Page 10 of 25

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:58 pm
by skynightblaze
Yeezevee wrote: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.


Dude you didnt understand as to why I asked him for primary references. He claims that only quran is the authentic book of islam and others are inventions. We l know death of Umar 2 and Abu huraira arent mentioned in the quran. WE know this from sources other than quran. So what are those sources? How can anyone borrow from islamic sources whenever they like and discard them at the same time when it doesnt suit them? Do you see the hypocrisy of CAT?

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:06 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:
Yeezevee wrote: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.


Dude you didnt understand as to why I asked him for primary references. He claims that only quran is the authentic book of islam and others are inventions.
well, it is all Do da du dee.., You guys have anger management problem and it appears you guy don't even realize that you are upset with each other..

I don't think so., did "The Cat" say that "Quran is the authentic book of islam"?? and what is this authentic means? does it mean it is the word of allah/god?? if he said that, I have not seen it.
Now if you noticed death of Umar 2 and Abu huraira arent mentioned by quran. WE know this from sources other than quran. So what are those sources? How can anyone borrow from islamic sources whenever they like and discard them at the same time when it doesnt suit them? Do you see the hypocrisy?
Yes I know that Umar 2 and Abu huraira are not mentioned in Quran., But Quran does not mention LOTS OF characters of that so-called Sahaba, The Companions of The Prophet ..saws... PBUHS RAWS, The Best Generation. so what can we do with that?

How does that prove "The Muhammad" the so-called Islamic Prophet is all Cock and bull story and no such Character was there in Islam??

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:09 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:He claims that only quran is the authentic book of islam and others are inventions. We l know death of Umar 2 and Abu huraira arent mentioned in the quran. WE know this from sources other than quran. So what are those sources? How can anyone borrow from islamic sources whenever they like and discard them at the same time when it doesnt suit them? Do you see the hypocrisy of CAT?

:roflmao:
Of course we know this from other sources than the Koran! It's call HISTORY. Now, is this an invention? :lotpot:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:13 pm
by skynightblaze
yeezevee wrote:.
I don't think so., did "The Cat" say that "Quran is the authentic book of islam"?? and what is this authentic means? does it mean it is the word of allah/god?? if he said that, I have not seen it.


He didnt say it here but he claimed in previous debates. If you remember he even started a thread named Allah as the law. He did claim that only quran is the authentic book of islam . HE didnt mean its a word of GOd but he said it means that quran is not forged and a fabrication like hadiths.


Now if you noticed death of Umar 2 and Abu huraira arent mentioned by quran. WE know this from sources other than quran. So what are those sources? How can anyone borrow from islamic sources whenever they like and discard them at the same time when it doesnt suit them? Do you see the hypocrisy?
Yes I know that Umar 2 and Abu huraira are not mentioned in Quran., But Quran does not mention LOTS OF characters of that so-called Sahaba, The Companions of The Prophet ..saws... PBUHS RAWS, The Best Generation. so what can we do with that?

How does that prove "The Muhammad" the so-called Islamic Prophet is all Cock and bull story and no such Character was there in Islam??[/quote]

What I am trying to say here is one cant accuse islamic scriptures of forgery and at the same time borrow facts from them to draw a conclusion just like CAT has done. What he claims is Umar 2 was born in 682 AD while Abu huraira died in 678 so Abu huraira cant narrate a hadith to Umar 2 .Now the birth dates of these 2 people are found in the very islamic scriptures
he accuses of forgery. So the problem is he uses the very same islamic scriptures to make his case when the data in these scriptures support him.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:14 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:He claims that only quran is the authentic book of islam and others are inventions. We l know death of Umar 2 and Abu huraira arent mentioned in the quran. WE know this from sources other than quran. So what are those sources? How can anyone borrow from islamic sources whenever they like and discard them at the same time when it doesnt suit them? Do you see the hypocrisy of CAT?

:roflmao:
Of course we know this from other sources than the Koran! It's call HISTORY. Now, is this an invention? :lotpot:


I really dont understand whether to laugh or express sympathy for your wisdom. ARe the islamic scriptures authentic history for you ? You discard them as forgeries and yet you quote the same to make your case. do you atleast now comprehend the problem?

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:25 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:
yeezevee wrote:.
I don't think so., did "The Cat" say that "Quran is the authentic book of islam"?? and what is this authentic means? does it mean it is the word of allah/god?? if he said that, I have not seen it.


He didnt say it here but he claimed in previous debates. If you remember he even started a thread named Allah as the law. He did claim that only quran is the authentic book of islam . HE didnt mean its a word of GOd but he said it means that quran is not forged and a fabrication like hadiths.
I just don't get that., How does Quran become authentic, when there is NO Muhammad and No allah characters? That doesn't make any sense to me. It clearly means some one wrote/put together that book without allah/Muhammad and it means it is forged. and it is as good as Hadith as far as authenticity is concerned.
Now if you noticed death of Umar 2 and Abu huraira arent mentioned by quran. WE know this from sources other than quran. So what are those sources? How can anyone borrow from islamic sources whenever they like and discard them at the same time when it doesnt suit them? Do you see the hypocrisy?
yeezevee: Yes I know that Umar 2 and Abu huraira are not mentioned in Quran., But Quran does not mention LOTS OF characters of that so-called Sahaba, The Companions of The Prophet ..saws... PBUHS... RAWS, The Best Generation. So what can we do with that?

How does that prove "The Muhammad" the so-called Islamic Prophet is all Cock and bull story and no such Character was there in Islam??

What I am trying to say here is one cant accuse islamic scriptures of forgery and at the same time borrow facts from them to draw a conclusion just like CAT has done. What he claims is Umar 2 was born in 682 AD while Abu huraira died in 678 so Abu huraira cant narrate a hadith to Umar 2. Now the birth dates of these 2 people are found in the very islamic scriptures
he accuses of forgery. So the problem is he uses the very same islamic scriptures to make his case when the data in these scriptures support him.
Where do we have those birth dates of those two guys in islamic scriptures? in Quran?? or you mean Hadith., You know well It is not considered as "revealed scriptures" but stories of mouth to mouth resuscitation.,

Off course Quran is also same mouth to mouth resuscitation if Muhammad was real, except the written timing after the alleged Muhammad's death may be different..

well he can accuse everything in Islam is forgery.,

But then Quran is also forgery..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:44 pm
by skynightblaze
Yeezevee wrote:But then Quran is also forgery.



Well well you are on the money :lol: . The reason why I said CAT made massively stupid arguments is the same my dear friend. Unless he claims that he has changed his stance and accept that a case for quran only doesnt exist, his arguments are self refuting. The link from answering islam that he quoted claimed that both quran and hadiths have to go down the drain if inscription of Abraha and islamic cock and bull stories regarding Abraha attacking mecca are considered but CAT kept insisting last time that Quran wasnt fabricated like the hadiths so essentially what he quotes debunks him too and thats why I said he used a massively stupid argument.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:58 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:
Yeezevee wrote:But then Quran is also forgery.

Well well you are on the money :lol: . ...

..... but CAT kept insisting last time that Quran wasnt fabricated like the hadiths so essentially what he quotes debunks him too and thats why I said he used a massively stupid argument.
Well I too think "The Cat" appears to be right in his assumption that "Quran was not fabricated like the hadiths".,

I don't know., may be he considers that QURAN IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF FABRICATION and it is fabricated by different people at different times that are not related to Hadith fabricators.

But then everything in Islam is a fabrication. I am sure he is going to spell his ideas soon... but so far they are hidden...

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:15 pm
by skynightblaze
@Yeezevee

Now I will justify as to why I said CAT cant think for himself. He doesnt understand that answering islam wrote an article refuting islamic awareness who are muslims so the article is written considering the muslim belief in mind and from the point of view of refuting muslims and not the non muslims . The same arguments cannot be used against me because I am a non believer. Let me explain what I mean here.

Here is what answering islam wrote..
Answering islam regarding Abraha issue wrote:The "Islamic Awareness" team probably has no clue as to what this inscription really says. Its content completely destroys the reliability and historicity of the Muslim traditions – which claim that Muhammad was born in the same year when Abraha, along with his army and elephants, attempted to invade Mecca and destroy the Kaaba. This inscription says absolutely nothing about Mecca or the Kaaba

A far greater problem for the Islamic traditions is that the Sabean date on this inscription is 552 A.D.1 According to the most recent scholarship, Abraha died in 553 A.D. or shortly thereafter – but, according to the Muslims, Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. So, if we want to believe the Muslim traditions concerning Abraha, we have to push Muhammad's birth back 15, 16 or even 18 years. This has enormous consequences for much of early Islamic history. If Muhammad was born 18 years earlier, when did Muhammad begin to receive revelations? When did the Hijrah occur? When did Muhammad die? When did various battles take place, and when did the first four Caliphs reign? This is potentially messing up everything that Muslims believe about their early history. Moreover, this may cast doubt on much of the Islamic Traditions. 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.
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....


Read the highlighted part in red….
According to islamic beliefs or history, muhammad was born the same year when Abraha attacked mecca. Now muslims cant deny their own history while I as a non believer can easily question this. There is equal probability that the story of attack by Abraha on mecca in the same year as birth of muhammad is false because this isnt a historic fact but its a muslim belief which muslims have nurtured because of what islamic scriptures say. Answering islam even claimed that some person called SIMA said that story told by Islamic scriptures of Abraha attacking Mecca in the year of muhammads birth is a semi- myth. I as a non muslim dont believe in Islamic scripture so I can easily ask how can we be sure that story of Abraha attacking mecca in the year of muhammad's birth is true? There is equal probability that the story is a myth and false unless someone proves that its really true but until then its 50:50. In such a case the tradition of hadiths and quran doesn’t tumble because there is no adequate proof. There is no question of pushing events in Muhammad's life 15-20 years from 570 AD back if the story of Abraha attacking mecca in the year when Muhammad was born itself is false. CAT didn’t understand this simple thing that I am non believer and hence the article cannot be used to refute me.


EDIT

More ever even for a second if we assume that he was right in using the article against me it debunks his stand too that quran alone is a sacred book because answering islam clearly said that this creates a problem not just for hadiths but for quran too so CAT can choose either of the ways and he is still refuted.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:31 pm
by skynightblaze
Yeezevee wrote:Well I too think "The Cat" appears to be right in his assumption that "Quran was not fabricated like the hadiths".,

I don't know., may be he considers that QURAN IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF FABRICATION and it is fabricated by different people at different times that are not related to Hadith fabricators.

But then everything in Islam is a fabrication. I am sure he is going to spell his ideas soon... but so far they are hidden...


There is a problem here. He said quran is the only genuine book of islam . If he felt that quran was corrupt in a different way than hadiths then he wouldnt have said its a genuine book of islam just like Vedas , Bible are genuine books of people of other religions.

Here is our interaction a few days back...
Spoiler! :
The Cat wrote:Muhammad ibn al-Sa'ib (died 726 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 15 years before the "Year of the Elephant". Ja'far ibn Abi 'l-Mughira (died early 8th century A.D.) dates Muhammad's birth 10 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Al-Kalbi tells us that Shu'ayb ibn Ishaq (died 805 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 23 years after this event. Al-Zuhri (died 742 A.D.) believed that Muhammad was born 30 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Musa ibn 'Uqba (died 758) believed that Muhammad was born 70 years later! If we assume that the "Year of the Elephant" was 570 A.D. (? rather 552), then Muhammad could have been born anytime between 555 A.D. and 640 A.D. and could have died anytime between 615 A.D. and 700 A.D.!

How can we trust any of the hadiths? The "transmitters" cited by the hadith may not have been alive during Muhammad's lifetime, to witness the events which they are believed to have "transmitted".....


In response to his argument I wrote..

Skynightblaze wrote:Secondly your argument regarding birth of muhammad is ludicrous. You dont realize that by using that argument you nullify the chances of one being a quran only muslim.I think you are arguing here that quran only muslim is the only valid muslim.

Let me explain it again. There are some things common between quran and the hadiths and hence proving hadiths as unreliable would also mean that quran is unreliable.

So you see the hadiths and quran come as a single package. They cannot be reliable in isolation i.e quran is reliable but not hadiths because of the common things in quran and hadiths. IF quran is true then so are the hadiths that confirm quran true.Authenticity of quran implies authenticity of the some of the hadiths that confirm the quran so how can quran alone be true and at the same time hadiths that confirm quran be false?


So the conclusion is Quran and hadiths both are reliable or else both are not reliable so how can a case of koran only muslim exist? You can either be quran + selective hadith following muslim or you cant be a muslim at all. Your argument regarding birth of muhammad is self defeating.


CAt again responded to me on the same ...

The Cat wrote:Not at all since the Koran is -completely silent- about his year of birth, of his father or mother. It's solely in the hadiths and sira.

Muhammad -Myth vs Reality
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5518
viewtopic.php?p=98720#p98720

So you have been defeated twice....

Game over for you. Period.


So what he says is quran is indeed authentic or genuine unlike hadiths .

Again see what he wrote..

The CAT wrote:That's why koraners-only are at the front line against the hadiths... The Koran is -alone- the sacred book of Islam, that's the bottom line.


viewtopic.php?f=21&t=7680&hilit=genuine&start=100

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:39 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote: ...

Let me explain it again. ........
I agree with most of what you wrote in the above posts SKB ., except.. may be your signature
Quran is an obvious lie and the only miracle of quran is that people can dare to believe that its really from God even after reading it!

I believe replacing that "can" with "still " makes more sense to me..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:10 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:I as a non muslim dont believe in Islamic scripture so I can easily ask how can we be sure that story of Abraha attacking mecca in the year of muhammad's birth is true? There is equal probability that the story is a myth and false unless someone proves that its really true but until then its 50:50. In such a case the tradition of hadiths and quran doesn’t tumble because there is no adequate proof. There is no question of pushing events in Muhammad's life 15-20 years from 570 AD back if the story of Abraha attacking mecca in the year when Muhammad was born itself is false. CAT didn’t understand this simple thing that I am non believer and hence the article cannot be used to refute me.

More ever even for a second if we assume that he was right in using the article against me it debunks his stand too that quran alone is a sacred book because answering islam clearly said that this creates a problem not just for hadiths but for quran too so CAT can choose either of the ways and he is still refuted.

Wrong again (what else) since King Abraha is a fully attested historical personality... And there's not much history about Mo in the Koran.
http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/_abraha.html
We are fortunate in possessing irrefutable epigraphic sources which throw further light on 'Abraha's career. Of these the most important is the long inscription on the Marib dam which records the quelling of an insurrection backed by a son of the deposed ruler Esimiphaeus in the year 657 of the Sabaean era, i.e. between 540-550 A.D........ A further text (Ryckmans 506) discovered at Murayghän records a defeat inflicted by 'Abraha on the North Arabian tribe of Ma'add in the year 662 of the Sabaean era (thus between 545-555).

He died around 553AD, shortly after his expedition against northern Arabs... of which inscription is an archaeological evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraha


skynightblaze wrote:So what he says is quran is indeed authentic or genuine unlike hadiths .

Again see what he wrote..
The CAT wrote:That's why koraners-only are at the front line against the hadiths...
The Koran is -alone- the sacred book of Islam, that's the bottom line.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=7680&hilit=genuine&start=100

My God this is even worse! A total fabrication which will boomerang back to you. Let us see, from your link, how deluded you truly are...

I never wrote that the Koran was genuine or authentic, simply that: ''I recognize the Koran for what it is: the sacred book of Islam,
like I recognize the Vedas for Hindus or the Bible for Judeo-Christianity. It doesn't mean that I endorse them, silly you.
''

You're the one who did put in my mouth, a fabrication, as you're doing now. The first 'genuine' that you've enlightened was an article of Kassim Ahmad (not mine) about the hadiths. The second 'genuine', lower, is obviously your interpretation, indicating furthermore how twisted your mind really is.

But the discussion kept on going in another thread: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy? by iffo (page 9 to 39)
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=7991
Page 31 and on...
viewtopic.php?p=129725#p129725
Wherein I've shown how deluded you perpetually were, and still is...

viewtopic.php?p=129730#p129730
I've NEVER stated the Koran to be authentic, another figment of your compulsive delusion,
I've said it was the sacred book of Islam, which is a plain, recognized, most obvious fact.

If I did recognized it as authentically from God I would indeed endorse its content.
That's what you're doing by endorsing their authenticity and no Pilatus explanation can wash you away from such a guilt.
By endorsing the hadiths' legitimacy you become morally responsible of their outcome, so you have now abdicated all
moral ground and humanistic considerations for your narcissist's thrill as noted by yeezevee: ().....

You're as disgusting as the hadiths you uphold 'authentic', thus endorsing!
Image

Not only have you lost this debate (as the other one, twice) you have proven yourself
(1) a manufacturer of logical fallacies on industrial level, unfit for any proper debate and
(2) a most disgusting fellow endorsing the very sacredness of those perfid hadiths.

As I've said: I wouldn't be your conscience, not for a minute.
I stand proud and tall AGAINST the hadiths.


More on this 'authenticity' thing... which you never took away or apologized for!
viewtopic.php?p=129836#p129836
viewtopic.php?p=129863#p129863
viewtopic.php?p=130181#p130181
viewtopic.php?p=130330#p130330
viewtopic.php?p=130487#p130487
viewtopic.php?p=130603#p130603

On the so-called early hadiths
viewtopic.php?p=130836#p130836
viewtopic.php?p=130846#p130846
Back to 'authenticity'
viewtopic.php?p=130869#p130869
viewtopic.php?p=130876#p130876
viewtopic.php?p=130980#p130980
That the Koran is the sacred book of Islam is redundant for its common sense.

What SNB has done is to acknowledge the authenticity of the hadiths. I know he didn't mean endorsing their content.
Yet he did endorse their genuineness thus... the legal right for Muslims to apply them rightfully....

And that is disgusting.

You sound just as perfid as the hadiths, of which authenticity you shamelessly acknowledged.

btw. Still waiting for your archaeological proofs... :D

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:32 pm
by yeezevee
Let me catch Cat's words and highlight them for future reference
"I've NEVER stated the Koran to be authentic, another figment of your compulsive delusion,

I've said it was the sacred book of Islam, which is a plain, recognized, most obvious fact.

If I did recognized it as authentically from God I would indeed endorse its content"
.
... The Cat
well those are the words from The Cat.. and they are very clear, even I can understand unlike his other complicated posts..lol So his points are

1). He never said Quran is an authentic book. good.,
well may be you didn't say but do you believe that Koran is authentic? what do you actually mean by "authentic" here??

2). Quran is a scared book of Islam.,
well every one know that.. A week back 20 innocent people got killed because some guy burned that., The question to you is "DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS SACRED BOOK" dear The Cat??

3). The Cat does not recognize that Quran is authentically from God, so he will not endorse it content.,
did I get that right dear The Cat.

Or did I still make a mistake in understanding your words??? lol..
So why you two guys fight and heckle each other for no good reason?? Winner is NOT going to get the medal here.. lol..

with best regards
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:14 am
by skynightblaze
The CAT wrote:Wrong again (what else) since King Abraha is a fully attested historical personality... And there's not much history about Mo in the Koran.
http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/_abraha.html


Abraha attacking mecca in the year of birth of muhammad is not a historical proof. Your entire argument is based on muslim belief that Abraha attacked Mecca when muhammad was born. My question is what if Abraha 's attack and Muhammads birth have no connection??? It's a muslim belief that Abraha attacked mecca in the year of muhammad's birth i.e 570 AD which i can question easily being a disbeliever. IF Abraha never attacked mecca in the year of 570 AD then we there is no reason why all the events have to be shifted 15-20 years back. Now it doesnt matter if Abraha attacked some other provinces because his attack as got nothing to do with islamic history.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:18 am
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:My God this is even worse! A total fabrication which will boomerang back to you. Let us see, from your link, how deluded you truly are...

I never wrote that the Koran was genuine or authentic, simply that: ''I recognize the Koran for what it is: the sacred book of Islam,
like I recognize the Vedas for Hindus or the Bible for Judeo-Christianity. It doesn't mean that I endorse them, silly you.''

You're the one who did put in my mouth, a fabrication, as you're doing now. The first 'genuine' that you've enlightened was an article of Kassim Ahmad (not mine) about the hadiths. The second 'genuine', lower, is obviously your interpretation, indicating furthermore how twisted your mind really is.

But the discussion kept on going in another thread: Are these hadiths true WittyBoy? by iffo (page 9 to 39)
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=7991
Page 31 and on...
viewtopic.php?p=129725#p129725
Wherein I've shown how deluded you perpetually were, and still is...

viewtopic.php?p=129730#p129730


I think Incoherence and misinterpretation is at its peak .I didnt say you recognize quran as a book of GOd or neither did I say that endorse its content. What I claimed is you believe quran is the genuine book of islam like vedas ,bible for other people. Its obvious you dont believe that its corrupted like hadiths and isnt a fabrication and therefore it stands as a valid reference for understanding islam. Now what you dont realize here is that whatever arguments you brought refute your claim of quran being a sacred book because it also means that like corruption of ahadith quran also is a corrupt book. So ideally you must discard quran as well just like you discard hadiths.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:28 am
by skynightblaze
@CAT



Scholars today believe that even Quraish, which is the tribe of Mohammed, traveled north every year to a revered temple. There are many proofs that Quraish neglected the temple of Mecca and made their Hajj to the north. Wellhausen quotes the words of al-Kalbi, “people would go on a pilgrimage and then disperse, leaving Mecca empty.”


AS I said proofs did exist but it was only that I didn’t find them. I just decided to read the complete long article that religionresearch came up with and it yielded fruits.

http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... ssical.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham_Ibn_Al-Kalbi

Al- Kalbi was an arab historian who lived from 737 AD to 819 AD. The historian talks about the quraish tribe and the mecca in the 6th century. So CAT now the only place you can go and hide is Free minders Arse .Ahmed Bahgat was spot on when he said you are freeminders SIDE KICK.

WeLL I aint finished because I havent read all the articles from Dr Amari fully. I am yet to read his other articles and I am sure somewhere or the other he must have quoted proofs. So watch it coming pussy cat.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 8:35 am
by skynightblaze
I will prove authenticity of Al kabli here as I know you will accuse him for forgery..
answering islam wrote:Abu-al-Mundhir Hisham ibn-Muhammad ibn-al-Sa'ib ibn-Bishr al-Kalbi, better known as ibn-al-Kalbi (d. A.H. 206/ A.D. 821-822)[1], was a member of a distinguished family of scholars residing in al-Kufah, then one of the two intellectual capitals of the Muslim world. Like his father, abu-al-Nadr Muhammad[2], he addressed himself almost exclusively to historical and philosophical research in an age where the hadith was the science par excellence.


If you go onto read the full article you will find that this historian focused on history rather than on islamic claims. Muslims accused him of liar because he relied on historical records rather than islamic claims.;

Answering islam wrote:But his vindication has come from modern scientific research and archeology, which have confirmed the greater part of his statements and supported him against the fanatical criticism of his co-religionists.


So this should prove that AL kabli was an authentic historian and he records of Mecca in the 6th century.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:04 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:
The CAT wrote:Wrong again (what else) since King Abraha is a fully attested historical personality... And there's not much history about Mo in the Koran.
http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/_abraha.html


Abraha attacking mecca in the year of birth of muhammad is not a historical proof. Your entire argument is based on muslim belief that Abraha attacked Mecca when muhammad was born. My question is what if Abraha 's attack and Muhammads birth have no connection??? It's a muslim belief that Abraha attacked mecca in the year of muhammad's birth i.e 570 AD which i can question easily being a disbeliever. IF Abraha never attacked mecca in the year of 570 AD then we there is no reason why all the events have to be shifted 15-20 years back. Now it doesnt matter if Abraha attacked some other provinces because his attack as got nothing to do with islamic history.
that is a very fair question to inquire..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:02 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:What I claimed is you believe quran is the genuine book of islam like vedas ,bible for other people.

You can't read properly and so constantly switch from: (1) wrong premise,
(2) false dilemma, (3) hasty generalization. All well-known logical fallacies.
So far, in all our debates, you came by with nothing else...

Here, your false premise is in assuming that sacred and genuine mean the same thing. Wrong!
For example, I know that The Book of Mormon is their sacred book, but I also feel that it can't be
genuine. And your hasty generalization being that I must discard quran on the same ground that I
discard hadiths. But no one can deal with the sacred Koran as he does with the profane hadiths.

You'll be perceived as a cow-boy running his cattle in the middle of Time Square, out of time and
out of place, in all serious circles. Dismissed from the 1st on the ground of childish impetuosity
(wrong premise, false dilemma, hasty generalization). They'll laugh and say: this guy is still looking
at a black and white TV in the age on satellites! Such a farce is your Sunnite ever trolling gullibility...

Otherwise, I've dealt with the Koran profusely...
Was the Qur'an first in Arabic?
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39999
Can the Koran be... uncreated?
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6500
The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5978
The Laws Within the Koran
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8384
The Koranic -ISA (son of...)
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8769

But, tell us now, do you still uphold the authenticity of the hadiths as you did?

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:06 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:But, tell us now, do you still uphold the authenticity of the hadiths as you did?


Ofcourse I do. By saying ahadith are an authentic document of islam I dont mean I endorse their content. What I mean is if one wants to study islam then there are genuine sources from where one can study islam.