Page 9 of 25

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:42 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote: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.... The muslim historians themselves acknowledge that mecca was built in the 4th century .

My question to you was (be careful to the wording):
a) Prove the existence of nowadays Mecca in the 6th/7th centuries.
--I'm talking about nowadays Mecca, in the time of Muhammad...

I don't care if a bunch of Yemenite tents were set up anywhere in the forth century. The Sira of Ibn Ishaq and the Annals of al-Tabari
do talk about a huge pilgrimage center coupled with an important trade market, founded and visited by Abraham/Ishmael, via Buraq.

Such an important trading and pilgrimage place would have been noted from external source. Yet none of the Greek historians close to
the time of Muhammad, but Cosmas, Procopius and Theodoratos, completely ignore such a city, although they were quite aware of the
spice road. They all knew about Yathrib and Ta'if but NOT anything from/about Mecca.

Even the well-informed Theophanes the Confessor ignored it as late as 800CE!
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).


Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Patricia Crone).
http://books.google.ca/books?id=VWL-_hR ... &q&f=false
It is the sixth-century silence that is significant.... Of Mecca there is no mention for a long time; and the first sources to mention the sanctuary fail to give a name for it, whereas the first source to name it fails to locate it in Arabia. Jacob of Edessa knew of the Ka'ba toward which the Muslims prayed, locating it in a place considerably closer to Ptolemy's Moka (about Petra) than to modern Mecca, in other words, too far north for orthodox accounts of the rise of Islam; but of the commercial significance of this place he would appear to be completely ignorant.

Such is confirmed by the computerized evidence gathered from the earliest qiblas (before 705AD).
Image
Picture: http://www.historyofmecca.com/historica ... .htm#qibla
http://www.historyofmecca.com/
No Mecca before the 4th century - no Kaaba before the 5th century - means no foundation whatsoever underpinning Islamic "tradition". That leaves Islam as Mohammed’s stand-alone 7th century invention. Since Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael never lived or traveled within 1,000 km from where Mecca was eventually built, and lived nearly 1,000 years before the first caravan ever traveled along the Red Sea in Arabia, the truth is undeniable.

Clearly the Sira and Annals were but fabled versions of Gen.21.14-21 adding 800 miles of unknown, torching desert. Blessed be Buraq!

My belief isn't that there was no Mecca but that the Koranic al-Masjid al-Haram was located elsewhere, ie. in northwest Arabia...
It was originally in the precincts of al-Haram (al-Ula, old Dedan) and the former al-Hijr (sura 15) otherwise known as Mada'in Saleh.

37:137-138: And lo! ye verily pass by (the ruin of) them in the morning And at night-time; have ye then no sense ?
Image
Picture from Le Figaro, France. Mada'in Saleh (al Hijr, Hegra, ie. the Hegira), 20 miles from al-Haram (Dedan/Al-Ula).

So again:
MECCA -Myth vs Reality: In Search of Mt Sinai! viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8527
Image

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:16 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:(1) 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...

(2) They (mutawatir) are absent because bukhari didnt include for the fear of excessive lengths.... 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?????

None of these -allegations- are corroborated by manuscript evidences, which should have been religiously preserved in the case of Muhammad permitting their writing down. ALL of them (including Ishaq's sira) came down to us MUCH LATER from -alledged- reporting. A sure sign of fraud, demonstrated in Buk.1.3.98, for Huraira was dead before Umar II was even born, let alone becoming a ruler. The very fact that the hadiths of the prophet only became authoritative from Imam Shafi'i and later is proving that they weren't so before.

1. All these early hadiths are debunked since we've got NO original manuscript for anyone of them.
How the 138 Munabbih hadiths turned out into 5,374 in Bukhari is unexplained. Blessed be Buraq!
viewtopic.php?p=129098#p129098
viewtopic.php?p=129107#p129107


2. By definition, there can be no sahih hadith which aren't mutawatir or tawatur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_terminology
A hadith is said to be mutawatir if it was reported by a significant, though unspecified, number of narrators at each level in the chain of narration, thus reaching the succeeding generation through multiple chains of narration leading back to its source. This provides confirmation that the hadith is authentically attributed to its source at a level above reasonable doubt. This is due to its being beyond historical possibility that narrators could have conspired to forge a narration. In contrast, an ahaad hadith is a narration the chain of which has not reached a number sufficient to qualify as mutawatir.

And 99.99% of the self-called sahih hadiths aren't so confirmed but of the ahaad type, which the simple Chinese Whispers debunk.
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/chi ... 55%29.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 1466.x/pdf
The very existence of isnad's is a sign of weakness, not of strength, not merely because they were actually, or were liable to be, tampered with, but because they are a standing confession of the fact that the tradition in question was not by tawâtur, was not the common property of every generation of Moslems from the very first; was not, therefore, riveted into the rock itself...


Bukhari 1.8.345: A mathematical dilemma for Muslims...
50 prayers reduced by half = 25;
25 prayers reduced by half =12½.
Thus, Muslims are commanded to pray much more than 5 times a day !

Yep, Imam Bukhari must be holy reliable. :roflmao:


skynightblaze wrote:I suppose this article (maaref-foundation.com) 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?..... I suppose you copied this from a muslim site and thats why they are making flawed arguments .

Very odd statement from someone who blindly parrot any Sunnite's argument... without any critical overlook.

As a matter of fact the article only states what is commonly known about the Mutazilites...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazili
The adherents of the Mu'tazili school are best known for their having asserted that, because of the perfect unity and eternal nature of God, the Qur'an must therefore have been created, as it could not be co-eternal with God. From this premise, the Mu'tazili school of Kalam proceeded to posit that the injunctions of God are accessible to rational thought and inquiry: because knowledge is derived from reason, reason is the "final arbiter" in distinguishing right from wrong. It follows, in Mu'tazili reasoning, that "sacred precedent" is not an effective means of determining what is just, as what is obligatory in religion is only obligatory "by virtue of reason."....

Asceticism was their most striking characteristic. They were given the name "Mu'tazila" in reference to their pious asceticism (). The founders of the Abbasid dynasty strategically supported this school to bring political revolution against Umayyad Caliphate. Once their authority established, they also turned against this school of thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%27mun
Mu'tazili theology was deeply influenced by Aristotelian thought and Greek rationalism, and stated that matters of belief and practice should be decided by reasoning. This opposed the traditionalist and literalist position of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others, according to which everything a believer needed to know about faith and practice was spelled out literally in the Qur'an and the Hadith. Moreover, the Mu'tazilis stated that the Qur'an was created rather than coeternal with God, a belief that was shared by the Jahmites and parts of Shi'a, among others, but contradicted the traditionalist-Sunni opinion that the Qur'an and the Divine were coeternal.

So there was a period where reason and rationalism were mainstream in Islam. This was also hold by Averroes in Umayyad Spain.

Origin of hadith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS5DXBX5_u4

Is hadith divine?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_37Lft9PNsc

Part 6: The corruptions of Bukhari.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58GaB-Vnn-o

More reasons to deny the hadiths
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcCu5igda8I

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:30 pm
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote: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?

Sorry but if you don't accept verses from Koran about something pertaining to it, then a 'yes or no' is of no avail.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:32 pm
by skynightblaze
Idesigner wrote: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.


CAT claimed quran is the only authentic book of islam. Now I dont know whether he has revised his stance or not but certainly if

Idesigner wrote: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.


I agree that none can change the belief or culture that is practiced for 1400 years but even if decides to go on with this game of quran alone muslims they hardly have any arguments. Their arguments are weak.Its not that they have a point and want to change the concept that is practiced for 1400 years.

Idesigner wrote: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.


I dont think quran alone muslim play this game because they want converts. My guess is these people will do anything to protect their delicate faith. The policy is reject anything that exposes islam. The lesser people know about muhammad the better.The main thing is some fault has to be found with the hadiths so that they are rejected.


Yeezevee wrote: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..


Did I sound like I was trying to pick up a fight? I think not. Anyway I will go through the link that you quoted. Mecca existed in the 4th century. Thats what I found all sites claiming . Anyway did you find exact quotes from any of the historians which indicate that mecca existed in 4th century?? All these sites claim that mecca existed only in 4th century and they claim to have archaelogical evidence. I would like to see that .

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:09 pm
by yeezevee
yeezevee questions
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??
and The Cat comes out as usual with an evading answer ..lol
Sorry but if you don't accept verses from Koran about something pertaining to it , then a 'yes or no' is of no avail.
What is that something pertaining to it dear The Cat.,

Is it about an event that is pertaining to Quran when it was revealed/written by some one at a given time in History of Islam?

Forget about hadith., It is clear it is written way after the death of Muhammad. But let us discuss only Quran. I am sure you know well that Quran was also put together after the death of Muhammad . Now the question to you is

do you believe that there was person "Muhammad"?? and Quran was revealed to him?

Or you think Quran is story written by of some insane Arab Jewish/Christian Aramaic sect?

I know you don't answer the questions directly , but still i would like to explore the subject.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:03 pm
by Idesigner
.

Skynight blazeI dont think quran alone muslim play this game because they want converts. My guess is these people will do anything to protect their delicate faith. The policy is reject anything that exposes islam. The lesser people know about muhammad the better.The main thing is some fault has to be found with the hadiths so that they are rejected.


Its true that Muslims will go to any extent to defend their faith. Later this defense comes handy when they are out to do Dawah.

Islam is like some mutant micro organism. It changes and reinvents itself some time conceously and some time inadvertantly. When it first faced mighty Iranian empire and religion of Zorastrians, Mullah Missionaries invented pretty potent mutant in form of Shia Islam and in few centuries gullible Iranians adopted shia brand and committed suicide of their culture. Iranians thought they were rebeling against Arabs and this is now a new Iranian home grown religion.

In India the organism used all deceptive techniques of Sufism and accomplished lot.Islam claimed large chunk of territory.

After 9/11 this mutant found good defense in form of Koran Only startegy. Ofcourse true faithfuls murdered that Koran only guy in Arizona. Technique worked well while debaing with kaffirs. Some westerners who only want peace and wat to find good in all world religions started parroting "Koran only line".[color=#8000FF]Forget about Mohemmed see how perfect and beautiful is monotheism of Koran.[/color]

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:45 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: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.... The muslim historians themselves acknowledge that mecca was built in the 4th century .

My question to you was (be careful to the wording):
a) Prove the existence of nowadays Mecca in the 6th/7th centuries.
--I'm talking about nowadays Mecca, in the time of Muhammad...

I don't care if a bunch of Yemenite tents were set up anywhere in the forth century. The Sira of Ibn Ishaq and the Annals of al-Tabari do talk about a huge pilgrimage center coupled with an important trade market, founded and visited by Abraham/Ishmael, via Buraq.


I didnt quote the article to show you that someone merely set up a tent in Mecca. Read the following quote again...

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]


If you read carefully the underlined part that I quoted it talks about establishing a kaaba and not just about someone setting a tent and calling it mecca. Secondly if mecca existed in 4th or 5th century then by default it means it existed in the 6th century as well. There is no need for me to prove that mecca existed in the 6th century when I have proved that it existed in 4-5th century and therefore I dont have to be careful about the wording of your challenge...

Watch this video which explains the work of Dr. Rafat Amari..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWCiNKxVsrE

Also look at what encyclopedia dictionary of archaeology claims..Its clear that Dr Rafat Amari wasnt pulling things out his arse..


http://books.google.com/books?id=XneTst ... &q&f=false

The above link claims that mecca was built before the advent of islam and before 7th century. They have the archaeological evidence of existence of mecca. Abbot’s tribunal Glastonbury has those objects found during excavation . So I guess this should put an end to your claims of non existence of mecca until 8th century. More ever if 2-3 historians don’t include anything about mecca that doesn’t mean mecca never existed. We have archaeological evidence of existence of mecca and I hope you agree that archaeological proofs have more value than some historians saying something or not saying something.

The Cat wrote:Such an important trading and pilgrimage place would have been noted from external source. Yet none of the Greek historians close to the time of Muhammad, but Cosmas, Procopius and Theodoratos, completely ignore such a city, although they were quite aware of the spice road. They all knew about Yathrib and Ta'if but NOT anything from/about Mecca.
The fact that
Even the well-informed Theophanes the Confessor ignored it as late as 800CE!
Byzantine Sources. Historians and Chroniclers. Theophanes the Confessor – Chronicle
http://www.answering-islam.org/history/ ... onses.html


The exclusions by few historians doesn’t disprove existence of mecca. See above..

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).
Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Patricia Crone).
http://books.google.ca/books?id=VWL-_hR ... &q&f=false


We have archaeological proofs and hence we don’t need any historian to confirm it. I have skipped rest of your post because you are making the same claims that no author recorded of any proof of mecca’s existence.


The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:(1) 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...

(2) They (mutawatir) are absent because bukhari didnt include for the fear of excessive lengths.... 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?????


None of these -allegations- are corroborated by manuscript evidences, which should have been religiously preserved in the case of Muhammad permitting their writing down. ALL of them (including Ishaq's sira) came down to us MUCH LATER from -alledged- reporting. A sure sign of fraud, demonstrated in Buk.1.3.98, for Huraira was dead before Umar II was even born, let alone becoming a ruler. The very fact that the hadiths of the prophet only became authoritative from Imam Shafi'i and later is proving that they weren't so before.


You commit too many logical fallacies in a single para . I am confused as to from where I should start debunking. First of all you are changing your argument now. Initially you asked me why was there no ahadith for 2 centuries after muhammads death which means you believe that hadiths would be true if we had hadiths for first 2 centuries. Now when I showed you that ahadith existed in the first century hijra you shift the argument and claim that there are no manuscripts for those hadiths and hence they arent reliable.

Now lets come to the new claim that you have made here about no manuscripts. Every time I debate this topic new ideas come to my mind and now I just realized existence or non existence of manuscripts doesn’t prove anything. Let me ask you a simple question so that you can see your fallacy. We have some manuscripts for quran. Does that mean whatever written in the quran is true?? Does something become true merely because it has manuscripts? What has truthfulness of the content got to do with the manuscripts? Manuscripts are mere physical objects and they have absolutely nothing to do with truthfulness. So the argument that since there are no manuscripts of hadiths they are false is a hollow claim. Something can false and fabricated inspite of existence of their manuscripts or they could be even true even if the manuscripts dont exist. In case of Bukhari the manuscripts were lost with time.

Thirdly how do you know Umar 2 was dead before huraira? IT seems to me that the same Islamic sources you discard become reliable only when you need them but not otherwise! Last time I asked you for a source you quoted Wikipedia which is a non Islamic source. Surely Wikipedia writers got information about death of Umar 2 or huraira from some Islamic source. SO what is the source for it? How do you know that there wasn’t a mistake in mentioning the birth dates??

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:34 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:
(1) Watch this video which explains the work of Dr. Rafat Amari..
(2) Also look at what encyclopedia dictionary of archaeology claims..Its clear that Dr Rafat Amari wasnt pulling things out his arse.. The links claims that mecca was built before the advent of islam and before 7th century. They have the archaeological evidence of existence of mecca. Abbot’s tribunal Glastonbury has those objects found during excavation

(3) if mecca existed in 4th or 5th century then by default it means it existed in the 6th century as well. There is no need for me to prove that mecca existed in the 6th century when I have proved that it existed in 4-5th century and therefore I dont have to be careful about the wording of your challenge...

(1) Quoting from the script
Based on extensive evidence presented by Dr Rafat Amari... it SEEMS Mecca was built around the 4th century, by the Yemenite tribe of Khazaa'h that had migrated to that bleak barren desert wasteland. The Kaaba was APPARENTLY constructed by Asa's Abu Karb in the early 5th century AD, when the black stone APPARENTLY made it's way to Mecca, MOST LIKELY from Yemen....

Geographers and historians from antiquity, note even small Arabian settlements before the Christian era that came and went within a few centuries, and while the historical accounts about, and artifacts from, ancient settlements confirm the existence of each other, there is no reference to Mecca or it's Kaaba to be found. This even though it was eventually built on one of the most established trading routes in Arabia...

Sorry but... Seems... Apparently and... Most likely aren't evidences. Yet ''there is no reference to Mecca or it's Kaaba to be found''.

As Patricia Crone did find out: ''The first sources to mention the sanctuary fail to
give a name for it, whereas the first source to name it fails to locate it in Arabia.
''

This first source failing to locate it in Arabia is The Continuatio Byzantia Arabica of the Chronicle of Isidor (+/- 770AD), translated from Latin, it reads: ''in Mecca, Abraham's house, as they (the Arabs) believe, that is located in the desert between Ur in Chaldea and Carras...."

So where was 'Mecca' again?
''In both the first and second civil wars, notes accounts of people proceeding from Medina to Iraq via Mecca.
Yet Mecca is southwest of Medina, and Iraq is northeast. Thus the sanctuary for Islam, according to these
traditions was at one time north of Medina, which is the opposite direction from where Mecca is today!''

(Josef van Ess 1971: Anfänge muslimischer Theologie, p.16; Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Dhahabi 1369: p.343).

___________
(2) The link talks about archeological evidences kept in Abbot’s tribunal about MEARE, in southwest England !
You confounded Meare in England with Mecca...and it tells all we need to know about your reading capacity. :reading: :lotpot:

(3) None of the allegations of Dr Amarat are supported by archeological EVIDENCES. Insinuations about the tribe of Khazaa'h
(it seems) and Abu Karb (apparently) and a black stone (most likely from Yemen) do NOT constitute any reliable reference.

But the Abraha Inscription stands as such an indisputable evidence, disproving the Ishaq/Tabari fabled accounts for ALL time!
Image
http://www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_pre-i ... abaean.htm

Since the Abraha inscription is by now ascertained 552AD, we can confidently state that, contrary to the Islamic fables of Ishaq/Tabari
-- Abraha won.
-- There was no Mecca on his way...
-- No mention of elephants (needing a ton of water supply).
-- No mention of al-Muttalib nor of the Quraysh tribe.
-- Dated 552AD, it destroys the whole hadiths fabrication on Muhammad (?-?).

http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... man_av.htm
The accuracy of their so-called "Sahih" Hadiths cannot be trusted because the "chains of transmission" may now be broken
- most events in the life of Muhammad has been pushed back 18 years and gaps are bound to open up somewhere in the
chains between Muhammad and the time of Bukhari, Muslim, and the other collectors....


As this also take care of the self-called 'sahih' Bukhari then there's no point in answering you furthermore. But...

skynightblaze wrote:how do you know Umar 2 was dead before huraira?

When did Huraira die? When was Umar II born? :roflmao:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:46 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:__________
(2) The link talks about archeological evidences kept in Abbot’s tribunal about MEARE, in southwest England !
You confounded Meare in England with Mecca...and it tells all we need to know about your reading capacity. :reading: :lotpot:


Sure you are correct here. The part I read was titled Mecca and thats why I was confused.Also the page above that didnt load at my end so I assumed that this was talking about mecca. Anyway My reading abilities are not great and unlike you I aint stupid to admit that . Sure I have a bad habit of skimming the post hastily without reading it in detail. I will re look into the matter and show you how stupid you are to be precise.AS far as pointing out how stupid you are the previous threads are the biggest proofs . Making arguments like Shaitan must have made Ibn Abbas and others to write tafsirs is the most pathetic argument that a non muslim can ever make. You are receiving insults from my side because you dont know how to respect others.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:48 pm
by skynightblaze
@CAT

You obviously didnt read what it said. It also said that Kaba was built before 7th century i,e before arrival of islam .How about that?

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:51 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:Buk.1.3.98, for Huraira was dead before Umar II was even born, let alone becoming a ruler


How about proving this? ? I asked you what are your sources for this? Unreliable sources suddenly become reliable when you need them.How do you explain your stupidity here? I aint interested in who died before whom. I am interested in knowing about your sources. obviously you have no answer and thats why you focus on petty mistake that I made here.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:09 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:3) None of the allegations of Dr Amarat are supported by archeological EVIDENCES. Insinuations about the tribe of Khazaa'h
(it seems) and Abu Karb (apparently) and a black stone (most likely from Yemen) do NOT constitute any reliable reference.


The archaeological evidence does support Dr Amarat and hence I dont see any point in reply to the rest of your newly made post because if archaeological evidence supports his work you simply have no point . Encyclopedic dictionary of archaeology claims that mecca was built before advent of islam and it also claims that it was rebuilt plenty of times which matches with the conclusion of Dr Amarat . This is sufficient to refute you.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:50 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:Buk.1.3.98, for Huraira was dead before Umar II was even born, let alone becoming a ruler


How about proving this? ? I asked you what are your sources for this? Unreliable sources suddenly become reliable when you need them. How do you explain your stupidity here? I aint interested in who died before whom. I am interested in knowing about your sources. obviously you have no answer and thats why you focus on petty mistake that I made here.
No.. No The Cat is giving a reference of that carving

http://www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/figs-st ... /fig04.jpg
http://www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_pre-i ... abaean.htm

Since the Abraha inscription is by now ascertained 552AD, we can confidently state that, contrary to the Islamic fables of Ishaq/Tabari
-- Abraha won.
-- There was no Mecca on his way...
-- No mention of elephants (needing a ton of water supply).
-- No mention of al-Muttalib nor of the Quraysh tribe.
-- Dated 552AD, it destroys the whole hadiths fabrication on Muhammad (?-?).
what is important is how accurate is that dating? is it +/- 50 years., +/- zero years? and who did that dating., I haven't gone thorugh that site carefully.. I am sure The Cat has some opinion n that..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 8:21 pm
by yeezevee
So looking in to that site at http://www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/index.htm ., the following interesting Exhibits are presented and ascribed to so-called Islamic period.. it says
The first school of Arabic writing and calligraphy developed in the two Holy cities of Makkah and Medinah. The two well known scripts which were developed in Makkah and Medina were known as Makki and Madani scripts. These appeared long before the Kufi script and during the first century Hegra; the Arabic was written in two different styles known as Hard Kufi and Soft Kufi. The present form of Arabic writing with dots and signs developed around 2nd century Hegra (8th century AD).
You can click on the images.. let us put some interesting ones here as reference
http://www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_islam ... 02_img.htm
Second century (AH) / c. 800 (AD)

Translation
Salim said:
Oh God, oh my Master,
the resident of the sky
I beg You to forgive my sin and improve me
and protect me from all evils
God is the protector [of] Mohammad bin Ahmad bin Salim.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/figs-st ... 2_c_md.jpg
Second century (AH) / c. 800 (AD)
Kufi (3) Translation:

In the name of God, the Beneficent,
the Merciful. Allah is
the light of the skies
and the light of the earth. Light
for Abdul Rahman bin ya-
Zid's grave and
associate him with the Prophet Mohammad,

peace be upon him

considering their dating accurate there are plenty of rock inscriptions at http://www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_islamic/islamic.htm

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:03 am
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:Buk.1.3.98, for Huraira was dead before Umar II was even born, let alone becoming a ruler

How about proving this? ? I asked you what are your sources for this? Unreliable sources suddenly become reliable when you need them.How do you explain your stupidity here? I aint interested in who died before whom. I am interested in knowing about your sources. obviously you have no answer and thats why you focus on petty mistake that I made here.

Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself so much... ?

http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural ... 5-001.html
On the walls is the mausoleum of Abu Huraira (died: 678 AD)...

http://www.islamicport.com/sahaba/abu_hurairah.html
Abu Hurairah died in 681 at the age of 78.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... 78/Umar-II
ʿUmar II, in full ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (born 682/683, Medina, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died February 720, near Aleppo.

http://abqari.com/umar%20ibn-e%20abdul- ... if%29.html
Umar ibn-e Abdul-Aziz was born in 63 A.H. (ie. 685)

Let us see: Huraira died between 678 and 681; Umar II was born between 682/685. :prop:

skynightblaze wrote:The archaeological evidence does support Dr Amarat and hence I dont see any point in reply to the rest of your newly made post because if archaeological evidence supports his work you simply have no point . Encyclopedic dictionary of archaeology claims that mecca was built before advent of islam and it also claims that it was rebuilt plenty of times which matches with the conclusion of Dr Amarat .

So where did Dr Amari get his informations about Abu Karb building a kaaba?
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... uction.htm
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.

Obviously, we are far from ANY archaeological evidence! And Mecca never has been on the spice road otherwise, as mentioned,
Greek historians would have talked about it. They didn't ever and Dr Amari is quite sharp, at least, on this... and also... on that:

http://religionresearchinstitute.org/Ha ... rimage.htm
Mecca could not possibly have been a place to which pilgrims made the Hajj before Islam. Mecca was a city in poverty, with few places to pasture livestock. How could it provide grazing for the tens of thousands of camels that would carry the people on the Hajj? There were already other places with more conducive pasturing fields in Arabia. The Kaabahs of these cities were prepared to host pilgrimages. Another important factor which excludes Mecca as a place of Hajj is the scarcity of water.....

Second, the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology parrots the Islamic tradition without giving ANY sound... evidence.
So where's your concrete proofs? Are they from -it seems, apparently, most likely-? Is this what you call 'evidence'?

Evidences are:
There was no ancient city called Mecca, let alone a huge pilgrimage center...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_To ... udi_Arabia

The true archaeological evidences, the qiblas of the earliest mosques point to a location in northwest Arabia (emphases mine).
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/qurarch.htm
Spoiler! :
According to archaeological research carried out by Creswell and Fehervari on ancient mosques in the Middle East, two floor-plans from two Umayyad mosques in Iraq, one built at the beginning of the 8th century by the governor Hajjaj in Wasit (noted by Creswell as, "the oldest mosque in Islam of which remains have come down to us" - Creswell 1989:41), and the other attributed to roughly the same period near Baghdad, have Qiblas (the direction which these mosques are facing) which do not face Mecca, but are oriented too far north (Creswell 1969:137ff & 1989:40; Fehervari 1961:89; Crone-Cook 1977:23,173). The Wasit mosque is off by 33 degrees, and the Baghdad mosque is off by 30 degrees (Creswell 1969:137ff; Fehervari 1961:89).

This agrees with Baladhuri's testimony (called the Futuh) that the Qibla of the first mosque in Kufa, Iraq, supposedly constructed in 670 A.D. (Creswell 1989:41), also lay to the west, when it should have pointed almost directly south (al-Baladhuri's Futuh, ed. by de Goeje 1866:276; Crone 1980:12; Crone-Cook 1977:23,173).

The original ground-plan of the mosque of Amr b. al As, located in Fustat, the garrison town outside Cairo, Egypt shows that the Qibla again pointed too far north and had to be corrected later under the governorship of Qurra b. Sharik (Creswell 1969:37,150). Interestingly this agrees with the later Islamic tradition compiled by Ahmad b. al-Maqrizi that Amr prayed facing slightly south of east, and not towards the south (al-Maqrizi 1326:6; Crone-Cook 1977:24,173).

If you take a map you will find where it is that these mosques were pointing. All four of the above instances position the Qibla not towards Mecca, but much further north..... We find further corroboration for this direction of prayer by the Christian writer and traveller Jacob of Edessa, who, writing as late as 705 A.D. was a contemporary eye-witness in Egypt. He maintained that the Mahgraye' (Greek name for Arabs) in Egypt prayed facing east which was towards their Ka'ba (Crone-Cook 1977:24). His letter (which can be found in the British Museum) is indeed revealing. Therefore, as late as 705 A.D. the direction of prayer towards Mecca had not yet been canonized.

Note: The mention of a Ka'ba does not necessarily infer Mecca (as so many Muslims have been quick to point out), since there were other Ka'bas in existence during that time, usually in market-towns (Crone-Cook 1977:25,175). It was profitable to build a Ka'ba in these market towns so that the people coming to market could also do their pilgrimage or penitence to the idols contained within. The Ka'ba Jacob of Edessa was referring to was situated at "the patriarchal places of their races," which he also maintains was not in the south.

According to Dr. Hawting, who teaches on the sources of Islam at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS, a part of the University of London), new archaeological discoveries of mosques in Egypt from the early 700s also show that up till that time the Muslims (or Haggarenes) were indeed praying, not towards Mecca, but towards the north, and possibly Jerusalem. In fact, Dr. Hawting maintains, no mosques have been found from this period (the seventh century) which face towards Mecca (noted from his class lectures in 1995)....

Thus, according to Crone and Cook and Hawting, the combination of the archaeological evidence from Iraq along with the literary evidence from Egypt points unambiguously to a sanctuary [and thus direction of prayer] not in the south, but somewhere in north-west Arabia (or even further north) at least till the end of the seventh century (Crone-Cook 1977:24)..... What is happening here? Why are the Qiblas of these early mosques not facing towards Mecca? Why the discrepancy between the Qur'an and that which archaeology as well as documents reveal as late as 705 A.D.?


Where do the Qibla of the Oldest Mosques Point to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pO4COKGFs8

This simply confirms why the Abraha inscription never mentioned Mecca still yet in the middle of the 6th century!
Al-Haram (Dedan/Al-Ula) was at the trading cross-road & an important oasis. It was north, not south, of Medina.
The Koranic al-Masjid al-Haram (the Inviolable Place of Worship), was there where many located... Mount Sinai !

The whole historiography of Muhammad & of Mecca, as portrayed in the Sira and hadiths, become obsolete. :flush:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:09 pm
by skynightblaze
Yeezevee wrote:No.. No The Cat is giving a reference of that carving

http://www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/figs-st ... /fig04.jpg


I asked him for islamic references which mention the year in which Abu Huraira died and Umar 2 was born. What I asked are primary sources of information and not some islamic websites as he just done now. I will answer to him regarding that .That Abraha thing is totally different thing and its not what I asked. The only valid point that he made is regarding proofs of mecca's existence in 4th century. Right now I dont have any as I have never been into history and all that stuff but I have realized one thing this person cannot be trusted in what he says . I say this not because he is a liar but because he is big time fool who is incapable of logical thinking.The point that he made especially by quoting answering islam is ridiculously stupid and it just shows that this person is incapable of thinking for himself( I will be explaining later as to how massively stupid this person is later) . Anyway the site claims that based on extensive research carried out by Dr Rafat Amari mecca came into existence into 4th century . Until I know what that research was I cannot be sure .We also have a book on encyclopedia of archaelogy which claims that mecca was built in 4th century.Now certainly no arse hole writes a book named as encylopedia on archaelogy. They would have done some research before putting in facts like that in the book. I consider these 2 sources as more reliable than copy pastes from free minders done by CAT. There must be proof . Its only that I aint finding it.A person who spent 20 years of his life researching about mecca cannot be dismissed without properly examining his work. I am not saying he is 100 % right. All I am saying he being right has more probability than CAT after seeing his performance for a long time on FFI regarding the same issue.

I would trust a person who has done some research on this mecca rather than CAT who does an elementary search and not research and copy pastes from free minders.AS far as my language towards him is concerned I have no regrets that I use such language against a person who thinks that he is some extra ordinarily intelligent and ridicules others when in reality he is no more than pathetic troll .

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:29 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:
Yeezevee wrote:No.. No The Cat is giving a reference of that carving

http://www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/figs-st ... /fig04.jpg


I asked him for islamic references which mention the year in which Abu Huraira died and Umar 2 was born. What I asked are primary sources of information and not some islamic websites as he just done now. I will answer to him regarding that .
Spoiler! :
That Abraha thing is totally different thing and its not what I asked. The only valid point that he made is regarding proofs of mecca's existence in 4th century. Right now I dont have any as I have never been into history and all that stuff but I have realized one thing this person cannot be trusted in what he says . I say this not because he is a liar but because he is big time fool who is incapable of logical thinking.The point that he made especially by quoting answering islam is ridiculously stupid and it just shows that this person is incapable of thinking for himself( I will be explaining later as to how massively stupid this person is later) . Anyway the site claims that based on extensive research carried out by Dr Rafat Amari and also a book on encyclopedia of archaelogy claims that mecca was built in 4th century.Now certainly no arse hole writes a book named as encylopedia on archaelogy. They would have done some research before putting in facts like that in the book. I consider these 2 sources as more reliable than copy pastes from free minders done by CAT. There must be proof . Its only that I aint finding it.A person who spent 20 years of his life researching about mecca cannot be dismissed without properly examining his work.

I would trust a person who has done some research on this mecca rather than CAT who does an elementary search and not research and copy pastes from free minders.AS far as my language towards him is concerned I have no regrets that I use such language against a person who thinks that he is some extra ordinarily intelligent and ridicules others when in reality he is no more than pathetic troll .
I agree most of what you say if not all SKB., as far as "the Cat's" giving a reference of a "Islamic website" is concerned , there is nothing wrong in it. You know well that Other Muslims and Muslim websites will KILL these guys who are at this Islamic websites.. Each one has different Islam. and "The Cat" has his own understanding of Islam.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:49 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:Anyway the site claims that based on extensive research carried out by Dr Rafat Amari mecca came into existence into 4th century . Until I know what that research was I cannot be sure .We also have a book on encyclopedia of archaelogy which claims that mecca was built in 4th century....

Wrong again. The encyclopedia doesn't claim that Mecca was built in the 4th century. Anyway there were kaabas all over the Arabian Peninsula. The encyclopedia is also wrong in relating Mecca with Ptolemy's Macoraba, as demonstrated by Patricia Crone.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=VWL-_hR ... ba&f=false

skynightblaze wrote:There must be proof . Its only that I aint finding it.
:sleeping:
Thanks for admitting your defeat, this once again! As for your bad words against free-minders I hope they've noted...

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:51 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote: .........
Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself so much... ?

http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural ... 5-001.html
On the walls is the mausoleum of Abu Huraira (died: 678 AD)...

http://www.islamicport.com/sahaba/abu_hurairah.html
Abu Hurairah died in 681 at the age of 78.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... 78/Umar-II
ʿUmar II, in full ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (born 682/683, Medina, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died February 720, near Aleppo.

http://abqari.com/umar%20ibn-e%20abdul- ... if%29.html
Umar ibn-e Abdul-Aziz was born in 63 A.H. (ie. 685)

Let us see: Huraira died between 678 and 681; Umar II was born between 682/685. :prop:
:flush:
Well, you have to explain bit better than what you are saying dear "The Cat"., Explain me a bit the relevance of those links and what is written in them with reference to "Muhammad" the Prophet of Islam that every one projects in Hadith and Quran and How those links prove the character Muhammad was forged by these early Islamic writers?.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:55 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:Thanks for admitting your defeat, this once again! As for your bad words against free-minders I hope they've noted...


I used bad words against you and not them. I know for sure they are dishonest people. The reason I used harsh language against you is you dont have the decency to debate in a language that is fruitful for a debate.As far as accepting defeat is concerned I aint defeated unless I come the conclusion that there is no proof for existence of mecca in the 4th century.I would like to know what kind of research the people who claim that mecca existed in 4th century have done. Until then I aint forming an opinion.