Page 8 of 25

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:43 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:
Ofcourse hadiths were written after the death of muhammad. I am not saying they are all accurate but saying that they are all made up is equally silly which is what CAT is arguing. As I said if they all made up stories to corrupt islam then one must forget about quran . People who can forge scriptures like hadiths, sira can easily forge quran . Infact the case for corruption of quran becomes stronger when one says that hadiths have been forged because as a corrupt person one would first aim at quran and then other scriptures because quran is the main book of islam.You are a hypocrite if you believe only in quran and reject the hadiths completely because by the virtue of your own arguments you debunk quran too along with debunking hadiths .
I agree with all that stuff you said SKB., I must have said at least 1000 times 'Quran is NOT word of allah/god neither all of that you see in Quran was said by Muhammad ., Like Hadith this book was also put together by Muhammad followers 10s of years after the death of Muhammad. So I have no disagreement with you there.

What all I am saying is, as a belief /religious belief/cult ., whatever you call, Followers of Muhammad have the right to choose what they think is right for them ad their islam. So some Muslim think Quran is the best way to go. That doesn't mean you are NOT allowed to question their belief. I am saying that because of your words
We do have hadiths where muhammad himself asked down to write what he said .Anyway there cant be a case for quran only muslim. Either you accept all the junk or reject all . All the arguments that he brought have already been answered.
I understand as a Non-Muslim or as an atheist "you have rejected everything In Islam" , But for those who believe in Islam have the right to choose Quran as the only Islamic religious doctrine" and rest are silly junk stories. off course people like you will still have the freedom to question Islam/Quran/Muhammad.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:53 am
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:Followers of Muhammad have the right to choose what they think is right for them ad their islam.

This is exactly where the problem is: the followers of 'Muhammad' aren't Muslims but Muhammadans. And they aren't following Islam...

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:02 am
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:We do have hadiths where muhammad himself asked down to write what he said....

The forgers forged them all. No sweat... the lying pen of the scribes took care of this -long respected- interdiction.

Now, all you've got to do is:

a) Prove the existence of nowadays Mecca in the 6th/7th centuries.

b) Explain the huge time-gap of 2 centuries without any sahih hadith whatsoever.

c) Why the mutawatir type is quantitatively almost absent from all the so-called 'Sahih' collections.

skynightblaze wrote:All the arguments that he brought have already been answered.

How so? For my files are replete to the contrary...

All your interventions herein acknowledge a deafening ignorance on the subject of Islamic history.

http://www.free-minds.org/hadithhistory

http://www.maaref-foundation.com/englis ... xtreme.htm
It should be noted that the traditionists during the second and third centuries were not rationalists at all. They only took into account the surface meaning of both Qur’ān verses and traditions which were mostly fabricated ones. They believed in anthropomorphism. To oppose them, the Mu‘tazilites emphasized the role of intellect. The first trend prevailed among the traditionists such as Zuhrī, Abu l-Zanād, Radjā’ Ibn Haywa who were linked to the Umayyads. The other one as a result opposed the Umayyads. Accordingly, they were attentive to the role of intellect in contrast with those who were attentive to the traditions that were written long ago and were mostly forged ones. These groups were also experts in political affairs so they were opposing the Umayyads both because of their religious and political approaches.


The Traditions of Islam, an Introduction to the study of the Hadith Literature, by Alfred Guillaume.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Gu ... /index.htm
--The Evolution of Hadith (chapter one)
--The Umayyad Period (chapter two)
--The Abbasid Period (3)
--Criticism of Hadith by Muslims (4). More...

Then, educate yourself....
The Hadiths' Perfidy
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8185

On the historical Mecca
a) Read back the two first pages of this thread.
b) MECCA -Myth vs Reality: In Search of Mt Sinai!
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8527

There's a world of theological differences between the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties. Under the former, Christians considered the new faith as yet another heresy (that of the Ishmaelite) emerging from a shadowy Mamed (as John of Damascus, working for the Umayyads like his father, spelled it). It's only under the Abbasid that Christians began to perceive the movement as a disconnecting brand new faith...

First by Theophanes the Confessor, around 800AD. Yet, even he still completely ignores the existence of Mecca !

Byzantine Sources. Historians and Chroniclers. Theophanes the Confessor – Chronicle
http://www.answering-islam.org/history/ ... onses.html
He knows of the anti-Umayyad rebellion of Abdallah ibn al-Zubair but thinks it was at Yathrib (Medina) rather than Mecca. Theophanes does not seem to know about Mecca as he fails to mention it in his summary of Muhammad’s career in the year 6122 (629/630).

That the Koran was created was already mainstream under the Mutazilites of old. That's how the Ulama emerged in reaction to...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazili
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharijites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulama

On the historical Muhammad...
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modu ... oryid=9372
It is a striking fact that such documentary evidence as survives from the Sufnayid period makes no mention of the messenger of god at all. The papyri do not refer to him. The Arabic inscriptions of the Arab-Sasanian coins only invoke Allah, not his rasul [messenger]; and the Arab-Byzantine bronze coins on which Muhammad appears as rasul Allah, previously dated to the Sufyanid period, have not been placed in that of the Marwanids. Even the two surviving pre-Marwanid tombstones fail to mention the rasul.

The great scandal of Islamic tradition is the absence of Islamic formulations from coins and monuments dating from the its first two centuries, as well as the presence of material obviously incompatible with Islam. "Coins and inscriptions are incompatible with the Islamic writing of history," Kalisch concludes on the strength of older work, including Yehuda Nevo and Jutith Koren's Crossroads to Islam.

The oldest inscription with the formulation "Mohammed Messenger of Allah" is to found in the 66th year of Islamic reckoning, and after that used continuously. But there also exist coins found in Palestine, probably minted in Amman, on which the word "Muhammed" is found in Arabic script on one side, and a picture of a man holding a cross on the other.


ImageImage

How Muhammad’s Sunna Trumps Allah’s Book, by Sam Shamoun.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... _quran.htm

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:39 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:Followers of Muhammad have the right to choose what they think is right for them ad their islam.

This is exactly where the problem is: the followers of 'Muhammad' aren't Muslims but Muhammadans. And they aren't following Islam...
Well., I am not sure how one can differentiate between those Muslims whom you call as "Muhammadans" and others who are Muslims but do not Follow Muhammad and yet consider him as Messenger of Allah/God dear "The Cat"

To differentiate these two groups, you need to give some definitions and examples of such folks from the Islamic history. I may have not read all of your posts, but you have to answer some simple questions such as .

1). Would you consider those Muslims whom you think are "NOT Muhammadans" as the followers of Quran and strictly Quran only??

2). Would you consider Quran as the word of Allah and do you consider Allah as God and nothing but God??

3). Do you think If All Muslim folks follow Quran then the life will be better for non-Muslims and Muslims??

There are plenty of such simple questions to answer and more over even if Muslim restrict themselves to Quarn only doctrine, still there is enough dirt in it people will not stop questioning it in the present times. And on top of it as far as I consider there is absolutely nothing new in it that was not there in the previous scriptures of other religions. At the best you can say Quran is a smaller/filtered versions of other religious views of that time in addition to some junk against Christians, Jews, idolaters and non believers/infidels.

What is there in Quran, Every chapter of Quran can be is essentially divided in to three parts and tells same thing. Here is my conclusion after reading Quran more than 10 times, every verse of it..
A 30% if it Praise those who follow what is there in it along with some word like, Muhammad being last Prophet/messenger similar to other prophets/messengers of past to enforce Muhammad's Image in the minds of believers and to drag other religious folks in to the fold of Islam.
033.040
YUSUFALI: Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets : and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
PICKTHAL: Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is ever Aware of all things.
SHAKIR: Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things.

And another 30% of it gives all sorts of loot booty goody goodies to those who follow this Islamic doctrine/rules in this life and after this life along with Hell fire, terror in this life and after this life to those who question him and his followers.

And another 30% of is all about Jewish, Christian pagan stories, specially Christ being Not son of Allah/God but a messenger of Allah god

rest of 10% is pure nonsense and repetitive rubbish
Now at this time and age with scientific advances cutting into the core of superstition of every religion, people will question Islam and its relevance to humanity in 21st century with or without Hadith.

Any ways I do consider your analysis without Hadith is valid to the extent to SOFTEN present Islam a bit and make less violent version of Islam. Now I do understand that your way of looking Historical truth is necessary for academics who explore history of Islam.

with best regards
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:34 pm
by The Cat
Hi dear yeezevee.

On 33.40...

1. Muhammad is not the father (ABA) of any man among you,
-- Aba or Abu can mean not only biological affiliation but a tribe or counsel leader,
i.e. Do not follow any man among you (in religious matter).

2. but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal (khatama) of the Prophets (An-Nabīyīna)
--Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, NOT of the messengers.
--Khatama (khatam) in Aramaic means the 'witness of'. Even the term 'seal' indicates a guarantor, not necessarily a termination.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/seal
--Nabi (prophet) has an Akkadian origin meaning 'to call' (Nabu, as in: Nabuchodonosor, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Islam

According to the Koran itself, even Muhammad is not to be called an Imam.
This expression is reserved to Abraham (2.124), Isaac and Jacob (21.73) !
What about all those later 'Imams'?

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:56 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote:Hi dear yeezevee.

On 33.40...

1. Muhammad is not the father (ABA) of any man among you,
-- Aba or Abu can mean not only biological affiliation but a tribe or counsel leader,
i.e. Do not follow any man among you (in religious matter).

2. but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal (khatama) of the Prophets (An-Nabīyīna)
--Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, NOT of the messengers.
--Khatama (khatam) in Aramaic means the 'witness of'. Even the term 'seal' indicates a guarantor, not necessarily a termination.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/seal
--Nabi (prophet) has an Akkadian origin meaning 'to call' (Nabu, as in: Nabuchodonosor, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Islam

According to the Koran itself, even Muhammad is not to be called an Imam.
This expression is reserved to Abraham (2.124), Isaac and Jacob (21.73) !
What about all those later 'Imams'?
I casually dropped that verse in my previous post dear The Cat., You are right and you do have point there That Muhammad was a Prophet and a Messenger but he was Last Prophet. Which essentially means there was/is a potential possibility of new messengers of Allah after the demise of Muhammad., But you have to realize here that what you said also can easily be questioned. Any ways thanks for those links to skynightblaze

http://www.free-minds.org/hadithhistory
http://www.maaref-foundation.com/englis ... xtreme.htm
http://www.maaref-foundation.com/englis ... /index.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Gu ... /index.htm

I am going through them carefully.. and please watch Mr. Islam of India.. dr. Zakir Naik on that last messenger prophet.. thing..



with best wishes
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:16 pm
by Idesigner
1. Muhammad is not the father (ABA) of any man among you,


I know all about depraved mentality of that Arabiab rapist war lord Mohemmed.

He does not want to be father of any man ( how about woman? Fatima?) among you.

If he is not father of any one then he can practically marry and screw any woman he liked, including Fatima, her daughter or his adopted son's wife, or if he had lived long enough, daughters of Fatima, daughters of Husain etc. After all he was specially sent prophet, he had no worldly realtions to any one of them.

He did screw his daughter in law. Thank god he was getting old and his joy stick became floppy disc , if his Allah had given him power till eternity he would have screwed lots of women,may be he is doing that stuff in Zahannam( in hell). There no worldy laws apply.

After all Muslims are well known for taking literal meaning of Koran. Well they do their best to follow Mohemmed. They marry their nearest relatives.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:08 pm
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:You are right and you do have point there That Muhammad was a Prophet and a Messenger but he was Last Prophet.

You are but repeating a very common error, extending the meaning of 'seal' to uphold that Muhammad was the last prophet.
We often see 'the Last Day' in the Koran (ex. 2.126, waalyawmi al-akhiri) and it's obviously different from khatama (seal)...

So I'll repeat...
2. but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal (khatama) of the Prophets (An-Nabīyīna)
--Khatama (khatam) in Aramaic means the 'witness of'. Even the term 'seal' indicates a guarantor, not necessarily a termination.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/seal
Noun.
2. Something, such as a commercial hallmark, that authenticates, confirms, or attests.

8. anything that gives a pledge or confirmation

Verb
1. to affix a seal to, as proof of authenticity
2. to stamp with or as if with a seal
3. to approve or authorize

authentication, stamp, confirmation, assurance, ratification, notification, insignia, imprimatur, attestation the President's seal...


So in 33.40 Muhammad is made such. Nothing to do with a 'Last Prophet', but a confirmation of the prophetS.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:43 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:You are right and you do have point there That Muhammad was a Prophet and a Messenger but he was Last Prophet.

You are but repeating a very common error, extending the meaning of 'seal' to uphold that Muhammad was the last prophet.
....
So I'll repeat...
2. but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal (khatama) of the Prophets (An-Nabīyīna)
--Khatama (khatam) in Aramaic means the 'witness of'. Even the term 'seal' indicates a guarantor, not necessarily a termination.

So in 33.40 Muhammad is made such. Nothing to do with the 'Last Prophet', but a confirmation of the prophetS.
What are you trying to say "The Cat"?? You mean to say that verse is NOT saying that " Muhammad was the last Prophet"?? Well with that, you are going against all conventional Arabic wisdom of explaining Quran. May be you are looking through Aramaic Quran through the book of Christoph Luxenberg. That is O. K. but you have to realize here that even Quran only Muslims will not like such analysis of Quran by Christoph Luxenberg, forget 1.5 billion Muslims.

One of the problem with your posts in THIS THREAD is, you are scattering information without conclusions. On top you will not answer simple questions that are posed in the thread ..lol. That is all right you can hide the information. But Using that verse and others from Quran, what are you saying here the Cat?? Do you mean to say,

Quran only says that "it only confirms the PAST PROPHETS described in OT and NT and it doesn't tell anything about a character called "Muahmmad" ?? Or

Quran says that "it confirms the PAST PROPHETS described in OT and NT and Puts Muhammad in the similar category as that of other Prophets described in OT and NT?? & doesn't talk about Prophets and messengers after Muhammad?

So did you read this book The Cat??

Image

with best
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:34 pm
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote: You mean to say that verse is NOT saying that " Muhammad was the last Prophet"?? Well with that, you are going against all conventional Arabic wisdom of explaining Quran.

In Arabic the word for 'last' is AAKHIR, not Khatam (seal). In 33.40 it is khatam that's plainly written, NOT Aakhir (last).

http://khatam.org/
خاتم النبیین (Seal of the Prophets). خاتم (Khatam) is derived from ختم. They say ختم الشیئ او ختم علیہ i.e. he sealed, stamped, impressed or imprinted the thing or he put the seal on it. This is the primary signification of this word. Or the primary signification of ختم (Khatmun) is the act of covering over the thing. It also signifies the protecting of what is in a writing by marking or stamping a piece of clay upon it, or by means of a seal of any kind. ختم الشیئ also means, he reached the end of the thing. ختم القرآن means, he recited the whole of the Qur'an. This is the secondary meaning of the word. Thus خاتم (khatam) means, a signet-ring; a seal or stamp and a mark; the end or last part or portion and result or issue of a thing; the hollow of the back of the neck. The words ختم (khatmun) and خاتم (khatim and khatam) are almost synonymous and mean a signet.....

To state that khatam means 'of the signature or signet of the prophets' wouldn't be too far stretched...

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?t ... #msg234911
Allah never said that Muhammad was the "last" of the prophets, it said that he was the "seal". If He meant to say "last" (akhir), it's pretty reasonable to conclude that He would've said "last", or any of the other words or expressions that directly imply it (i.e. final, end, conclusion, no other after, etc.). None of these terms were used.....

If Muhammad is identified as the "seal" of the prophets, this could mean that he is the IDENTIFICATION (another usage of the word "seal") of the prophets, since he is said to have been spoken about in their writings. It could also mean that he is the CONFIRMATION or the VERIFICATION, which implies the same thing. It doesn't necessarily mean the "last" anything. If you mark something with a "presidential seal", does that mean you are putting the "presidential LAST" on it? Are the words "seal" and "final" interchangeable in your opinion? The ONLY sources that directly say that Muhammad is the final/last/conclusion/end of the prophets are the writings of the hadiyth and sunna, many of which are blatantly fabricated.


http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?t ... #msg271851
If you translate and understand what is muhammad, then you will know that it is a definition of Khatam. Seal, Mark, and Characteristics of every prophet is muhammad. There is no mystery to 33:40 for all those who are seeking the truth from Allah. Every prophet/messenger/warner is a muhammad .

That is of course ''Praise Worthy''.

yeezevee wrote:One of the problem with your posts in THIS THREAD is, you are scattering information without conclusions.

My conclusion is that Muhammad, as a person, is an unhistorical post-montage forged by the hadiths,
and that this conventional tradition fabricated his identity much more than the other way around.
Thus the scattered informations I'm giving are towering to illustrate this very conclusion...

Muhammadans aren't even the followers of Muhammad. They follow the Religion of Imam Bukhari !

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:02 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote:
In Arabic the word for 'last' is AAKHIR, not Khatam (seal). In 33.40 it is khatam that's plainly written, NOT Aakhir (last).
...http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?t ... #msg234911 ..
http://khatam.org/
"AAKHIR" .. really? that is interesting ., I didn't know that., that word "AAKHIR" or "Last" seems to be the same one as that from Indian Languages such as Punjabi, Urdu, Sindhi, Hindi etc..
Allah never said that Muhammad was the "last" of the prophets, it said that he was the "seal". If He meant to say "last" (akhir), it's pretty reasonable to conclude that He would've said "last", or any of the other words or expressions that directly imply it (i.e. final, end, conclusion, no other after, etc.). None of these terms were used.....

If Muhammad is identified as the "seal" of the prophets, this could mean that he is the IDENTIFICATION (another usage of the word "seal") of the prophets, since he is said to have been spoken about in their writings. It could also mean that he is the CONFIRMATION or the VERIFICATION, which implies the same thing. It doesn't necessarily mean the "last" anything. If you mark something with a "presidential seal", does that mean you are putting the "presidential LAST" on it? Are the words "seal" and "final" interchangeable in your opinion? The ONLY sources that directly say that Muhammad is the final/last/conclusion/end of the prophets are the writings of the hadiyth and sunna, many of which are blatantly fabricated. http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?t ... #msg271851
If you translate and understand what is muhammad, then you will know that it is a definition of Khatam. Seal, Mark, and Characteristics of every prophet is muhammad. There is no mystery to 33:40 for all those who are seeking the truth from Allah. Every prophet/messenger/warner is a muhammad .
That is of course ''Praise Worthy''.
I see, The moment you say, Muhammad means a Praise worthy character and that word could be used for any good person or previous Prophets, then you changed whole story of Islam. by those words in essence you are saying., This book, Quran could be written WITHOUT Muhammad, the essential character of the usual Islam. Did I get you right??
yeezevee wrote:One of the problem with your posts in THIS THREAD is, you are scattering information without conclusions.

My conclusion is that Muhammad, as a person, is an unhistorical post-montage forged by the hadiths,
and that this conventional tradition fabricated his identity much more than the other way around.
Thus the scattered informations I'm giving are towering to illustrate this very conclusion...

Muhammadans aren't even the followers of Muhammad. They follow the Religion of Imam Bukhari !
Well I understand what you are trying to say in this thread but i want to make sure. I know you are trying to bounce of all Hadith & sunnah. In fact you are throwing Muhammad "the usual prophet of Islam" out of Islam and basically what you are saying is, that book Quran is written as general purpose guidance book based upon the words of previous scriptures.

Now the immediate question is ., Can you interpret all verses of Quran on the basis that there was NO character "Muhammad" and Quran is all about Prophets and their words of earlier religions way before 6th century?? But I certainly like this thing from you
Muhammadans aren't even the followers of Muhammad. They follow the Religion of Imam Bukhari !
So I am going to CALL THESE Bearded Bukharism preaching Mullah RASCALS as "Bukharians". not Muslims and not Muhammadans ..lol., But one has to make sure that all 114 chapters of Quran could be interpreted without usual "Muhammad" o Islam.

with best
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:43 am
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:We do have hadiths where muhammad himself asked down to write what he said....

The forgers forged them all. No sweat... the lying pen of the scribes took care of this -long respected- interdiction.


Lets see..

Now, all you've got to do is:
The Cat wrote:a) Prove the existence of nowadays Mecca in the 6th/7th centuries.


It is said that prior to the construction of the Kaabah, a tent existed on the spot where it was built.[ii][2] The tribe of Khuzaa'h came from Yemen around the 2nd century A.D. In the 4th century A.D., they moved toward the area where Mecca was eventually built. Since they didn’t find a temple there in which to worship, they pitched their tent in a field.

Information from the writers of the 8th century A.D., who depended on information from the time of Mohammed, indicates the Kaabah was built at the beginning of the 5th century A.D. by a Himyarite pagan Yemeni leader named Asa’d Abu Karb. He is also called Abu Karb Asa’d, and he reigned in Yemen from 410 to 435 A.D.[iii][3] The fact that the Islamic historians admit that Asa’d Abu Karb was the first ruler in history to dress the Kaabah is a significant indicator that he was the true builder of the Kaabah.[iv][4] Dressing a temple in Arabia was the second stage of its construction. It included decoratively finishing the inside walls, putting carpets on the walls and the floor, and adding textured and crocheted items on various parts of the interior building. (Arabians will not pray in a temple which is not dressed.) Asa’d Abu Karb used Amer from Azed to build the inside walls of the Kaabah.[v][5] (Azed is a tribe which came from Yemen at the same time Khuzaah’s tribe came.) So Asa’d Abu Karb, the first to build and dress the Kaabah, must have first built it when there was just a tent where the Yemeni tribe of Khuzaa'h worshipped. Asa’d Abu Karb, also called Tubb'a, occupied the city of Yathrib before coming to Mecca.[vi][6] It seems he found many temples in Yathrib, but when he came to Mecca, he didn’t find any temple there. Because the inhabitants were recent emigrants from Yemen, Asa’d Abu Karb built them a modest temple in the Yemeni style. He did this to connect the people with himself. He also wrote a poem in which he described the sun setting in a spring of black mud, something Mohammed included in the Qur’an.

Additions by Quraish to the Building Which Asa’d Abu Karb Built

Quraish, the tribe Mohammed came from, later occupied the city. They acquired a black stone from Yemen so that their temple would be like all the other Kaabahs which, according to the worship of the Star Family of Arabia, were built around a black stone. Family Star worship started in Yemen, the place from which the Quraish emigrated. The first Kaabah built by Asa’d Abu Karb, had a wood roof. That roof burned, so next they used wood carried by a Byzantine ship, which stopped on the coast of the Red Sea at a place called “al-Shaebieth “. The owner of the ship was a Coptic Egyptian named Bachum. He sold the wood to them and made the roofing for the Kaabah.[vii][7] Later, when Mohammed was still young, further elements were added to the simple building.[viii][8]


http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... uction.htm

I searched many sites and all of them claim that there is no historical evidence of mecca in existence until 4th century AD but all the sites unanimously agree that there is historical evidence of mecca existing in the 4th century. I have no idea from where you got this idea that Mecca wasnt mentioned anywhere till the 8th century. I will look for exact historical quotes which prove this but I have found many sites claiming that there is historical evidence for existence of mecca in the 4th century AD. This of course debunks the typical myth of muslims that Abraham built Kaaba a few thousands years before muhammad however mecca existed in the 4th century A.d.This article makes an interesting point. The muslim historians themselves acknowledge that mecca was built in the 4th century .


The Cat wrote:b) Explain the huge time-gap of 2 centuries without any sahih hadith whatsoever.


Who told you there was a time gap?? There were early hadiths and they were compiled into an encyclopedia by Bukhari by sifting between the authentic ones and unauthentic ones...

Spoiler! :
Among the manuscripted hadith collections of the first Hijri century are:

1. `Abd Allah ibn `Amr ibn al-`As (d. 63), al-Sahifa al- Sadiqa, originally containing about 1,000 hadiths of which 500 reached us, copied down by `Abd Allah directly from the Prophet - upon him blessings and peace - and transmitted to us by his great-grandson `Amr ibn Shu`ayb (d. 118);

2. Hammam ibn Munabbih's (d. 101 or 131) al-Sahifa al- Sahiha which has reached us complete in two manuscripts containing 138 hadiths narrated by Hammam from Abu Hurayra (d. 60), from the Prophet - upon him blessings and peace;

3. The lost folios of Aban ibn `Uthman (d. 105) the son of `Uthman ibn `Affan (d. 35), from whom Muhammad ibn Ishaq (80-150/152) narrated;

4. The accomplished works of `Urwa (d. ~92-95) - the son of al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam and grandson of Asma' and `A'isha the learned daughters of Abu Bakr the Truthful. `Urwa ordered them burnt, after a lifetime of teaching from them, during the sack of Madina by the armies of Syro-Palestine under Yazid ibn Mu`awiya in 63;

5. Muhammad ibn Shihab al-Zuhri's (d. 120) Sira, from which Ibn Ishaq also borrowed much;

6. `Asim ibn `Umar ibn Qatada ibn al-Nu`man al-Ansari's (d. 120 or 129) Maghazi and Manaqib al-Sahaba, another principal thiqa source for Ibn Ishaq and others;

7. `Abd Allah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn `Amr ibn Hazm al-Ansari's (d. 135) tome, another main source for Ibn Ishaq Ibn Sa`d, and others;

8. The most reliable Sira of the Madinan Musa ibn `Uqba al-Asadi (d. 141), praised by Imam Malik and used by Ibn Sa`d and others.


http://www.livingislam.org/n/vih_e.html

The Cat wrote:c) Why the mutawatir type is quantitatively almost absent from all the so-called 'Sahih' collections.


They are absent because bukhari didnt include for the fear of excessive lengths.. See what Bukhari had to write about his collections...

Bukhari wrote: "I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic for fear of [excessive] length.(Footnote 2)"

Footnote 2 says:

He [al-Bukhari] meant that he did not mention all the turuq [parallel chains of transmission] for each and every hadith.[7]


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/bukhari.html

Bukhari didnt mention parallel chains of transmission to avoid excessive length and not because there were no mutawatir hadiths.

Btw did you realize you are contradicting your claims??? On one hand you claim that hadiths were a fabrication of the 8th century and then later you claim that there were no mutawatir hadith in Bukhari and hence he must be a liar which means you take mutawatir hadiths to be authentic. Now the question is how can you trust Mutawatir hadith which too were a product of 8th century especially when you yourself claim that entire hadiths were a fabrication and the product of 8th century????? Someone who can fabricate the entire scripture can easily fabricate the parallel chains of transmissions. Do you see how flawed and incoherent your thought pattern is??? Btw I wrote this just to show you how flawed your thinking is and I dont consider mutawatir hadith to be unauthentic.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:04 am
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:ll your interventions herein acknowledge a deafening ignorance on the subject of Islamic history.


I never claimed that I am knowledgeable on this subject. One cant debate this topic without resorting to search but it seems that you are equally ignorant on subject of islamic history and free minds have managed to fool you..



I will look at it..

http://www.maaref-foundation.com/englis ... xtreme.htm

It should be noted that the traditionists during the second and third centuries were not rationalists at all. They only took into account the surface meaning of both Qur’ān verses and traditions which were mostly fabricated ones.
They believed in anthropomorphism. To oppose them, the Mu‘tazilites emphasized the role of intellect. The first trend prevailed among the traditionists such as Zuhrī, Abu l-Zanād, Radjā’ Ibn Haywa who were linked to the Umayyads. The other one as a result opposed the Umayyads. Accordingly, they were attentive to the role of intellect in contrast with those who were attentive to the traditions that were written long ago and were mostly forged ones. These groups were also experts in political affairs so they were opposing the Umayyads both because of their religious and political approaches.



Where is the proof for this? I suppose this article is written by people in 19th century. How do these 19th century people know what the real meaning of the verses was?? How do they know that it wasnt the other way round i,e Mu‘tazilites used their own intellect and ignored the actual history attached to the verses of quran by using their intellect?

Btw since when did islam ask for using one's intelligence as far as understand quran is concerned? 5:101 discourages the believers from questioning islam so its clear that one is not supposed to use his intelligence and blindly believe in what is told .If this is what the traditionist in 2nd and 3rd century did then they were correct because thats what quran expects of them.

Btw this argument that intellect has to be used to understand is completely stupid. If everyone starts using his intellect to understand we cant have a uniform opinion(which is precisely the case now e.g different sects like shias , sunnis etc) and every single person would interpret so called guidance differently(everyone has different point of view) so in such a case how can anyone claim intellect has to be used to understand quran? The moment you say that intellect has to be used to understand it means quran is not a clear and easy to understand book and it generates a scope of deviating from what is the real message.

I suppose you copied this from a muslim site and thats why they are making flawed arguments .

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:57 am
by yeezevee
SKB digged something out of internet
skynightblaze wrote:
Lets see..
..................................
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... uction.htm
that is an interesting link

Image

That is an interesting book written by Dr. Rafat Amari some one in fact started a thread on his book at viewtopic.php?f=20&t=105

The Cat it is worth reading the following links of Dr. Rafat Amari

1). THE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF ARABIA SHOW THAT MECCA DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE ADVENT OF CHRISTIANITY. http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... eology.htm

2).STUDIES BY CLASSICAL WRITERS SHOW THAT MECCA COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT BEFORE THE 4TH CENTURY A.D. http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... eology.htm

3). THE BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MECCA CLAIM http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... _bible.htm

4). THE KAABAH AS TEMPLE OF THE ARABIAN STAR WORSHIP http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/star.htm

5). THE ROLE OF THE TEMPLE AT MECCA IN THE JINN RELIGION OF ARABIA http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... temple.htm

6). THE TRUE STORY OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE OF MECCA http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... uction.htm

7). IS MOHAMMED A DESCENDENT OF ISHMAEL? http://religionresearchinstitute.org/Mo ... shmael.htm

8). The alleged Ascension of Mohammed to heaven http://religionresearchinstitute.org/Mo ... ension.htm

9). Occultism in the family of Mohammed http://religionresearchinstitute.org/Mo ... ultism.htm

clearly Dr. Rafat Amari did a thorough research than these guys at http://www.free-minds.org/hadithhistory And his work clarifies most of the doubts on the History of Mecca. please share these links with that forum at http://free-minds.org/forum/

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:19 am
by skynightblaze
Yeezevee wrote:I understand as a Non-Muslim or as an atheist "you have rejected everything In Islam" , But for those who believe in Islam have the right to choose Quran as the only Islamic religious doctrine" and rest are silly junk stories. off course people like you will still have the freedom to question Islam/Quran/Muhammad.


I think there is no disagreement between us . When I said "either accept islam with hadiths or else reject it entirely" I didnt exactly mean to say that they should be forced . May be I made a mistake. I should have said ..

Academically or as far as discussion is concerned they have only 2 options : either accept islam in its entirety or reject islam in its entirety . Muslims are left with these 2 choices as a result of logic and not because I want to force them. If one wishes to follow quran alone its his personal choice however academically he can be proven wrong in the light of proofs that we have he doesnt become a true muslim.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:06 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote: I think there is no disagreement between us ., I didnt exactly mean .......... I should have said ..
Well Often I don't express my self with proper words., and even if we have disagreement with each other or with The Cat., one should not worry about that SKB., We can always politely agree to disagree with each other., Any ways., going back to the topic.. On History and geography of Mecca ., the link at http://www.historyofmecca.com/geography_mecca.htm says..

Through ancient historical record archaeologists have been able to locate, and thereby uncover, evidence of the route that Abraham took on his journey as chronicled in the Old "Testament" (diatheke / covenant).

Image

We learn that the path of his travels remained for the most-part within the fertile crescent, where there were pastures, game and settlements, with Abraham eventually settling in Hebron.

Genesis 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. 16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, [then] shall thy seed also be numbered. 17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee. 18 Then Abram removed [his] tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which [is] in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the LORD.

Image
His sons Isaac and Ishmael eventually buried their father in the cave of Machpelah, near Hebron. Jews, Christians, and Muslims visit the area where Abraham was buried, even today.

Genesis 25:9 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which [is] before Mamre;
Image

So the question begs, how did Ishmael travel 1200 kilometers, including across 1,000 kilometers of harsh, barren, Arabian desert, most of a 1000 years before the first caravan route was ever established along the Red Sea in Arabia, in time to attend his father Abraham's funeral in Hebron?

In order to address this insurmountable demographic difficulty, Ibn Ishak, one of Islam's 7th and 8th century A.D. Islamic "tradition" creators, suggested that Abraham and Ishmael regularly commuted back and forth between the Holy Land and Mecca on a long white flying donkey-mule - a Baraq - like the one Mohammed claimed he rode one night from Mecca, to Jerusalem, to heaven, and back to Mecca by morning.

Is this how you solve this demographic problem too? Through the words of a 7th century Islamic fictional history creator? Where are the historical accounts of the witnesses of those flying animals? Here's Wikipedia on the subject.

What does this demographic difficulty suggest about the 7th and 8th century A.D. Islamic "tradition" creators accounts of Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael's trips to Mecca even earlier in time?

Where is the historical and archaeological record that suggests that Mecca - the epicenter of Islam supposedly since Adam - ever existed before the 4th century AD?

At the same time, the archaeological record ever-increasingly confirms the Bible as a reliable source of ancient historical record. Google - archaeology bible accurate historical record -

Many of Mohammed's illiterate 7th century followers left Islam, after Mohammed recited the account of his "night journey". What excuse to literate Muslims find in this 21st century information age, to follow Mohammed's and his "reporter's", tall tales?
that is what it says . And on that night journey of Prophet of Islam to that
Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa - The Farthest Mosque in that Old City, Jerusalem., Apparently Quran says
017.001
YUSUFALI: Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things).
PICKTHAL: Glorified be He Who carried His servant by night from the Inviolable Place of Worship to the Far distant place of worship the neighbourhood whereof We have blessed, that We might show him of Our tokens! Lo! He, only He, is the Hearer, the Seer.
SHAKIR: Glory be to Him Who made His servant to go on a night from the Sacred Mosque to the remote mosque of which We have blessed the precincts, so that We may show to him some of Our signs; surely He is the Hearing, the Seeing.
And off course Muslim robots write at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... /aqsa.html to enrage brain wash Muslims all over the world to eliminate juice from Jerusalem. In fact SOME Muslims will be very happy if they could eliminate juice all together from the face of the earth..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:00 pm
by Idesigner
skynightblaze wrote:
Yeezevee wrote:I understand as a Non-Muslim or as an atheist "you have rejected everything In Islam" , But for those who believe in Islam have the right to choose Quran as the only Islamic religious doctrine" and rest are silly junk stories. off course people like you will still have the freedom to question Islam/Quran/Muhammad.


I think there is no disagreement between us . When I said "either accept islam with hadiths or else reject it entirely" I didnt exactly mean to say that they should be forced . May be I made a mistake. I should have said ..

Academically or as far as discussion is concerned they have only 2 options : either accept islam in its entirety or reject islam in its entirety . Muslims are left with these 2 choices as a result of logic and not because I want to force them. If one wishes to follow quran alone its his personal choice however academically he can be proven wrong in the light of proofs that we have he doesnt become a true muslim.


Even hard core Koranist does not reject Hadiths when those hadiths support Koran. In their outward practices Koran only and regular Muslims are same .If some one like Cat want to peach entirely new interpretation, he is better of to start new religion. No one can change belief and culture of Muslims which is practiced for 1400 years.It is like telling catholics to dump pope Pope, thrash statues of Mary and disown the concept of whole Trinity.

My main worry is about Koranist marketing their religion as humanistic religion but for all practical purposes same intolerant mean mother Islam. If you dont belive me look as our own Koranists here. They all are "respecting Mohemmed and worshiping the book' type muslim.. Once they get enough convert they will follow same Islam , Islam of Mo, Abu the Bakri, Omar the Maruder, Ali the butcher of Iran.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:29 pm
by yeezevee
Idesigner wrote:

My main worry is about Koranist marketing their religion as humanistic religion ..
How is that possible? it is impossible Idesigner. Quran has enough rubbish in it to put it where it belongs to. At best it can take a place as an Arabic sing song literature book for sufidustism. The words and verses in it can not project humanistic values. More over few good verses that you see in Quran you will find in every religion that was there before the birth of Muhammad. So irrespective of what Quran only Muslims say about Quran, critics will continue to bury it under the sand in this 21st century.

The only way Muslim folks can survive this internet onslaught is .. BY SIMPLY LAUGH AT THOSE WHO CRITICIZE ISLAM/MUHAMMAD/QURAN and walk away. At best they can say "I have my selective Islam which I practice and it is nothing to do what Prophet or Mullah did and said" .. Beyond that there is nothing they can do unless force the governments to block the internet and to block the freedom of expression and use violence all over the world.

Look at this Taslima Nasrin of Bangladesh and what she is saying between 9.00 mts - 11 mts.


So Quarn only Muslims have very hard thing to sell and any one who has bit of brain will quickly realize it is just a book of junk.. That doesn't mean other religious books don not have any junk any them.. So no force on this earth can stop people like this guy



who is worse than Islamic Jihadis when it comes to using Freedom of expression with just words without any violence

with best
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:38 pm
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:The moment you say, Muhammad means a Praise worthy character and that word could be used for any good person or previous Prophets, then you changed whole story of Islam. by those words in essence you are saying., This book, Quran could be written WITHOUT Muhammad, the essential character of the usual Islam. Did I get you right??

Not counting the ones in added brackets, the very name of Muhammad is only written 4 times in the Koran.
That's much intriguing: can you imagine the Torah with only 4 mentions of Moses, or the Gospels about JC?

yeezevee wrote:Can you interpret all verses of Quran on the basis that there was NO character "Muhammad" and Quran is all about Prophets and their words of earlier religions way before 6th century?? But I certainly like this thing from you

2.136: Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham,
and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets
received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.

2.137: And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away,
then are they in schism, and Allah will suffice thee (for defence) against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower.

2.285: The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth
in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between any of His messengers.....

10.94: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read
the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.

Then again, the Koranic title of Imam is solely reserved to Abraham (2.124, 'Imāmāan, leader of mankind), Isaac and Jacob (21.73,
immatan, chiefs who guide by Our command). So what about all those Imam Malik, Imam Hanbal, Imam Shafi'i or Imam Bukhari?
Plain SHIRK. There's no Imam Muhammad either !

So there's no distinction to be made between messengers and prophets AS messengers and prophets,
but when it comes to living examples of religious life, that's quite different... (19.34; 3.50-55; 42.13).

5.92: Obey Allah and obey the messenger, and beware! But if ye turn away,
then know that the duty of Our messenger is only plain conveyance (of the message).

33.21: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him
who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.

Muhammad is only a 'good example' for those who solely surrender to Allah. Not to his (falsified) person. Period.

yeezevee wrote:I am going to CALL THESE Bearded Bukharism preaching Mullah RASCALS as "Bukharians". not Muslims and not Muhammadans ..lol., But one has to make sure that all 114 chapters of Quran could be interpreted without usual "Muhammad" o Islam.


21.45: Say (O Muhammad, unto mankind): I warn you -only- by the Inspiration. But the deaf hear not the call when they are warned.

25.30-31: And the messenger saith: O my Lord! Lo! mine own folk make this Qur'an of no account. Even so have
We appointed unto every prophet an opponent from among the guilty; but Allah sufficeth for a Guide and Helper.

Religious Pharisees are all such opponents.
Image

Updated meaning of 9.31:
9:31 They have taken as lords beside Allah their Imams and Mullahs, and Muhammad son of Amina,
when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him.
Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:24 pm
by yeezevee
Let me put that question back again
The Cat wrote:.....................
yeezevee wrote:Can you interpret all verses of Quran on the basis that there was NO character "Muhammad" and Quran is all about Prophets and their words of earlier religions way before 6th century?? But I certainly like this thing from you

Spoiler! :
2.136: Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham,
and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets
received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.

2.137: And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away,
then are they in schism, and Allah will suffice thee (for defence) against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower.

2.285: The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth
in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between any of His messengers.....

10.94: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read
the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.

Then again, the Koranic title of Imam is solely reserved to Abraham (2.124, 'Imāmāan, leader of mankind), Isaac and Jacob (21.73,
immatan, chiefs who guide by Our command). So what about all those Imam Malik, Imam Hanbal, Imam Shafi'i or Imam Bukhari?
Plain SHIRK. There's no Imam Muhammad either !

So there's no distinction to be made between messengers and prophets AS messengers and prophets,
but when it comes to living examples of religious life, that's quite different... (19.34; 3.50-55; 42.13).

5.92: Obey Allah and obey the messenger, and beware! But if ye turn away,
then know that the duty of Our messenger is only plain conveyance (of the message).

33.21: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him
who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.

Muhammad is only a 'good example' for those who solely surrender to Allah. Not to his (falsified) person. Period.

yeezevee wrote:I am going to CALL THESE Bearded Bukharism preaching Mullah RASCALS as "Bukharians". not Muslims and not Muhammadans ..lol., But one has to make sure that all 114 chapters of Quran could be interpreted without usual "Muhammad" o Islam.


21.45: Say (O Muhammad, unto mankind): I warn you -only- by the Inspiration. But the deaf hear not the call when they are warned.

25.30-31: And the messenger saith: O my Lord! Lo! mine own folk make this Qur'an of no account. Even so have
We appointed unto every prophet an opponent from among the guilty; but Allah sufficeth for a Guide and Helper.

Religious Pharisees are all such opponents.
Image

Updated meaning of 9.31:
9:31 They have taken as lords beside Allah their Imams and Mullahs, and Muhammad son of Amina,
when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him.
Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!
That question doesn't need some verses from Quran it needs only "yes or No" answer dear "The Cat" .,

Again, Is it possible to some to interpret all Quran without having this Joker Character "Muhammad" that you see in "At-Tahrim" of Quran? or do we need eliminate some verses from Quran similar to that 19ers.org Rashad Khalifa'??