From Rome to Mecca | Why Did Tom Holland Start Studying Islam? | Where Does the Qur'an Come From?
2024 ж. 25 Сәу.
4 292 Рет қаралды
This is a clip from an earlier video about Tom Holland's journey into studying Islam. This is taken from a longer interview with writer and author Tom Holland. You can find the full interview here: • Tom Holland: Dominion ...
how can a scholar or researcher be taken seriously who doesn't have Arabic and Syriac?
How can anyone talking about Scripture be taken seriously when they literally believe that said Scripture was delivered by a freakin’ angel who came from the sky?
@@Skullman367 his question is valid. Your reply is very strange
@@Skullman367the fairy tale doesnt matter but naturalistic explanations require you to learn arabic
@@jojones4685 you can make the argument that to be a top researcher in the field of Quranic studies and/or early Islamic history you need to be fluent in Arabic. But Holland is not and does not claim to be a top researcher in Quranic studies and/or early Islamic history. He read the literature and provided his own opinion. It may or may not be insightful, but it should be looked at nonetheless. Apologists who believe in a supernatural origin, however, have no place in the conversation.
According to your logic one need to learn Greek to read and understand Greek mythology. Really?
A reviewer, Abid, writes this: “While I've enjoyed some of Holland's other work I feel he's missed the boat here by setting his cap at Patricia Crone, the Danish Orientalist who makes most modern scholars of Islam/Arabia come all over giggles; he might have read Wilferd Madelung instead, or at least used his fellow BBC-wallah, Richard Miles', skeptical attitude towards 'scholars' who simply tell their side of the story, especially a discredited, Orientalist one... all in all Reza Aslan is the far better read for a history of Islam's beginnings.”
This is a weird critique, considering Patricia Crone is a central figure (even if here theses are disagreed with) in revisionist/secular Islamic histiorigraphy. Without her, this field wouldn't be where it is today. So to call out Holland for leaning on her is odd
6:105 And thus do We diversify the verses so they [i.e., the disbelievers] will say, "You have studied," and so We may make it [i.e., the Qur’ān] clear for a people who know.
18:54 And We have certainly diversified in this Qur’ān for the people from every [kind of] example; but man has ever been, most of anything, [prone to] dispute. 18:55 And nothing has prevented the people from believing when guidance came to them and from asking forgiveness of their Lord except that there [must] befall them the [accustomed] precedent of the former peoples or that the punishment should come [directly] before them. 18:56 And We send not the messengers except as bringers of good tidings and warners. And those who disbelieve dispute by [using] falsehood to [attempt to] invalidate thereby the truth and have taken My verses, and that of which they are warned, in ridicule. 18:57 And who is more unjust than one who is reminded of the verses of his Lord but turns away from them and forgets what his hands have put forth? Indeed, We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if you invite them to guidance - they will never be guided, then - ever. 18:58 And your Lord is the Forgiving, the possessor of mercy. If He were to impose blame upon them for what they earned, He would have hastened for them the punishment. Rather, for them is an appointment from which they will never find an escape.
Yes, early Islamic scholarship is very very weak and hasn’t been subject to the same methodologies as other texts. Why? Fear. The Quran is not the uncorrupted word of God. It has been changed. Its canonisation was politicised as is its preservation. It is not above history. I’m Muslim and a student of knowledge who travelled and studied in my youth and this was a hard pill to swallow given all the stuff we are indoctrinated into growing up that the Quran is some immutable text.
Every religion claims their book cannat change and word of god anyway…
Holland and Reynolds' scholarly blinkers = "deaf, dumb and blind, they will not return to the right path."
Tom Holland 😂 Said Reynolds keeps bringing world class scholars and charlatans to his channel giving voice to all sides. And I love it! Now, I would love to see a real scholars next and Jay Smith after him.
It's great that Tom Holland - a non historian who has been thoroughly debunked my many credible scholars - has some self awareness.
@@aismail8321 Hes definitely a historian! What he definitely isn't is a religious studies scholar, specifically an islamic studies scholar where as he says there are still very different parameters about what you are allowed to ask - and you need Arabic as minimum! But yes, scholarship has moved on since Hollands book of 15 years ago (which was written for a popular audience) and he dealt with that well in the interview.
@@aismail8321who has debunked him?
@@aismail8321 Tom has been debunked by whom? Where? He has interview the best of scholars investigating Islam. Islam invites no such inquiry ….why? For thousands of years Christianity has been investigated,studied,pulled apart by Christian and non Christian scholars. No such investigations has been permitted by Islamic notables until the age of the internet. Tom himself had a secret service bodyguard because of death threats. Why is Islam so reluctant to allow the same scrutiny as other faith beliefs???? If, as they say, they have the truth,why not share that? Are they afraid that the narrative they have constructed for themselves will be found wanting, or false?
@@dodgysmum8340 Tom Holland is not a real historian. his bias and hate aginst Muslims and Arabs distort his view, and makes him as credible as Zionist Sam Harris. It’s like trying to learn history from kkk
Dr. Reynolds, please bring professor Jonathan Brown to the channel, he has already debunked Mr. Holland's thesis and is indeed a serious scholar in the Islamic studies field (btw, I'm not a muslim, I just appreciate good scholarship).
You may not be Muslim, but Jonathan Brown is. He has skin in the game. Obviously he would like to 'debunk' Holland's thesis. Brown is not a serious scholar. He is a charlatan and an Islamist apologist.
Yeah, Tom Hollands claim that Muslims borrowed 5 daily prayers from fire worshippers was pathetic. Jonathan brown made Holland look very stupid
Jonathan Brown is not a credible scholar if you are not a Muslim, which is, I assume, why he's not been on!
additionally as there is no stipulation for five prayers in the Qu'ran - and lots of evidence that early (pre Abbasid) Muslims disagreed about the required number - that 5 came from somewhere else! As such it seems not unreasonable - and definitely not unproven - speculation that 5 came from Persian culture.
@@dodgysmum8340 you need to make sense that people at that time doesn't criticize the Muslim for following fire worshipper or Persian?
You guys need to study the Islamic civil war which the Dom of Rock evolved from.
If you apply the historical critical method, you must come to the conclusion based on the evidence that the Quran originated at a time and place according to the traditional sources. You do not have to be religious, rather you must be scientific. Any other claim sounds like pure ethnic supremacy, akin to saying the Pyramids could not have been built by barbarous Egyptians, it must have been Aliens. And you cannot compare the OT and Gospels to the Quran and jump to the conclusion that there must be a "Documentary Hypothesis" to explain the Quran, because unlike the OT and Gospels there is no evidence for multiple authors and multiple dates.
Not at all If I apply the historical critical methodology the Quran has nothing to do with what Islam says
@@torotorotaxi5367what are you saying islam has nothing to do with what Islam are saying? What you mean
@@danielgomessilva8966if we use primary sources to investigate the history of Middle East and Arabia, there is no evidence that the historical context of the Quran can be as depicted by Islam Moreover a historical textual analyses of the Quran shows that the text linguistically and as content cannot be the product of a pagan environment for a pagan environment This is academically well known
Lots of current scholars argue for multiple authors/ sources of the Qu'ran, but I agree that time is nailed to within 3/4 of a century for a first complete version of it - clearly a very well preserved source.
@torotorotaxi5367 yeah, if you're doing the job, that's the kind of result we should expect 😂
Tom Holland, he is a brilliant historian who put things into perspective of where they belong. Reading his book the shadow of the sword, as well as his work in the untold story of Islam. He is most brilliant historian of our time.
And you are most functionally illiterate viewer of this channel. Functional illiteracy is when you have command of the alphabet but you actually don’t comprehend what you read…The man told you he was writing as a NONACADEMIC for a NONACADEMIC audience so he is not a historian but an author who writes historically inspired openly islamophobic entertaining fiction for profit. However you have no capacity to understand this since you must be functionally illiterate to write such a comment. I am only being direct with you because your profile is anonymous so I will not embarrass you in public. I will be glad to recommend some resources for you to work on improving your functional literacy and reading comprehension.
Except that he is woefully ignorant of two key things: the Arabic language and the Qur'an.
Did he begin with how did Allah reveal Quran to jibreel?
Once again, nobody is actually engaging with what Holland says. Just ad hominem and obfuscation
Test
Your posts are appearing for me...
Thank you for your hard work Dr Reynolds As an ex Muslim, i know you get a lot of criticism from a certain group, and i appreciate you continuing your work in the pursuit of truth without being intimidated by trolls
If you don't mind me asking what led you to leave islam and do you sincerely believe that there are contradictions in the quran and what are you now are you an atheist or an agnostic
@@theguyver4934 it's not about my beliefs, the FACTS are there are contradictions in the Quran, the BELIEF is that it doesn't. I left Islam after ironically wanting to make my imaan stronger by studying my deen so I can "fight back" against polemics. I uncovered many issues and so decided to READ the Quran rather than just mindlessly recite it. I found that nearly all Islamic claims are false. Topics such as perfect preservation, scientific miracles, grammatical wonders etc are nearly all false or grossly exaggerated. I decided to accept the truth no matter how difficult
@@thenun1846 please elaborate on how the "grammatical wonders", as you put it, are false?
@@JoBlogz @JoBlogz well there are many grammatical issues in the Quran. I'll specifically highlight the Hafs version of the Quran In verse 9:31, there's a dire grammatical error that Christian apologists use (rightfully so) in their polemics The verse equates Allah with Jesus. What the verse SHOULD have done is group the monks and rabbis with Jesus as they are taking ALL of them as lords besides Allah Let me know if you have any other questions
@@thenun1846 either you are uneducated on classical arabic via a sophisticated knowledge of jahili poetry etc, or you are simply disingenuous (both are bad states, but the former can be more easily remedied, and the latter is far worse for you). Arabic doesnt function in the same way that english does. your problem is making this mistake. Masih is mansub, which makes it the object of the verb being applied to rabbis and monks. it is totally normal in classical Arabic for the objects of a verb to appear on either side of a prepositional phrase. Even in English I could say: he broke the car, on his street, and the window. From this alone, your own choice, exposes your lack of considering counter arguments fairly, either out of ignorance, or even worse, hypocrisy. I hope this helps you become better, but we all lie in our own graves. alhamdulillah.
Another Tom Holland is a Spiderman.
I would argue acting would be a better profession for this Tom Holland too
Tom Holland is a quack
Said “The Muslim Apologist” 😂 mashallah mashallah
@@Skullman367you are a christian😂😂😂
Prophet Mohammad - now there we had a quack!
@@kaloarepo288 yet scholar say something about him and not saying he is charlatan and dismiss him
@@kaloarepo288 you sound hurt that people call this blonde a quack
I like Tom Holland's more neutral approach to the origins of Islam. With many scholars I feel that they are not free, but often tries to conclude as close as they can with the Muslim traditions!
Tom Holland is not a real historian. his bias and hate aginst Muslims and Arabs distort his view, and makes him as credible as Zionist Sam Harris. It’s like trying to learn history from kkk
Except that Tom Holland neither understands Arabic or the Qur'an.
Tom Holland is biased European not neutral
Tom Holland is as neutral as Richard Dawkins or Sam harris
what i can see is that you are going steadily and firmly to the oblivion.
These ppl can't handle the fact that the whole Qur'an came from just 1 source - the Prophet (saw) himself! They get stuck trying to explain how he knew all the information mentioned in the Qur'an which he verbally recited in public over 23 years amongst the ppl of Mecca & Medina.
You’re assuming a narrative that emerged 150+ years after the early 7th century.
That's the myth you're told when you're a kid. The reality is the Quran plagiarized from sources around it, got compiled, burned, standardized, enforced by men. I guess in that case you're right, the one source the Quran came from was human imagination
@@tjbergren - this 'narrative' is the ONLY reasonable one remaining after all the research done (by Hythem Sidky, Van Putten, Shady Nasser, Michael Cook etc) which shows that the 7+3 qira'at all came from a single WRITTEN source confirming the Uthmanic codex and it's copies! And that still ignores the PRIMARY method of preservation... Hifz or memorisation.
@@tjbergren - this 'narrative' is the ONLY reasonable one remaining after all the research done (by Western Academics Hythem Sidky, Van Putten, Shady Nasser, Michael Cook etc) which shows that the 7+3 qira'at all came from a single WRITTEN source confirming the Uthmanic codex and it's copies! And that still ignores the PRIMARY method of preservation... Hifz or memorisation passed down orally Generation to Generation via THOUSANDS upon Thousands of Memorisers in each Generation without a break in the chain.
@@tjbergren- this 'narrative' is the ONLY reasonable one remaining after all the research done (by Western Academics Hythem Sidky, Van Putten, Shady Nasser, Michael Cook etc) which shows that the 7+3 qira'at all came from a single WRITTEN source confirming the Uthmanic codex and it's copies! And that still ignores the PRIMARY method of preservation... Hifz or memorisation passed down orally Generation to Generation via THOUSANDS upon Thousands of Memorisers in each Generation without a break in the chain.
I am a former apostate, and Alhamdulillah Allah S.W.T showed me the right path, and I converted to Islam. I have been doing great Dawah in many years with a great result. Allah S.W.T. helps me and my fellow Muslims in my mission. 🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️
no one cares
@@helman41I care 😁
@helman41 me too, I care ❤
@helman41 why do you talk for everyone? Who are you to talk for everyone?
@@helman417 people care
Ehm Not at all If I apply the historical critical methodology the Quran has nothing to do with what Islam says
a conclusion with no evidence😂😂😂 just allusions😂😂😂
@@jj-yi1ne sure The only illusion is that the Quran is the product of mid 8th century pagan context in west Arabia which is totally absent from history and contradicted by the quranic text itself
Keep ur fantasies to urself
@@arta.xshacais this a threat? Seems somebody is feeling history is different than what has been thought in madrassa
Not at all. The traditional narrative of the history and transmission of the Qur'ān, I believe, has elements that would fulfill the criterion of embarrassment. The majority of Muslim scholars believe the Qur'ān wasn't compiled by the Prophet ﷺ. Doesn't this sound embarrassing? Many traditional Muslim scholars believe that Uthman, may God be pleased with him, did not preserve all the ahruf in his standardization. Many elements of the traditionalist narrative do not sound like covering up history and painting a fairy tale image of the transmission of the Qur'ān.