Another facinating talk. Even for a lay person it very understandable. The way in which open minded historians are able to lay bare the politics, propaganda and faith-based assertions of received religion is very refreshing. As one who was involved with these faiths in the past I must say it lifts a weight from my chest. There is a sense of freedom that comes from hearing the truth of the matter.
I'd be interested to see what Dr Anthony says about the theory that "Mecca" isn't where Mohammed was originally from and that it was closer to the Roman border.
Its great interview, Antohony is a great scholar but as usual he speaks too fast, mixes up lots of Arabic pronunciations plus the distorsion of the internet connection makes it very difficult to follow. If you put subtitles it shows how much is lost.
The devals Never give up inventing new false theories all the time. Initially it was none existence of Muhammad, Makka and Quran. And that all these were invention of an empire and which they later thought: wait we need a religion like Persians have Zoroastrianism and Romans have Christianity; we should also have a religion. Lets invent it. This is Muhammad the Prophet, this is going to be our Holy book the Quran...bla blah and then boom we have Islam.... That is how they like everything to have been. It's like they are living in nightmarish kind of dream which they want to make sense of. Every other day, they come up with new absurdities and theories.
You can't understand the history of Muhammed without delving into hadith literature. Even if you don't want to accept hadith you are going to be repeating stories from them whether you know it or not. The Quran doesn't provide any historical context so you have to look into these texts for context.
@@pheeel17 if you don't use them then you have nothing in regards to early Islamic history. The actual history books in Arabic were written later and don't have the same chain of narration criteria as the hadith books.
@@wemadeitpodcast There are some you can use beside hadith, such as stone inscriptions, building/monumental inscriptions, numismatics (coin) evidence, corpus of papyri evidence. Yes, hadith is one of the evidences we have to use. But, it is no way absolute. We need all of the mentioned sources combined as well as a sound historical method to arrive at any firm conclusion.
18:00 people need to read Quran first to make their own impression instead of comparing it to Bible. Story of the Elephant is in Quran and it’s 100% agreed to be the year when prophet was born. Why you would present as anything different without quoting your source is very insincere and a lie.
I am very surprised by the lack of the critical approach both of an interviewer and interviewee. Just a couple of examples. A claim that all the Qur'an consists of the sayings of Muhammad is ludicrous. I believe that anyone who would claim that all the Psalms are attributed to King David would be criticized mercilessly, and rightly so. Or, alternatively, that all the Torah is written by Moses. This was in fact debunked by Spinoza hundreds of years ago. However here similar claims about Qur'an run without any single question mark. Second, the claim, that radiocarbon analysis settles decisively that the earliest Qur'an has been written before Abd al-Malik is equally dubious. It literally means taking the radiocarbon analysis well beyond its applicability scope and disregarding possible systematic errors that arise more often than not. I understand that historians are not physicists, but they should simply learn that a simple fact. Any claim based on C-14 dating with the precision of decades or better is always on a very thin ice. In short, highly traditionalist and religiously apologetic approach that is usually rightly refuted in Biblical, including early Christian studies.
The issue with everything you said is that the burden of proof would be on you. The Quran stylistically is clear to be of one origin. Even the two difference themes in the Quran which are Mecca verses and Madinah verses all have a similar style even though the theme is changed drastically from the Prophet and Muslims being a persecuted minority to being a ruling minority in Madinah and eventually becoming a ruling majority over all Arabia. The other point you mention about the carbon dating is quite frankly, laughable. You presented mere speculation on the matter and speculation is not an argument. Whether or not it is accurate is also not important. Quran’s oral transmission is more important than anything else. Isolated Muslim communities in the edges of the world have the same Quran as everyone else even back when they reconnected with Muslim communities. Some skeptics use of Quran variation recitations as proof of corruption yet that is a proof against that because if the Quran was in anyway standardized as a text it would have no variations. Rationally speaking we know that 4 of the greatest civilizations fell before the Ummayad period began. Persia, Byzantine, Iraq and Egypt all gone within decades. After that Islam spread and scholars were made and discussions already being had. Many companions lived during late Ummayad period and some even to the early Abbasid period. Believing what you said is an outlandish theory that makes Bigfoot seem plausible.
@@slightlyopinionated8107you don't know your history what do you mean Iraq and Egypt as separate civilisations?? Egypt was part of the Roman Empire and Iraq was part of the Persian Empire, and to say that any companions of Muhammad lived into the Abbasid period is laughable considering the abbasid period started in the 750s and Muhammed died in 632 they'd have to be 150 years old to be a companion of him and still be alive 😂😂also carbon dating is a problem when they date the papyrus but not the ink used to date it, the papyrus could have been made decades before anything was written on it.
1:00 The Jesus' case has nothing to see with the 'Muhammad' one. The former is never said to have produced something. 'Muhammad' is believed to be the producer at a precise time and location of something which was going being written down. One cannot address both cases together: comparison does not work here due to the large difference of the two figures. Commencing to speak of Jesus to speak of 'Muhammad' is therefore irrelevant.
Wasn't that just a way to introduce the concept and challenges of historicity for individuals, for an audience presumed to be familiar with the phrase "historical Jesus"?
If my understanding of your statement is correct, you conclude that because Jesus didn't "produce" the Bible (in this case, the Gospel), therefore a comparison between the quest for historical Jesus and for historical Muhammad is "irrelevant"? Am I correct? If so, no offense, but I think your statement seems to be invalid here. Yes, Jesus obviously didn't "produce" the Gospel himself, but, Muhammad didn't "produce" the Quran himself directly either. If you study the history of (early) Islam, the Quran was written down/complied after (or towards the end of) Muhammad's lifetime. And, to emphasize, not by Muhammad himself, but his followers. The manner of Jesus' case and Muhammad's is precisely comparable to each other. Gospel, although mainly structured as a biography of Jesus (or in the case of Mark, a passion narrative), it contains various teachings alleged to be spoken directly by Jesus, but written down by his later follower. The Quran are the same. It is a record/compilation of the teachings and preachings (in, mainly, poetic form) that attribute to Muhammad; written down by his companion/follower. Yes, both didn't produce the scriptures, Gospel and Quran, direcly by themselves, but their sayings and teachings that are attribute to them are written down by their follower who produce those scriptures. In other word, what Jesus and Muhammad produced are teachings and sayings, but the Gospel and Quran, are produced/written down by thier followers. Historical quest for both Muhammad and Jesus (as well as other religious/legendary figures such as the Buddha, Confucius, etc.), especially through Western secular academic approach, are using the same tools and methodology: historical criticism, source criticism, comparative method, etc., to be able to reach some historical information about those figures.
@@Nous98 I think the objection is legitimate, if you look into what the Quran is vs. the Bible. -The Quran has almost NOTHING relating to the biography of Muhammad, while the Gospels ( especially the Synoptics) are almost entirely biographies. - The Quran was written down during the lifetime of Muhammad, at his specific instruction, while the Christ never instructs anyone to write his teachings down. - The non-Christian sources that mention Christ are very late, while non-Muslim sources mentioning Muhammad begin almost within 10 years of his death. - The Quran has a second track of preservation via oral tradition, while the New Testament is strictly limited to manuscript traditions. There is a real problem with non-Muslims bringing the assumptions and approach of Biblical study to Quranic Studies, without realizing how much more there is to work with in the latter (which is the point He makes in the beginning).
@@Nous98 not accurate. The quran was memorized by thousands of muhammad's companions during Muhammad's life time and also written in various media during his lifetime. It was then compiled as a single book ( mushaf) within 2 years after his death during the time of caliph Abu Bakar. During the process of compilation, each verse has to be verified based on memory of the companions AND a written source. Thus each quranic verse was based by at least 2 eye witnesses of Muhammad's life.
There are many ways that seams right to the man but the end of it is destruction...Jesus said I m the way the truth and the life , and nobody comes to the father except through Him...John 14:6...Sean, you are Articulated young men but you lost in all different ways & religions and end up in a lake of fire and i sincirely wish that you accept the truth that is Jesus as the only way...Jesus proved to be a true and only pass to life...He was prophesied in the Holy bible and he proved to be Devine in nature of God in flesh.. the miracles He did proved it..
I don’t believe Jesus ever said ‘I am the way and the life no one comes to the father except thru me.’ The seven I am sayings were more likely put on the lips of Jesus by the authors of the book of John. The authors are anonymous and those seven sayings don’t appear in the synoptic gospels. If Jesus was going around claiming how great he is why don’t we see that in the other three gospels? Jesus is not the only way to God. He is a way to God but not the only way. This is from your own book: Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. Jesus was a man whom God did miracles through him. Jesus didn’t do it but God did. That makes Jesus a prophet of God not some kind of a god. There is only one god. Even his teaching is from God: Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. This is also from your book: Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I for one believe that. Do you believe that statement? Do you believe that the father is the only true god? Do you accept that? I as a Muslim do. You on the hand don’t accept it. You believe Jesus is also a god. That’s blasphemy. You are going against what Jesus was supposed to have said. Also, Sean Anthony did not tell you what his religious beliefs are. Why are you judging him. His field of study is Islam. How is that bad? Unbelievable. I for one think you are the one destined for a surprise when you find out Jesus was only a man not a god and that you are responsible for your own deeds and misdeeds. There will be no Jesus to pay for your sins. It’s only you and you alone in the judgment seat. Saul the fraud lied to you and deceived you by claiming Jesus died for your sins. He made up his ‘gospel’. There is only one gospel, and that’s the gospel of Jesus not the fake gospel of Saul.
@@BenM61you can talk all you want but you shouldn’t forget that one of your Allahs name is ( Al maker )meaning deceiver which Allah fools people about crucifixion and says Jesus was not crucified!
@@edisonmanafi5985well the term Makaru means to plot and plan in the context of the verse of the Quran but perhaps you would like to comment on this verse: 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false Or Perhaps this one: Jeremiah 4:10 Then I said, “Ah, Lord God! Surely You have utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, ‘You will have peace’; whereas a sword touches the throat.” I’ll leave you to work it out.
Sean Anthony does great interviews and commentary about the origins and history of Islam.
Another facinating talk. Even for a lay person it very understandable. The way in which open minded historians are able to lay bare the politics, propaganda and faith-based assertions of received religion is very refreshing. As one who was involved with these faiths in the past I must say it lifts a weight from my chest. There is a sense of freedom that comes from hearing the truth of the matter.
The Persian hegemony on the religious discourse is amazing
I'd be interested to see what Dr Anthony says about the theory that "Mecca" isn't where Mohammed was originally from and that it was closer to the Roman border.
Its great interview, Antohony is a great scholar but as usual he speaks too fast, mixes up lots of Arabic pronunciations plus the distorsion of the internet connection makes it very difficult to follow. If you put subtitles it shows how much is lost.
Interesting discussion, maybe I should read some of Sean Anthony's work.
Why Maybe? 🤔
just do it...like Nike.😅
At least a solid historical proof of Prophet Muhammad SAW PBUH..
Where lies the proof?
@@TingTong2568
The proof is in the lies...😅
The devals Never give up inventing new false theories all the time. Initially it was none existence of Muhammad, Makka and Quran. And that all these were invention of an empire and which they later thought: wait we need a religion like Persians have Zoroastrianism and Romans have Christianity; we should also have a religion. Lets invent it. This is Muhammad the Prophet, this is going to be our Holy book the Quran...bla blah and then boom we have Islam.... That is how they like everything to have been. It's like they are living in nightmarish kind of dream which they want to make sense of. Every other day, they come up with new absurdities and theories.
5:53
You can't understand the history of Muhammed without delving into hadith literature. Even if you don't want to accept hadith you are going to be repeating stories from them whether you know it or not. The Quran doesn't provide any historical context so you have to look into these texts for context.
They have their use, but as historical texts, they're quite late, not written down until the 800s/900s and later
@@pheeel17 if you don't use them then you have nothing in regards to early Islamic history. The actual history books in Arabic were written later and don't have the same chain of narration criteria as the hadith books.
@@wemadeitpodcast There are some you can use beside hadith, such as stone inscriptions, building/monumental inscriptions, numismatics (coin) evidence, corpus of papyri evidence. Yes, hadith is one of the evidences we have to use. But, it is no way absolute. We need all of the mentioned sources combined as well as a sound historical method to arrive at any firm conclusion.
But they are just made up, hundreds of years later. How do they help?
@@pheeel17 written regardless..
Delve into them... you will find they are very vast and substantive sources of Muhammad life history..
Hadith is bunk.
Please read the Noble Quran, learn a lot more 🙏
18:00 people need to read Quran first to make their own impression instead of comparing it to Bible.
Story of the Elephant is in Quran and it’s 100% agreed to be the year when prophet was born. Why you would present as anything different without quoting your source is very insincere and a lie.
I am very surprised by the lack of the critical approach both of an interviewer and interviewee. Just a couple of examples. A claim that all the Qur'an consists of the sayings of Muhammad is ludicrous. I believe that anyone who would claim that all the Psalms are attributed to King David would be criticized mercilessly, and rightly so. Or, alternatively, that all the Torah is written by Moses. This was in fact debunked by Spinoza hundreds of years ago. However here similar claims about Qur'an run without any single question mark. Second, the claim, that radiocarbon analysis settles decisively that the earliest Qur'an has been written before Abd al-Malik is equally dubious. It literally means taking the radiocarbon analysis well beyond its applicability scope and disregarding possible systematic errors that arise more often than not. I understand that historians are not physicists, but they should simply learn that a simple fact. Any claim based on C-14 dating with the precision of decades or better is always on a very thin ice. In short, highly traditionalist and religiously apologetic approach that is usually rightly refuted in Biblical, including early Christian studies.
The issue with everything you said is that the burden of proof would be on you. The Quran stylistically is clear to be of one origin. Even the two difference themes in the Quran which are Mecca verses and Madinah verses all have a similar style even though the theme is changed drastically from the Prophet and Muslims being a persecuted minority to being a ruling minority in Madinah and eventually becoming a ruling majority over all Arabia. The other point you mention about the carbon dating is quite frankly, laughable. You presented mere speculation on the matter and speculation is not an argument. Whether or not it is accurate is also not important. Quran’s oral transmission is more important than anything else. Isolated Muslim communities in the edges of the world have the same Quran as everyone else even back when they reconnected with Muslim communities. Some skeptics use of Quran variation recitations as proof of corruption yet that is a proof against that because if the Quran was in anyway standardized as a text it would have no variations. Rationally speaking we know that 4 of the greatest civilizations fell before the Ummayad period began. Persia, Byzantine, Iraq and Egypt all gone within decades. After that Islam spread and scholars were made and discussions already being had. Many companions lived during late Ummayad period and some even to the early Abbasid period. Believing what you said is an outlandish theory that makes Bigfoot seem plausible.
@@slightlyopinionated8107you don't know your history what do you mean Iraq and Egypt as separate civilisations?? Egypt was part of the Roman Empire and Iraq was part of the Persian Empire, and to say that any companions of Muhammad lived into the Abbasid period is laughable considering the abbasid period started in the 750s and Muhammed died in 632 they'd have to be 150 years old to be a companion of him and still be alive 😂😂also carbon dating is a problem when they date the papyrus but not the ink used to date it, the papyrus could have been made decades before anything was written on it.
1:00 The Jesus' case has nothing to see with the 'Muhammad' one. The former is never said to have produced something. 'Muhammad' is believed to be the producer at a precise time and location of something which was going being written down. One cannot address both cases together: comparison does not work here due to the large difference of the two figures. Commencing to speak of Jesus to speak of 'Muhammad' is therefore irrelevant.
Wasn't that just a way to introduce the concept and challenges of historicity for individuals, for an audience presumed to be familiar with the phrase "historical Jesus"?
@@HebaruSan Perhaps, but in itself it drives the mind of the audience to a fallacious comparison. Therefore, it should have been ruled out.
If my understanding of your statement is correct, you conclude that because Jesus didn't "produce" the Bible (in this case, the Gospel), therefore a comparison between the quest for historical Jesus and for historical Muhammad is "irrelevant"? Am I correct? If so, no offense, but I think your statement seems to be invalid here.
Yes, Jesus obviously didn't "produce" the Gospel himself, but, Muhammad didn't "produce" the Quran himself directly either. If you study the history of (early) Islam, the Quran was written down/complied after (or towards the end of) Muhammad's lifetime. And, to emphasize, not by Muhammad himself, but his followers. The manner of Jesus' case and Muhammad's is precisely comparable to each other. Gospel, although mainly structured as a biography of Jesus (or in the case of Mark, a passion narrative), it contains various teachings alleged to be spoken directly by Jesus, but written down by his later follower. The Quran are the same. It is a record/compilation of the teachings and preachings (in, mainly, poetic form) that attribute to Muhammad; written down by his companion/follower. Yes, both didn't produce the scriptures, Gospel and Quran, direcly by themselves, but their sayings and teachings that are attribute to them are written down by their follower who produce those scriptures. In other word, what Jesus and Muhammad produced are teachings and sayings, but the Gospel and Quran, are produced/written down by thier followers.
Historical quest for both Muhammad and Jesus (as well as other religious/legendary figures such as the Buddha, Confucius, etc.), especially through Western secular academic approach, are using the same tools and methodology: historical criticism, source criticism, comparative method, etc., to be able to reach some historical information about those figures.
@@Nous98 I think the objection is legitimate, if you look into what the Quran is vs. the Bible.
-The Quran has almost NOTHING relating to the biography of Muhammad, while the Gospels ( especially the Synoptics) are almost entirely biographies.
- The Quran was written down during the lifetime of Muhammad, at his specific instruction, while the Christ never instructs anyone to write his teachings down.
- The non-Christian sources that mention Christ are very late, while non-Muslim sources mentioning Muhammad begin almost within 10 years of his death.
- The Quran has a second track of preservation via oral tradition, while the New Testament is strictly limited to manuscript traditions.
There is a real problem with non-Muslims bringing the assumptions and approach of Biblical study to Quranic Studies, without realizing how much more there is to work with in the latter (which is the point He makes in the beginning).
@@Nous98 not accurate. The quran was memorized by thousands of muhammad's companions during Muhammad's life time and also written in various media during his lifetime.
It was then compiled as a single book ( mushaf) within 2 years after his death during the time of caliph Abu Bakar. During the process of compilation, each verse has to be verified based on memory of the companions AND a written source. Thus each quranic verse was based by at least 2 eye witnesses of Muhammad's life.
How logical elephants travel vast distances in barren land , no bones , how you feed such large beast
Jung would tell you that the reason Caedmon has "the same story" as Mohammed is due to the collective unconscious.
There are many ways that seams right to the man but the end of it is destruction...Jesus said I m the way the truth and the life , and nobody comes to the father except through Him...John 14:6...Sean, you are Articulated young men but you lost in all different ways & religions and end up in a lake of fire and i sincirely wish that you accept the truth that is Jesus as the only way...Jesus proved to be a true and only pass to life...He was prophesied in the Holy bible and he proved to be Devine in nature of God in flesh.. the miracles He did proved it..
I don’t believe Jesus ever said ‘I am the way and the life no one comes to the father except thru me.’ The seven I am sayings were more likely put on the lips of Jesus by the authors of the book of John. The authors are anonymous and those seven sayings don’t appear in the synoptic gospels. If Jesus was going around claiming how great he is why don’t we see that in the other three gospels? Jesus is not the only way to God. He is a way to God but not the only way.
This is from your own book:
Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
Jesus was a man whom God did miracles through him. Jesus didn’t do it but God did. That makes Jesus a prophet of God not some kind of a god. There is only one god.
Even his teaching is from God:
Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me.
This is also from your book:
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
I for one believe that. Do you believe that statement? Do you believe that the father is the only true god? Do you accept that? I as a Muslim do. You on the hand don’t accept it. You believe Jesus is also a god. That’s blasphemy. You are going against what Jesus was supposed to have said.
Also, Sean Anthony did not tell you what his religious beliefs are. Why are you judging him. His field of study is Islam. How is that bad? Unbelievable.
I for one think you are the one destined for a surprise when you find out Jesus was only a man not a god and that you are responsible for your own deeds and misdeeds. There will be no Jesus to pay for your sins. It’s only you and you alone in the judgment seat. Saul the fraud lied to you and deceived you by claiming Jesus died for your sins. He made up his ‘gospel’. There is only one gospel, and that’s the gospel of Jesus not the fake gospel of Saul.
@@BenM61you can talk all you want but you shouldn’t forget that one of your Allahs name is ( Al maker )meaning deceiver which Allah fools people about crucifixion and says Jesus was not crucified!
@@edisonmanafi5985well the term Makaru means to plot and plan in the context of the verse of the Quran but perhaps you would like to comment on this verse:
2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false
Or Perhaps this one:
Jeremiah 4:10
Then I said, “Ah, Lord God! Surely You have utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, ‘You will have peace’; whereas a sword touches the throat.”
I’ll leave you to work it out.
@@DC-wp6ojexcelllent...