Was Early Islam Ecumenical? | Dr. Fred Donner
2024 ж. 3 Ақп.
2 742 Рет қаралды
This is a clip about whether or not the early Islamic community was an ecumenical one, that is a community made up members from different confessions. Fred Donner discusses his theory that the early identity was comprised of many confessions.. This clip is taken from my interview with Professor Fred Donner. If you enjoyed this video, please subscribe to the channel and like the video! Please be sure to check out the full interview, here: kzhead.info/sun/Zc2DkaqEbqqVgGw/bejne.html
"Mohammad and the believers" is a great name for a rockabilly band
Lol
Please invite Fred donner for a new episode.
Not directly related to Dr. Donner's research, which I've greatly enjoyed, but I wanted to comment to thank you, Dr. Reynolds, for all your work. I took a deep interest in Islam recently, and quickly stumbled across your channel in my own research. Your channel has been a great bounty of information that deserves as much attention as possible. It has helped me remember what it is to be a historian. I wish I'd known a fraction of this information 20 years ago during my undergrad studies. I would have gone on to study Islam's formative period in a heartbeat. Apologies if this was long-winded, but thank you again!
@starshipchris4518 Have you read Tommaso Tesei's article "The Qur'an(s) in Context(s)"? It is an eye-opener into the editing history of the Qur'an.
@@paulthomas281 I'll do that next! Thanks for the suggestion. I just recently finished Crone's God's Caliph. An article would be a nice followup.
@@starshipchris4518 Why not add authentic Islamic sources too to your research starting with a good translation of Quran itself and biography of Prophet of Islam.
Authentic? You mean traditional? Because they are not historical, meaning they are one sided and dont consider secondary sources. They are more theological in nature and not academic (not to be crticized nor scrutinized scientifically).
Thank you for this encouragement!
BEST wishes, thank you.
Thanks you for these great conversations Dr. Reynolds. Has there been research on how the concept Ahl al-kitāb influenced Sikh universalism?
Sikhism finds is origins in later subcontinent Sufis syncretism and its wahdatul wujood theosophical discussions more than early Islamic ideas...
He's not right about the liturgy. In Ramadan the whole Qur'an is recited in mosques in congregational prayer, so the public get one whole reading per year at a minimum. That's besides their private reading.
Re 9:29, the verse makes it clear that those who are to be fought are those who refuse to accept 1) the call to return to pure monotheism and 2) don't accept Muhammad as their ruler. His statecraft in turn was to establish monotheism in the land. 9:30-35 showed how the people of the Book in that age and area had strayed, and why they Jews and Christians were no longer "true" to Moses and Jesus. Taken holistically, the Quran describes only one true religion - monotheism - which the Jews and Christians were formerly upon, but then departed from it. Muhammed was sent with the Qur'an to call everyone (pagans, Jews, Christians) back to monotheism. And part of establishing that at that time, was the state and military. So it was ecumenical in the sense that it mattered not whether you were from a Christian or Jewish tribe - if you accepted his message of monotheism you were on his side. If you rejected his message of monotheism, you were on the opposite side, and that applied even to his own kith and kin. So ecumenical yes, but only if you understand that there's no compromise on monotheism and messengership. Stretching the word a long way, I'd say.
@@ouessantpeaches6122can we get a definition of ecumenical? I don’t think it’s being used in its conventional sense is it?
Could Gary Wills be a guest?
The problem with the theory is that Muhammad’s claim of prophethood would have been implicitly rejected by most Jews and Christians since both traditions were hostile to latter day prophets.
0:50 Intolerance is as much a part and parcel of religious dogma today as it was fifteen hundred years ago.
Intolerance is just as prevalent today in progressivist society as it was back then. So ironically progressivism has failed on this front; we still are sectarian in that we don’t accept or endorse others from another fold (Ie non progressivists, they are looked at unfavourably) I would make a second argument from this point to demonstrate that progressivism in today’s application has failed and is therefore justifiably discarded. It doesn’t move us away from the past’s “failures” or “immoralities” (eg sectarianism or intolerance) but repeats it under a new package. On these grounds I personally reject progressivism
Im fasting n this professor's name is making me hungry. 🍖
Projecting modern mentalities into the past, classic
Watch the video, he’s correctly addressing this pathetic strawman argument
This Reynolds guy is a modern day Crusader and Evangelist
@@StatisticalCat I think he’s honest. His channel is full of interesting conversations with Muslims. And he’s never confrontational, he’s never trying to debate and he’s genuinely curious about what each guest has to say.
Have you read Tommaso Tesei's article "The Qur'an(s) in Context(s)"? It is an eye-opener into the editing history of the Qu'ran.@@ChicagoMonsterPunk
Have you read Tommaso Tesei's article "The Qur'an(s) in Context(s)"? It is an eye-opener into the editing history of the Qur'an.@@StatisticalCat
Aren't you going to explore the Bible as well? As the title of the channel implies? Or it is only Al-Qur'an worth exploring? Keep on exploring then!
Stop crying plz
He is a proffesor in islamic studies, so he talks about islam more. But look at his other videos, he also has ones about the bible. Beside that, he always talks about the quran in relation to the bible in matters of themes and narratives.
There are some videos on the Bible.