I'm really enjoying this channel.

@paulthomas281

5 ай бұрын

@HassanRadwan133 I am so curious Mr. Radwan. And, first of all, congratulations on becoming a grandfather in the past couple of years. But I have to ask, are you not interested in doing primary historical research. You can read Arabic fluently, no? Don't know which areas would interest you. Umayyad-period development of Islamic ideas, perhaps? Or 6th and 7th century materials influencing the Qur'an. Surely, you could make a wonderful contribution!!

Thank you so much for this ❤

Loved the discussion, very interesting to see a scholar evolve their ideas

What I find most fascinating is that there seems to be some consistency in the re-telling of the “main” stories found in surah Kahf, or what was recorded by the mushaf-scribes of the dialogue the Prophet was having with a specific audience. Sleepers of the Cave/Ephesus, Dhul Qarnayn/Alexander, and Moses and Khidr/the green man. All of them seem to be Christian legends and therefore it’s plausible to assume the audience were mostly? Christians as opposed to mostly? Jews (perhaps Nestorians or Arians?), despite what the asbab-accounts purport. In regards to Alexander being Dhul Qarnayn, I assume it’s only problematic depending on what lessons are derived from the story (not stated in the surah). For example, if a pre-Quranic Christian derived the lesson that God promoted claiming all of the world for God's rule via perpetual offensive military conquest (like Constantine MAY have via appropriation) then it’s a problem. However, if they (Muslim or Christian) derived the lesson that emperors/rulers had choices to make in applying justice and they should act justly when they do (irrespective of how they came into power) then there is no problem.

The epistemic issue of using manuscripts that are separated from their originals by over a thousand years is a key issue that needs to be addressed. What is the justification for using such manuscripts?

@bobbycalifornia7077

4 күн бұрын

It’s addressed when he discussed his dating of the/an earlier version of the Syriac Legend to the time of Justinian.

I don’t know who is Dhul-Qarnayn, but it appears that the Syriac legend of Alexander draws inspiration from preexisting concepts. The intriguing parallel between the Quranic narrative of Dhul-Qarnayn and the Syriac tale of Alexander suggests the possibility of independent accounts revolving around a historical figure who conquered the world. Both the Quranic audience and those acquainted with the Syriac legend of Alexander were likely aware of this figure, or at least had heard of him, contributing to the resonance of these narratives.

@maskedwriters-qk3tq

4 ай бұрын

We know who he is , he is an yemani king

@skepsislamica

4 ай бұрын

In short, the Yemani King theory for Dhul Qarnayn is total rubbish

@maskedwriters-qk3tq

4 ай бұрын

@@skepsislamica why is that

@skepsislamica

4 ай бұрын

@@maskedwriters-qk3tq we have inscriptions from South Arabia dating back to 1000bce to a couple of centuries before the rise of Islam. We have zero evidence anywhere of a south Arabian king whose rule extended the reach of the known world, nowhere close. I personally think who people are thinking of when they mention this South Arabian king is Karibʾīl Watar.

@maskedwriters-qk3tq

4 ай бұрын

@@skepsislamica interesting I will look into it

So i have a question. If i am not correct the first mention of alexander, gates and gog and magog is not in fact the alexander romance versions. Rather its actual historians and commentators on the bible such as josephus flavius in the first century. Does that not surely change things significantly. It means that a fictional account did not influence the Quran , but rather a potential piece of history. As for dhul qarnayn bearing little resemblance to alexander historically, i would say we really dont know who dhul qarnayn was, names could have been confused over time, and people attributed things to alexander that had nothing to do with him..

@Kdomi98

2 ай бұрын

Exactly.. I'm not even gonna go in depth with the fact that the oldest manuscript is more than a thousand years after Islam, let's just assume that it indeed predates islam, some idiotic missioneries and athiests already attacking islam for it! Lol. If there is a historical event or real story that is mentioned in the Quran, then the only logical scenario is that we are gonna find some people before talking about it, its only natural. Hell I may get worried if such a huge story about such great king was never mentioned or narrated before since it will cause doubt about its historicity! Josephus in the 1st century did indeed mention that alexander built a wall to contain savage the people of gog and magog Jerome also in the 4th century mentioned it. If anything, if we compare the stories in the quran and in the legend, the legend contains ridiculous unrealistic parts that the Quran completely leaves out. The Quran narrates the story without the unrealistic parts which if anything, is actually an evidence for the quran not against it. These people try so hard to treat the Quran the same way they treat the bible, since the bible is proven to be historically unreliable and is full of nonsensical legends and contradictions. But of course the Quran is a different story. It just shows the amount of desperation that missioneries and athiests have to use this as an argument to disprove islam. What we have to understand is that people like the dude in this interview are often presented as actual scholars who seek history knowledge! When its important to know that these people start from the assumption that the Quran was influenced. Notice how all these orientilist "scholars" focus on the legend specifically and come with these theories to date it earlier and earlier just to prove that it predates the Quran, yet non of them would put such efforts on other texts or legends that don't have such theological implications on it, or no one of them would try to date the legend later since it just doesn't fit their agenda, even though the legend clearly mentions an Arab Kingdom and of course the prophecy of the hans invasion in 629.

@Kdomi98

2 ай бұрын

Exactly.. I'm not even gonna go in depth with the fact that the oldest manuscript is more than a thousand years after Islam, let's just assume that it indeed predates islam, some idiotic missioneries and athiests already attacking islam for it! Lol. If there is a historical event or real story that is mentioned in the Quran, then the only logical scenario is that we are gonna find some people before talking about it, its only natural. Hell I may get worried if such a huge story about such great king was never mentioned or narrated before since it will cause doubt about its historicity! Josephus in the 1st century did indeed mention that alexander built a wall to contain savage the people of gog and magog Jerome also in the 4th century mentioned it. If anything, if we compare the stories in the quran and in the legend, the legend contains ridiculous unrealistic parts that the Quran completely leaves out. The Quran narrates the story without the unrealistic parts which if anything, is actually an evidence for the quran not against it. These people try so hard to treat the Quran the same way they treat the bible, since the bible is proven to be historically unreliable and is full of nonsensical legends and contradictions. But of course the Quran is a different story. It just shows the amount of desperation that missioneries and athiests have to use this as an argument to disprove islam. What we have to understand is that people like the dude in this interview are often presented as actual scholars who seek history knowledge! When its important to know that these people start from the assumption that the Quran was influenced. Notice how all these orientilist "scholars" focus on the legend specifically and come with these theories to date it earlier and earlier just to prove that it predates the Quran, yet non of them would put such efforts on other texts or legends that don't have such theological implications on it, or no one of them would try to date the legend later since it just doesn't fit their agenda, even though the legend clearly mentions an Arab Kingdom and of course the prophecy of the hans invasion in 629.

@Kdomi98

2 ай бұрын

Exactly.. I'm not even gonna go in depth with the fact that the oldest manuscript is more than a thousand years after Islam, let's just assume that it indeed predates islam, some idiotic missioneries and athiests already attacking islam for it! Lol. If there is a historical event or real story that is mentioned in the Quran, then the only logical scenario is that we are gonna find some people before talking about it, its only natural. Hell I may get worried if such a huge story about such great king was never mentioned or narrated before since it will cause doubt about its historicity! Josephus in the 1st century did indeed mention that alexander built a wall to contain savage the people of gog and magog Jerome also in the 4th century mentioned it. If anything, if we compare the stories in the quran and in the legend, the legend contains ridiculous unrealistic parts that the Quran completely leaves out. The Quran narrates the story without the unrealistic parts which if anything, is actually an evidence for the quran not against it. These people try so hard to treat the Quran the same way they treat the bible, since the bible is proven to be historically unreliable and is full of nonsensical legends and contradictions. But of course the Quran is a different story. It just shows the amount of desperation that missioneries and athiests have to use this as an argument to disprove islam. What we have to understand is that people like the dude in this interview are often presented as actual scholars who seek history knowledge! When its important to know that these people start from the assumption that the Quran was influenced. Notice how all these orientilist "scholars" focus on the legend specifically and come with these theories to date it earlier and earlier just to prove that it predates the Quran, yet non of them would put such efforts on other texts or legends that don't have such theological implications on it, or no one of them would try to date the legend later since it just doesn't fit their agenda, even though the legend clearly mentions an Arab Kingdom and of course the prophecy of the hans invasion in 629.

Kudos to Tommaso to realize he was wrong and tell it by a new book.