Dr Burton demonstrates in his analysis of the original Muslim sources a series of subtle distinctions, the most significant being that between the Qur'ān document and source. This 1977 analysis of early Muslim traditions challenges existing scholarly interpretations, and Dr Burton argues his case with a wealth of detail. It is a book which all students of Islam will find required reading.