70 jawans killed in biggest Maoists/Naxal attack ever in India

[The Outsider]

Here is a quote from Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.1 (1997) (the main topic of the paper is completely different, but it clearly links 54:1 with the day of judgment) :

As Ibn Mahzyar leaves the meeting with the qa'im, he is told to prepare the brethren for the uprising and to look for the "signs of the parousia" (imarat al- zuhar).40 When he asks about the time of the uprising, in one version, the qa'im tells Ibn Mahzyar the year of the appearance of Behemoth (dabbat al-ard) who carries the staff of Moses and the seal of Solomon, and herds the people into the place of Resurrection (mahshar).41 According to another version, he is simply told "the Hour has drawn near: the moon is split." (Qur'an 54:1)42 The association of Ibn Mahzyar with this apocalyptic tradition may explain his doubt concerning the authority of the Imami hierarchy.

[The Outsider]

^ I haven't read the entire paper - it's a 20-30 page long article. But the broad context is a power struggle in Iran in the 9th century where one of the guys goes to a Mullah for guidance. He is informed to get the people ready for the uprising, and he gives the splitting of the moon as the sign that the time for the uprising has arrived. What it definitively shows is : 1. This Mullah who advised him considered the event of moon splitting to be a future event. 2. More pertinently to the discussion here, the 'expert' unambiguously considers 54:1 to relate to the Hour of judgment.

[seedhi]

^ I haven't read the entire paper - it's a 20-30 page long article. But the broad context is a power struggle in Iran in the 9th century where one of the guys goes to a Mullah for guidance. He is informed to get the people ready for the uprising, and he gives the splitting of the moon as the sign that the time for the uprising has arrived. What it definitively shows is : 1. This Mullah who advised him considered the event of moon splitting to be a future event. 2. More pertinently to the discussion here, the 'expert' unambiguously considers 54:1 to relate to the Hour of judgment.

Mahzyar seems to be a zoroastrian leading a revolt against the Arabs ruling Persia (Iran). The qa'im may not have been completely accurate with him, or may have just used it to motivate him, or may have disagreed with the Arab tradition himself. Interestingly, the word Mah means the zoroaztrian moon god, and Mahzyar means someone who is protected by the moon God.

[The Outsider]

Mahzyar seems to be a zoroastrian leading a revolt against the Arabs ruling Persia (Iran). The qa'im may not have been completely accurate with him, or may have just used it to motivate him, or may have disagreed with the Arab tradition himself. Interestingly, the word Mah means the zoroaztrian moon god, and Mahzyar means someone who is protected by the moon God.

It's irrelevant what the motivations of the qa'im were, and you are free to discuss the details of the paper with the author. My point was that the usage of the phrase 'The Hour' is unequivocally understood in academic circles as to refer to the Hour of Judgment whenever seen in the context of any Abrahamic Religion - the reason is simple there is the only 'The Hour' referred in the scriptures. And I've demonstrated it with respect to the specific verse 54:1 being discussed here.

[The Outsider]

BTW, I find it hard to believe that someone who does not follow Islam - a Zoroastrian - as you are suggesting, would go to a Mullah for advise about when to start a revolt, but I'll have to check the paper to confirm.

[seedhi]

It's irrelevant what the motivations of the qa'im were, and you are free to discuss the details of the paper with the author. My point was that the usage of the phrase 'The Hour' is unequivocally understood in academic circles as to refer to the Hour of Judgment whenever seen in the context of any Abrahamic Religion - the reason is simple there is the only 'The Hour' referred in the scriptures. And I've demonstrated it with respect to the specific verse 54:1 being discussed here.

By academic circles, do you mean western academia or do you also include the interpretations of Islamic authorities and scholars. Because, most of the Islamic interpretation (i.e. of Islamic scholars) is literal as in they acknowledge that this event did occur. The qa'im is more of an exception. In this matter the opinion of the western academics is rather irrelevant IMO.

[The Outsider]

^ Only, western academic circles. I have no interest in discussing Mullahs in an academic conversation. I don't even consider the Mullah 'education' as 'scholarly', so you can save the debate for someone who does. I am no follower of Quran, for it is bunk like every other religious scripture. My contribution to the argument has only been that the term 'The Hour' in Abrahamic literature refers only to the day of judgment. You can find numerous examples of it being used that way through google, and to supplement it I have presented an excerpt from a peer reviewed, refereed journal. If you guys still want to believe that 'The Hour' in 54:1 refers to a past miracle than a future prophecy, please indulge yourselves.

[seedhi]

BTW' date=' I find it hard to believe that someone who does not follow Islam - a Zoroastrian - as you are suggesting, would go to a Mullah for advise about when to start a revolt, but I'll have to check the paper to confirm.[/quote']Maybe I am mistaken. There was definitely a person named Mahzyar or Maziar who led a revolt against the Arabs in 9th century Iran. I am not sure if he is the same person you refer to. Edit: I think I was mistaken, Ibn-Mahzyar is different from Mahzyar.

[seedhi]

^ Only, western academic circles. I have no interest in discussing Mullahs in an academic conversation. I don't even consider the Mullah 'education' as 'scholarly', so you can save the debate for someone who does. I am no follower of Quran, for it is bunk like every other religious scripture. My contribution to the argument has only been that the term 'The Hour' in Abrahamic literature refers only to the day of judgment. You can find numerous examples of it being used that way through google, and to supplement it I have presented an excerpt from a peer reviewed, refereed journal. If you guys still want to believe that 'The Hour' in 54:1 refers to a past miracle than a future prophecy, please indulge yourselves.

That is fine. But you know that Koran and Mohammad's preachings borrow extensively from the Jewish and Christian beliefs of that time. It is possible that the this reference to the splitting of the moon was indeed intended as an actual event to demonstrate the prophethood of Mohammad, as was his encounter with Gabriel. I of course do not believe that such an event ever took place, or that some angel appeared in some cave. But the intent of this reference is something that is probably more apparent from the interpretation in theological circles rather than academic ones.

[The Outsider]

^ Not only do 'I know' that the Quran is but an augmentation of Judaism and Christianity, but as an extension I also know that 'The Hour' is a phrase used in only one sense in these religions - to refer to the day of judgment. You can believe that Muhammad was smart enough to use the term in a completely different context, but I don't and neither does anyone from 'western academic circles'. If you want to get your analytical reasoning down to Mullah level, it's entirely your choice.

[seedhi]

^ Not only do 'I know' that the Quran is but an augmentation of Judaism and Christianity' date=' but as an extension I also know that 'The Hour' is a phrase used in only one sense in these religions - to refer to the day of judgment.[/quote']Frankly, I dont understand what you mean by this. A huge majority of Muslim scholars, right from the companions of Muhammad have believed that Muhammad split the moon. The western interpretation of Islamic theology completely irrelevant to the beliefs held by the Muslims.

You can believe that Muhammad was smart enough to use the term in a completely different context, but I don't and neither does anyone from 'western academic circles'. If you want to get your analytical reasoning down to Mullah level, it's entirely your choice.

Please .. the Koran itself was compiled and written down after Muhammad died, based on the whatever the companions of Muhammad transmitted. It is entirely possible that the companions and others involved in the process intended to include this event to build the aura of prophethood around Mohammad.

[The Outsider]

Frankly, I dont understand what you mean by this. A huge majority of Muslim scholars, right from the companions of Muhammad have believed that Muhammad split the moon. The western interpretation of Islamic theology completely irrelevant to the beliefs held by the Muslims.

And? The vast majority of my village believes that the Earth is stable because Sheshnaag is preventing it from tipping over. Are you going to apply your brain or go by what the vast majority believes? If it's the latter spare me the time and trouble, for I already am aware of what the vast majority believes.

Please .. the Koran itself was compiled and written down after Muhammad died, based on the whatever the companions of Muhammad transmitted. It is entirely possible that the companions and others involved in the process intended to include this event to build the aura of prophethood around Mohammad.

Actually, that is one aspect in which it is pretty difficult to dismiss aspects of the Quran, however rubbish they might be. All versions of the Quran match up identically even according to neutral scholars, giving a large credence to the fact that the Quran we see is at the very least equal to the one being recited during Muhammad's time. But regardless what his companions did, the interpretation of 'The Hour' does not change. Show me another 'The Hour' in any Abrahamic religion.

[The Outsider]

So did the uprising happen or are they still waiting for the moon to break into two.

And it's relevant to the author's interpretation of 54:1, how?

[seedhi]

And? The vast majority of my village believes that the Earth is stable because Sheshnaag is preventing it from tipping over. Are you going to apply your brain or go by what the vast majority believes? If it's the latter spare me the time and trouble' date=' for I already am aware of what the vast majority believes.[/quote']I think you are misunderstanding what I mean. Lets say that someone, say X, 1000 years ago wrote a book B stating clearly that the earth rests on Sheshnag. While you and I may not believe that the earth rests on Sheshnag, it is quite another to argue that the person X who wrote the book did not actually mean what he wrote (either according to his belief or intent). I would actually find it highly patronizing for someone like you or me, who does not believe in the book B anyway, to reinterpret the book B and the author X's intent and then claim that my interpretation is superior to that of the staunch believers in the book. I hope you understand that this has nothing to do with whether the book conforms with natural and physical realities.

Actually, that is one aspect in which it is pretty difficult to dismiss aspects of the Quran, however rubbish they might be. All versions of the Quran match up identically even according to neutral scholars, giving a large credence to the fact that the Quran we see is at the very least equal to the one being recited during Muhammad's time.

The Koran was compiled around 20 years after Mohammad's death, under the orders of the Caliph, with the oral traditions of Mohammad's companions using a consensual approach. Once the compilation was done it was standardized, and other copies that differed were destroyed. There is nothing "magical" about this. There is always the possibility of inaccuracies, biases or errors having crept into the process.

But regardless what his companions did, the interpretation of 'The Hour' does not change. Show me another 'The Hour' in any Abrahamic religion.

That is fine. But the meaning of the verse in question has been agreed to refer to an event that occurred during Muhammad's lifetime by a majority of Islamic scholars right from the companions of Muhammad who have claimed to witness the event themselves. Therefore the hour referred to in the verse is not the The Hour of Judgment.

[The Outsider]

Because if the uprising did occur then he was obviously wrong in his interpretation. Also elsewhere in the Quran ( in chapter 9 and other places ) it calls for war and there is no mention of checking for the state of moon before taking action.

Wrong in interpretation? Did you really expect the moon to be split into two anytime in the past or the future? And what's the relevance of bringing in other verses and calls of war. There are two things to be taken away from what I posted : 1. At least one Mullah in the 9th century believed that moon splitting was a future event. 2. At least one modern western academician interprets 54:1 in the context of it being written as a future event. If you have a problem assimilating any of the above two points, please let me know.

Where do you think the western scholars get their information for the papers that they publish ? It comes from sources authored by Mullahs. Its not like they undertake time travel and observe the scene and then write papers. The Quran itself was authored by a bunch of Mullahs. Just check the bibliography of this paper you are quoting and you will know the sources.

How is that relevant to anything? Of course, western scholars use materials from history which could have been compiled by Mullahs. That does not mean that they don't apply their own brains and interpretations to the material.

[The Outsider]

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean. Lets say that someone, say X, 1000 years ago wrote a book B stating clearly that the earth rests on Sheshnag. While you and I may not believe that the earth rests on Sheshnag, it is quite another to argue that the person X who wrote the book did not actually mean what he wrote (either according to his belief or intent). I would actually find it highly patronizing for someone like you or me, who does not believe in the book B anyway, to reinterpret the book B and the author X's intent and then claim that my interpretation is superior to that of the staunch believers in the book. I hope you understand that this has nothing to do with whether the book conforms with natural and physical realities.

But it's not clear at all that Muhammad wrote that verse to mean he split the moon. There are different interpretations for that verse at the very least. Just because some number believe in interpretation X, does not make it necessarily the right one.

The Koran was compiled around 20 years after Mohammad's death, under the orders of the Caliph, with the oral traditions of Mohammad's companions using a consensual approach. Once the compilation was done it was standardized, and other copies that differed were destroyed. There is nothing "magical" about this. There is always the possibility of inaccuracies, biases or errors having crept into the process.

Where did I say there is anything magical about it? However, many people got together during the compilation. It is quite possible for person A to be wrong about X, person B to be wrong about Y, but very unlikely that dozens of people will be wrong about the same thing. There is nothing magical about it - ask 5 people to memorize something and it's very unlikely that they will be wrong about the exact same thing in their memorization. If you care to recall from your school days, was it more common for children to make the exact same mistake in their recitation of a poem or for different children to make different mistakes?

That is fine. But the meaning of the verse in question has been agreed to refer to an event that occurred during Muhammad's lifetime by a majority of Islamic scholars right from the companions of Muhammad who have claimed to witness the event themselves. Therefore the hour referred to in the verse is not the The Hour of Judgment.

Don't know about the majority part, but even so, it is clear that even in early days an alternate interpretation existed. Now, apply that knowledge to the fact that nowhere in any Abrahamic religion is 'The Hour' used for anything except the Hour of Judgment and the answer should be obvious as to what the original intention of the verse was. What is so unique about this verse that it will be the only aberration of how the word 'The Hour' was used in Abrahamic religions amongst possibly hundreds or thousands of verses referring to the term 'The Hour'? And guess what, modern western academicians agree with me because they are willing to apply their brains beyond, 'Oh look look majority of Mullahs believe in interpretation X, so it must be true'

[seedhi]

But it's not clear at all that Muhammad wrote that verse to mean he split the moon. There are different interpretations for that verse at the very least. Just because some number believe in interpretation X' date=' does not make it necessarily the right one.[/quote']Well, it is clear that Muhammad did not actually ever "write" (I mean it literally) down that verse. The Koran was written by his companions/followers. Now consider the fact that the companions of Muhammad have made it clear in their own writings (Hadiths) that they actually witnessed the event. These people were involved in or influenced a great deal the writing of the Koran.

Where did I say there is anything magical about it? However, many people got together during the compilation. It is quite possible for person A to be wrong about X, person B to be wrong about Y, but very unlikely that dozens of people will be wrong about the same thing. There is nothing magical about it - ask 5 people to memorize something and it's very unlikely that they will be wrong about the exact same thing in their memorization. If you care to recall from your school days, was it more common for children to make the exact same mistake in their recitation of a poem or for different children to make different mistakes?

But the consensus during the time of the writing of the Koran was that the event did actually take place. You can look up the hadiths of the companions, and the traditions of the Meccans from that time and they all claim to have observed the event. This is around the time of the writing of the Koran ~ 650 AD.

Don't know about the majority part, but even so, it is clear that even in early days an alternate interpretation existed.

The event that you mentioned is around 200 years after the writing of the Koran. The consensus at the time of the writing of the Koran seems to be that the event did occur. The traditions of the companions and the meccans at that time was clear.

Now, apply that knowledge to the fact that nowhere in any Abrahamic religion is 'The Hour' used for anything except the Hour of Judgment and the answer should be obvious as to what the original intention of the verse was. What is so unique about this verse that it will be the only aberration of how the word 'The Hour' was used in Abrahamic religions amongst possibly hundreds or thousands of verses referring to the term 'The Hour'? And guess what, modern western academicians agree with me because they are willing to apply their brains beyond, 'Oh look look majority of Mullahs believe in interpretation X, so it must be true'

Who has more credibility regarding the meaning of the verse - the companions of Muhammad who have made it clear that they witnessed the event, who lived around the time the Koran was compiled, the traditions of the meccans who claimed to have witnessed the event OR the western academicians? Well, I guess one can disagree on this one. I go by the traditions of the companions and contemporaries of Muhammad, not just the more recent mullahs.

[The Outsider]

Well, it is clear that Muhammad did not actually ever "write" (I mean it literally) down that verse. The Koran was written by his companions/followers. Now consider the fact that the companions of Muhammad have made it clear in their own writings (Hadiths) that they actually witnessed the event. These people were involved in or influenced a great deal the writing of the Koran.

Of course, Muhammad did not 'write' the verse - I meant that Muhammad is the source of that verse like the rest of the Quran, given that one does not believe that he actually communicated with angels and God. Don't think there is any authentic source which attributes the origin of the Quran to followers of Muhammad instead of Muhammad. Please let me know if there are any neutral sources which state this.

But the consensus during the time of the writing of the Koran was that the event did actually take place. You can look up the hadiths of the companions, and the traditions of the Meccans from that time and they all claim to have observed the event. This is around the time of the writing of the Koran ~ 650 AD.

However, common sense tells us that the event could not have taken place ie. it is impossible to split the Moon into two halves. So, why would Muhammad risk putting his credibility on the line by claiming he split the Moon, when science tells us that he could not have possibly done it. I don't place much credibility in 'lots of people' claiming to have witnessed a miracle. Even in modern times, you would remember how 'lots of people' made Ganesh drink milk.

The event that you mentioned is around 200 years after the writing of the Koran. The consensus at the time of the writing of the Koran seems to be that the event did occur. The traditions of the companions and the meccans at that time was clear.

At the same time, it is also clear that the event could not have occurred. As an extension, it becomes clear that the companions and their traditions were lying about it.

Who has more credibility regarding the meaning of the verse - the companions of Muhammad who have made it clear that they witnessed the event, who lived around the time the Koran was compiled, the traditions of the meccans who claimed to have witnessed the event OR the western academicians? Well, I guess one can disagree on this one. I go by the traditions of the companions and contemporaries of Muhammad, not just the more recent mullahs.

That's a huge contradiction. How can you even begin to believe dodgy sources which believe the Moon was split and they witnessed it. The fact that these sources claim some event, which is a scientific impossibility, occurred should put a huge question mark on their authenticity. And here you are believing them over modern, neutral academicians. This is not simply about taking a vote of Mullahs. It is a specific literary verse and has to be looked into and examined in the context of literature and history, both of which unequivocally tell us that the term 'The Hour' was used in Abrahamic religions only to refer to the Hour Of Judgment in all literature and throughout history, despite what some liars who saw the Moon being split might say.

[The Outsider]

Moreover, if one were to read the verses following 54:1 - [54:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful [54:1] The Hour has come closer, and the moon has split. [54:2] Then they saw a miracle; but they turned away and said, "Old magic." [54:3] They disbelieved, followed their opinions, and adhered to their old traditions. [54:4] Sufficient warnings have been delivered to alert them. [54:5] Great wisdom; but all the warnings have been in vain. [54:6] Ignore them; the day will come when the caller will announce a terrible disaster. [54:7] With their eyes humiliated, they come out of the graves like scattered locusts. [54:8] As they respond to the caller, the disbelievers will say, "This is a difficult day." They make sense only in the context of 54:1 being associated with the Hour of Judgment. For example, 54:2-54:5 clearly refer to the remaining disbelievers at that time, a common theme of Abrahamic religions. 54:6 and 54:8 make references to 'The Day', which has been associated with disasters as the world comes to an end. Then later on the same reference to 'The Hour' in the same chapter : [54:46] The Hour is awaiting them, and the Hour is far worse and more painful.

[seedhi]

Of course, Muhammad did not 'write' the verse - I meant that Muhammad is the source of that verse like the rest of the Quran, given that one does not believe that he actually communicated with angels and God. Don't think there is any authentic source which attributes the origin of the Quran to followers of Muhammad instead of Muhammad. Please let me know if there are any neutral sources which state this. However, common sense tells us that the event could not have taken place ie. it is impossible to split the Moon into two halves. So, why would Muhammad risk putting his credibility on the line by claiming he split the Moon, when science tells us that he could not have possibly done it. I don't place much credibility in 'lots of people' claiming to have witnessed a miracle. Even in modern times, you would remember how 'lots of people' made Ganesh drink milk. At the same time, it is also clear that the event could not have occurred. As an extension, it becomes clear that the companions and their traditions were lying about it. That's a huge contradiction. How can you even begin to believe dodgy sources which believe the Moon was split and they witnessed it. The fact that these sources claim some event, which is a scientific impossibility, occurred should put a huge question mark on their authenticity. And here you are believing them over modern, neutral academicians. This is not simply about taking a vote of Mullahs. It is a specific literary verse and has to be looked into and examined in the context of literature and history, both of which unequivocally tell us that the term 'The Hour' was used in Abrahamic religions only to refer to the Hour Of Judgment in all literature and throughout history, despite what some liars who saw the Moon being split might say.

Let me try to distill what we are discussing. Basically the question is why should we "trust" the word of the companions/contemporaries of Muhammad as to the meaning of the verse in the Koran. Your argument (at least in part) seems to rest on the fact that such an event is a scientific impossibility and therefore those companions were lying. From this you seek to place more weight on the opinion on recent interpretations of the verse. My take on this is the following. There is a possibility that the companions witnessed something that seemed like the splitting of the moon - perhaps some natural phenomenon, cloud formation or smoke etc. I dont know, but it is one possibility. Second could be that this particular incident was at least partially made up to enhance the aura of prophethood of Muhammad. This was (already) used to draw more followers into the fold of Islam. Given the fact that the consensus during Muhammad's lifetime and during the writing of the Koran seems to be that the event did occur, from multiple sources detailing that the 2 parts of the moon were on either side of a mountain, I think that it is entirely possible that this was a delusion induced by some natural phenomenon. It is pertinent that you brought up the Ganesha drinking milk "miracle". Now of course there is a scientific explanation (capillary action or evaporation etc) but a lot of people in this day and age were taken in and deluded by it. Similarly, Muhammad may have been clever/fortuitous enough to utilize such a natural phenomenon to his benefit and people believed it. After all this is how legends are built up using "miracles" and stuff.