Page 2 of 25

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:22 pm
by The Cat
Part 6b: Considerations over MHMD(t): The Inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock

Why updating its inscriptions from 694 (al-Malik) to 830-33 (al-Ma'mun) is an historical imperative!
Image
The inscriptions on the Dome are dated 694 and everyone assume this to be absolutely reliable. Well it wasn't always the case!
As it is, this dating stands contrary to all other written testimonies we have on a historical Muhammad, oddly a bit too early.
The dating of any Koranic verses in 694 is way too soon as even a document called Fiqh Akbar I, which was drafted to show the
orthodox Muslim views, is reported to have no reference to Koran! Abu Hanife (d.767AD), the supreme Imam of all, had written
this text yet it has no reference to any Koran, while we're about 750AD! It's clear that updating the Dome of the Rock inscriptions
to 830-832 (caliph al Ma'mun), instead of 694 (al-Malik) , would put them in full synchronism with whatever else we have....

Let's have a look at the ending sentences of the outer inscriptions...
--In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One.
--He has no associate. Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him.
--The dome was built by servant of God ‘Abd Allah the Imam al-Ma'mun, Commander of the Faithful, in the year two and seventy.
--May God accept from him and be content with him. Amen, Lord of the worlds, praise be to God.

What we read here is that the Dome was built by caliph al-Ma'mun (reigned 813-833), in the year ''two and seventy'' (72).
Nowadays it is rather attributed to Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (646-705) based on the fact that 72 should refers to 72AH.
From what I gathered so far the termination AH (referring to the prophet's hegira in 622) isn't there. Here's the story:

http://www.templemount.org/allah.html
For centuries people credited the caliph al-Mamun with the erection of this remarkable shrine until it was noted that there was a time discrepancy since the caliph ruled from 813 to 833, restoring the Dome in 831. This is about a century and a half after al-Malik and the date of the inscription (691). It was simply a case of forgery in which a name has been substituted to another. Today people smile at the forger slip-up...

Such an error or slip-up is most unlikely under the patronage of a caliph. This forger would have been beheaded for lest!
As we've seen the year 'two and seventy' is not followed by the AH which would refers to 622s' Hegira. Is this that strange?

Not at all when we consider that rulers were in the entrenched habit of dating things from their own reign or dynasty!
So we have Jesus being born in the 'fifteen year of Tiberius', etc. I maintain that this year 'two and seventy' doesn't go
back to the Hegira but to something important belonging to the rise of the Abbasid dynasty. And we know how they
disparaged anything from the previous Umayyad dynasty, whom they judged corrupted and unworthy of true leadership.
Now if we subtract 72 from 830 we get 758... That's the dating of the beginning of the Abbasid dynasty (758-1258)!
The one year difference could be attributed to many factors, like their own understanding of their coming to power,
and the solar/lunar differences. 758 is when Abbasids' Hegira... moving from Harran to Baghdad has been recorded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad
Four years before Baghdad's foundation, in 758, Mansur assembled engineers, surveyors, and art constructionists from around
the world to come together and draw up plans for the city. Over 100,000 construction workers came to survey the plans; many were
distributed salaries to start the building of the grand city.

This must have been an exciting moment for them, justifying al-Ma'mun year 72, which then has been wrongly linked
to Abd al-Malik and to 691/94. Rectifying this datation, all of a sudden the inscriptions find themselves back into line...
I don't mean to say that al-Malik had nothing to do with the Dome, only that the final shape was that of al-Ma'mun.
It is clearly a Persian overall with absolutely nothing Arabic to it, like we find in the Damascus or al-Asqa mosques.
Image

Looking over the Bath of Gadara inscription (beginning with the sign of the cross, Hamat-Gader, 662/3):
1. In the days of the servant of God Mu‘āwiya (Aramaic: Abdalla Maavia), the commander
2. of the faithful (amēra almoumenēn) the hot baths of the
3. people there were saved and rebuilt
4. by ‘Abd Allāh son of Abū Hāshim (Abouasemou), the
5. governor, on the fifth of the month of December,
6. on the second day (of the week), in the 6th year of the indiction,
7. in the year 726 of the colony, according to the Arabs (kata Arabas) the 42nd year,
8-9. for the healing of the sick, under the care of Ioannes, the official of Gadara.

We can see how a full datation was written and that Maavia (Aramaic for Muawiya) was an 'Amir' (governor) not yet a caliph!
It opens with the sign of cross engraved in the beginning of the inscription. It is perhaps the earliest purely Greek inscription
with a hijra date. But this Hijra wasn't related to Muhammed moving from Makka (?) to Medina (Yath'rub), but rather refers to
the time when the Constitution of Medina was ratified, forming an Arab/Jewish/Christian alliance. We can see that in the treaties
signed in Najran (631) and Tabouk (630), guarantying people total freedom of worship, so contrary to later commitments!

Dating the Hegira....
I do think that the official Hegira dating (622) has everything to do with the ratifying of the Medina Constitution, which established
the first conceptual 'ummah', out of an alliance between different factions of Arabs (not yet called Muslims, but Saracens, Hagarenes,
etc) and some factions of Christians (Ansars, Nasari, Nestorians) and messianic Jews. I believe that the Muhammad appearing on this
is either Muhammad ibn Maslamah and/or Salman the Persian (both non-Arabs), much more historical than the fabricated legend
going along with other inventions (from the beginning of the Abbasids) like we've seen about Mecca, the Hegira, the Ka'ab and Hajj.

The Abbasids broke away with this former confederacy to established their own ummah, so this 622 dating wasn't of much importance
to them, quite the contrary. They are the one who started to work out the legendary Prophet first giving him the wrong birthdate from
a fictituous 'Year of the Elephant', just to build-up a 'credible' ancestry from the hagiograpic lies about a Muttalib parenthood...

Caliph Ma'mun (813-833) is the one who triggered the first sira of the prophet (Ibn Hisham -d.833 upon the nebulous Ibn Ishaq) and the
first hadiths of Bukhari coming right after, that we know of. It's also under his ruling that laws going back to the example set forth by
Muhammad (Shafii, Sharia) became into effect. Soon after came the 1st Arabic historian, al-Tabari basing his work on hearsays with an
hagiographic perspective. His 'Annals' invented much uncorroborated details from unfounded sources. His second work was the first
commentaries on the Koran (tafsirs) which underlines a recent parution of the Koran. Islam, as we know it, only started back then...

Now this 830-33 as the founding date of the Dome would completely replace the chronological setting of the inscriptions in order.
Even if we concede the former erection of the (wooden) Dome to al-Malik, it surely doesn't mean that the inscriptions were his...
or that they are the same as those who came down to us. By all historical recordings available, it couldn't be so... But al-Ma'mun's!


____________________
This will end my expose, except for a conclusion.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 12:10 am
by Ibn Rushd
WOW!

This makes so much more sense. John Wansbrough knew that Islam and Qur'an were inventions of the Abbasids, but this shows the progression of their desire to make a religion and holy book for themselves. Also, as I showed in my thread on contemporary, non-Muslim sources, that it was observed from the Latin side that there was a tent in place on the Temple Mount, and that was in the 690s-705. If this is true, then Abd al-Malik didn't build a dome or any other wooden structure.

Food for thought.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:56 am
by The Cat
Ibn Rushd wrote:WOW!

This makes so much more sense.

Once again, we can see how guillible our scholars can be when following the mostly unreliable Islamic tradition. This time, they
even went against 'centuries of beliefs' giving to al-Ma'mun the paternity over the Dome, to a 'laughed-at-forger' while not studying
thoroughly the meaning of 'two and seventy' like I just did! It was evidently not a forgery, nor referring to the Hegira as assumed.

John Wansbrough knew that Islam and Qur'an were inventions of the Abbasids, but this
shows the progression of their desire to make a religion and holy book for themselves.

His studies and those of Theodor Noldeke have made many more scholars, like Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R Puin...
According to them the first coin with MHMT was minted East Iran in 659 and we have many Umayyad coins featuring
crosses or even Jesus (with a sword). Marwan II was the first ruler who dared to call himself a caliph in 748 (openly
challenging the authority of the Roman emperor). And the first coin mentioning 'Mecca' was minted in... 828, that's
right, within the reign of caliph al-Ma'mun! Now, between 687 and 693 there has been a mintage war between al-Malik
and the Roman coinage, those coins were to be taken out of circulation two years later, under the penalty of death!

They came to be known as the 'forbidden coins'...
Abu Bakr (?), Muhammad (?), & sworded Aisha (!?),
then a sworded apocalyptic Jesus! Gold dinars 693
Finally, what became traditional coins with letters.
Image
Now, we've got Jesus as 'M' (with crosses) or as the 'MHMD' (The Praised One)!
ImageImage

Also, as I showed in my thread on contemporary, non-Muslim sources, that it was observed from the Latin side that there was a tent in place on the Temple Mount, and that was in the 690s-705. If this is true, then Abd al-Malik didn't build a dome or any other wooden structure. Food for thought.

It is said that the building was ordered by Omar, just to be started in earnest some 50 years later. That's highly unbelievable!
The obvious Persian influence of the Dome, very different to anything from the Arabic Umayyad's architecture of the time,
should have naturally pointed out to a later Abbasid origin (with its Iranian Piramouz kufic script). It wasn't, now go figure...

Finally, here's a timeline of mine about the Dome...
621. The flight of Muhammad, Mira'j Isra on the back of 'Buraq' to 'the furthest mosque'(Q.17.1).
622. Alleged changing of the Qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca (Q.2.144-150). In reality, not before 710.
629. The Emperor Heraclius enters Jerusalem in triumph and restored back the 'True Cross'.
638. The city is long besieged by an obscure commander (Jalaludin?) until Umar gets in with more troops. It was the last city
to be taken in Palestine (looks like it wasn't that important). The population led by the monophysite patriach Sophronius
surrendered with honor and protections for the natives and Christian churches, but 12,000 Greeks had to leave. The Jews were
allowed to come back (following the Medina Constitution so contrary to many Koranic sentences). According to the Gaullic bishop
Arculf, who lived in Jerusalem from 679 to 688, the Mosque of Umar was simply a rectangular wooden structure built over ruins
accommodating up to 3,000 worshipers. I think it stayed like this for a long while...

687-691. Alleged construction of the Dome of the Rock by al-Malik.
820. Jerusalem is held for a time by the rebel chief Tamum Abu Harab.
830-833. Restored or rather constructed by caliph al-Mamun who left his name as the builder of the Dome, while the inscription
shows 72 (not AH so not 691, but rather 758 -meaning the Abbasid's own Hegira from Harran to the becoming Baghdad).

969. Falls into the hands of the Fatimate Khalifah Mu'izz. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher burnt.
1016. The building was partly destroyed by earthquake. To this date belong restorations of the original mosaics in the dome, as
evidenced by inscriptions. The present wood-work of the cupola was erected by Husein, son of the Sultan Hakem, dated 1022.
1022. The inner and outer ambulatories were rebuilt by El Zahir Lil’zaz.
1077. Jerusalem pillaged by the army of Malik Shah (Seljuq dynasty).
1099. The Fatimid ruler expelled the native Christian population. The city is captured by the crusaders in June.

1187. Saladin takes the city, tore up the altar, and once more exposed the bare rock covered up the frescoes with marble slabs
and restored and regilded the dome, as evidenced by an inscription in it dating 1189 A.D.
1318. The lead outside and the gilding within were restored by Nakr ed Din, as evidenced by an inscription.

I520. The Sultan Soliman cased the bases and upper blocks of the columns with marble. The wooden cornice, attached to the beam
between the pillars, seems to be of this period, and the slightly-pointed marble casing of the arches under the dome is probably of
the same date. The windows bear inscriptions of 1528 A.D. The whole exterior was at this time covered with Eishani tiles, attached
by copper hooks, as evidenced by inscriptions dated 1561. The doors were restored in 1564 A.D, as shown by inscriptions.

1830. The Sultan Mahmud, and again in 1873-75 A.D. Abdu 'I Aziz, both repaired the Dome.

I found many informations (see: Jerusalem & as-Sakhrah) in this huge reference: A dictionary of Islam, Thomas P. Hughues, 1895.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Hughes/index.htm
A thread on the Dome of the Rock (by thunderbalt):
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=746

Rather tumultuous I'd say. So were the inscriptions (in Iranian kufic) originally from al-Malik and so preserved until now?
No way... But an al-Ma'mun Persian building of 830/833. As you've said: ''WOW, this makes so much more sense!''

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:58 pm
by The Cat
CONCLUSION

1. The Year of the Elephant was wrongly dated 570 instead of 552 and king Abraha's inscription shows that, contrary to the Islamic
claims, he defeated the Arabs most probably without any help from elephants, whose mention could rather refers to the battle of
Qudissiyah (636) in sura 105. The Abraha's inscription doesn't mention 'Mecca', 'Abdul Muttalib' or the 'Quraysh' tribe!

This dating of 552 completely abrogates all the traditional chronology attributed to Muhammad and, consequently, the whole chain
of oral transmissions at the foundation of the hadiths becomes unreliable. All this because Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib (founder of
the Abbasid dynasty) created a fictitious character, Abdul-Muttalib, in order to justify his parentship with Muhammad. In the
process, the Abbasids invented everything we know about early Islam and its prophet, including the sira, the isnads, the rashidun
caliphs, the hadiths and most probably even the Koran, of which we have no proof it was in circulation before them! Historically,
there were no caliphs (but emir -provincial governor) before Marwan II in 748. The Umayyad dynasty didn't last much longer...

viewtopic.php?p=90797#p90797
viewtopic.php?p=91688#p91688
http://www.free-minds.org/petra

___________________________
2. Thus, the Abbasids concocted the fables of a Central Arabia beginning centered around Mecca, the Ka'aba and the Hajj.
In Q.48.24 'Maka' isn't a proper name but simply the Arabic MKk for destruction. There's no evidence for the worship of a
Ka'aba in pre-Islamic history and the Arabic word Ka'ab indicates any cube, or a protuberance out of something plain.
Traditionally, the Ishmaelites settled throughout the northwest of Arabia, mainly in Midian/Elomite territories.

More so, Arabic wasn't the religious language in the 6th century Arabia (Q.16.103) but Nabataean, Aramaic and Syriac.
All religious words in the Koran like 'dua'a' (calling upon rather than prayer), 'Abad' (to serve rather than worship), 'Deen'
(obedience rather than religion which would have been written 'Muzdhab'). It's only in Persian that Din could mean religion
from the Avesta Daena. So it goes for 'Hajj' which had nothing to do with a pilgrimage but a seasonal gathering for
commercial and all kinds of exchanges, like a county fair (Q.22.27; 28.23-27).

viewtopic.php?p=91348#p91348
http://www.free-minds.org/language

_____________________________
3. Everything about Mecca/Ka'aba indicate pagan and polytheist beliefs. First the sanctuary of Islam was absolutely unknown
in all the evidences we could gather from the 6th century. Islamic apologists have to rely on Ptolemy's shaky 'Macoraba', while
his mention of 'Moka' (Petra) would be much more in line, both geographically and historically. According to Q.37.137-38 the
prophet was daily traveling through formidable ruins which refers to either Petra or, as I think, Hegra.

In many Koranic sentences 'Beytullah' is translated 'House of God' and most obviously refers to Bethel/Shechem as the founding
worship place of Abraham and Jacob. Then the 'Maqam Ibrahim' is naturally the place where Jacob built an altar (Gen.28) and
slept on a stone. So is the Koranic 'Rukh'. The Black Stone is simply a remnant of venusian goddess worship (Allat).

viewtopic.php?p=91348#p91348
viewtopic.php?p=92029#p92029
http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/islam ... awting.htm
http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch5.html

_____________________________
4. The Koran (3.96-97) talks about 'Beca' as the former sanctuary of Islam. This name can refers to many locations including Petra,
Jerusalem (Psalm 84) or Galilee. But there was a Davidic town in North Israel (2Sam.20.14-18; 1&2Kgs.15, near Dan) named Abel
Beth Maacah, looking over the Lebanon valley of Beqa'a. It could even be the origins of the Islamic 'Queen of Shebah'!

viewtopic.php?p=92737#p92737

__________________________
5. Calligraphic evidences show that Arabic comes from the Aramaean/Nabatean scripts and not from later central Arabic scripts
(like the Ma'il or Mashq scripts). More so, the Arabic script is indebted to the Nabataean 22 phonemes, while the south Arabic
script (Musnad) using 28 phonemes would have been more appropriated. But the latter even disappeared in the 7th century!

viewtopic.php?p=91688#p91688
viewtopic.php?p=93188#p93188
http://www.free-minds.org/ayman

________________________
6. The changing of the Qibla, from Jerusalem to Mecca, as reported in 2.142-150, didn't happen around the traditional 622 but
much later and, according to all written testimonies of the time, after 705 (Jacob of Edessa, Balahhuri's Futuh, etc). The prophet
as an illiterate (ummi, 3.75; 62.2) is debunked as it really meant someone unlettered in the sacred literatures, a common folk.

http://www.free-minds.org/moh
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 48#1089048

_________________________
7. The origin of the 'Quraysh' tribe associated with Mecca seems just as shrouded. Sura 106 talking about caravaners which is true,
but the etymology of the name is echoed in the Elomite 'Kurasyh' meaning 'bestowing care' or 'providers'. The name suggest an
association of long distance caravaners found both in the Frankincense and Silk roads. It's etymologically related to the Kurds. The
excavation of Urkish should reshape our understanding of 'Ur of Chaldea'. Thus the 'mother of villages' or 'mother town' (6.92; 42.7)
points to where Noah first landed (Q.11.14)! We're obviously very far from Central Arabia as they refer to North Syria and Iraq!

viewtopic.php?p=92237#p92237
viewtopic.php?p=92599#p92599
The Akkadian & Assyrian Roots of NSR (Ansars/Nasara).
viewtopic.php?p=89466#p89466

__________________________
8. Conclusively, Central Arabia wasn't the place of birth of the former prophet of Islam. There were no 'Mecca', no 'Ka'aba, no 'Hajj',
no 'Quraysh', no 'Muhammad' back there in the 6th century. The whole legend has been built-up by the Abbasids, from 750 and on,
rewriting the Umayyad legacy (based upon the ratification of the Medina Constitution) with a revenge, placing themselves at the
center of events through mystifications.

viewtopic.php?p=93188#p93188
viewtopic.php?p=93474#p93474

____________________________
9. From all the above and the non-Muslims testimonies over a historical Muhammad, I came to the conclusion that this prophet
must have been alive and kicking by 640 and I also think that the former prophet wasn't the same as the later Medina one.
I identify Salman the Persian as the meek and giving former prophet and Muhammad ibn Maslamah (not Musaylima) as the warring
eschatological prophet described in those testimonies. This Maslamah by the way is described as being black, tall and sturdy, a small
commander known for his fierce character, who defied Amr, the Egyptian commander, as well as burning down the palace of Sad ibn
Abi Waqqas, the victor at Qadisiyyah (636). He wasn't by far an easy dude to cope with! After he retired, he let a wooden sword
handing inside his house so to 'terrify people'. Our historical Muhammad indeed...! Neither he or Salman could become the official
prophet since they we're both of non-Arabic descent.

viewtopic.php?p=93848#p93848
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Arti ... slamah.htm
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Kinana

_________________________
10. There are only 5 mentions of the wording mhmd(t) in the Koran, which make it spurious at first and, there was no mention
of Muhammad as a name throughout the 6th century Arabia, only to bloom with the emergence of Islam right after. Everything
suggest that it was formerly an Ismaili apocalyptic epithet for Jesus, taken over by some warlord like Muhammad ibn Maslamah
in order to justify pillaging, looting and killing, under the garb of apocalyptic justifiers.

viewtopic.php?p=94060#p94060

So far the inscriptions on The Dome of the Rock stood as both an oddity and a remarkable exception to everything we could scholarly
gather about the Koran and its prophet as history. Now the dedication of the building from Al-Ma'mun instead of al-Malik would place
them in a far more credible light. The inscriptions must imperatively be dated between 830/833 and NOT between 691/94!

______________________
In short, most everything about the historical Muhammad is a back redaction emerging with the Abbasid dynasty.
The former Umayyad dynasty relied more or lest upon the ratification of the Medina Constitution, signed in 622.
A treaty of alliance between different factions of Arabs, of Christians, Hanifs (Sabians), and messianic Jews. They
had no Kuran as we know it and their -mhmd- is likely a title given to the apocalyptic Jesus they believed in.


------END-------

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:27 pm
by yeezevee
Greetings and My good wishes to you dear The Cat., This is such a fantastic thread., I wonder did you make a little booklet out of it?? I think it is in fact publishble in some History Journals. This is very interesting conclusions you have here

9. From all the above and the non-Muslims testimonies over a historical Muhammad, I came to the conclusion that this prophet must have been alive and kicking by 640 and I also think that the former prophet wasn't the same as the later Medina one .

I identify Salman the Persian as the meek and giving former prophet
and Muhammad ibn Maslamah (not Musaylima) as the warring eschatological prophet described in those testimonies. This Maslamah by the way is described as being black, tall and sturdy, a small commander known for his fierce character, who defied Amr, the Egyptian commander, as well as burning down the palace of Sad ibn Abi Waqqas, the victor at Qadisiyyah (636). He wasn't by far an easy dude to cope with! After he retired, he let a wooden sword handing inside his house so to 'terrify people'. Our historical Muhammad indeed...! Neither he or Salman could become the official prophet since they we're both of non-Arabic descent.


So what you are saying is, there were two characters and both together becomes this Prophet Muhammad of Present Islam. This is such a mind boggling hypothesis and after casually reading your posts there appears to be some truth. Even if it is not complete true historically still it is an attractive hypothesis , So I think it is Publishable.

Any way I have to read your posts again and frame some devil's advocate questions for you ., I think you should edit the posts as sentences are not together..

with best wishes
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:08 pm
by Ibn Rushd
Regarding Salman the Persian, Suliman Bashear thinks that he is a stand-in for all Persians, and that he is to be treated as an archetype. But if your analysis is true, then he was a historical individual who was redacted to a large extent, that there is nothing much to work with, except that he was alive.

Your observation concerning the Dome of the Rock leads me to believe that you are right, both as to the date (72 after founding of Abbasid dynasty) and the Persian architecture. The blue and pointed-round arches are characteristic of what we find at Espahan/Isfahan. I also had not considered the location of Sheba before as you have. I thought of it as being around Haran, since there were spices there in the remote past, and Patricia Crone brought attention to it in her Meccan Trade, and Robert Eisenman also point out the relationship of Sheba with Sabians who were known to have lived in Haran until sometime in the 11th century when they were wiped out. This has to do with some of the Qur'anic stories which are not understood without the early Christian and Dead Sea Scrolls in mind (eg. daily bathers=masbutheans, s-b-').

Like Yeezevee said, this is certainly publishable material, except we might want to corroborate with books and articles what you have found, instead of relying exclusively on the internet. Archaeology.org is a good site, and published by the Archaeological Institute of America.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:26 am
by crazymonkie_
Hello The Cat,

This is a great thread. Are you planning on making another thread about the history of the ahadith? I'm curious to know about that now.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:30 pm
by The Cat
crazymonkie
Hello The Cat,

This is a great thread. Are you planning on making another thread about the history of the ahadith? I'm curious to know about that now.

Hi, crazymonkie. Thanks...

I think that the history of the ahadith is pretty well known by now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hadith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hadith

And those are just the tip of the iceberg, further deepening and studies, carried by Alphonse Mingana, Joseph Schacht and John
Wansbough give many negative evidences to show that the Koran had not achieved any definitive form before the ninth century:
''Schacht’s studies of the early development of legal doctrine within the community demonstrate that with very few exceptions,
Muslim jurisprudence was not derived from the contents of the Quran. It may be added that those few exceptions are themselves
hardly evidence for the existence of the canon, and further observed that even where doctrine was alleged to draw upon scripture,
such is nor necessarily proof of the earlier existence of the scriptural source. He has shown how the derivation of law from scripture
was a phenomenon of the ninth century. Negative evidence is also in absence of -any- reference to the Quran in the Fiqh Akbar I''

The latter is a document, dated to the middle of the eighth century, which was a kind of statement of the Muslim creed in face of
sects. Thus the Fiqh Akbar I represents the views of the orthodoxy on the then prominent dogmatic questions. It seems unthinkable
had the Koran existed that no reference would have been made to it. This Fiqh Akbar I is dated around 750AD...

There were no Mecca, no Ka'aba, no Quraysh, no Hajj, no... traditional 'Muhammad'. And he's hardly ever mentioned in the Koran,
the holy book itself hardly known before the Abbasids. Therefore... I maintain that the leading text of the Umayyad has never been
the Koran but the Medina Constitution. This was their furkan, or evident code of laws, plus the seven noachide commandments. It's
only later that arisen conflicts with orthodox Jews and Trinitarian Christians. We have for example many proofs from the Spanish
Umayyad long lasting dynasty of rather good relations with both. It started to worsen after the Almoravids came in, around 1080...

Truly, since the birth of the sectarian Muhammad is now absolutely uncertain (Muhammad = ?-?) the whole chain of 'Isnads' (oral
transmission) lay broken. I shall not lose my time with hadiths, or give them any credit at all by even considering them worthy of
a study! I hardly believe in anything between 610 and 640 coming down to us from al-Tabari, or commissioned by the Abbasids...
We'll have to rebuilt everything from the global perspective running through the 6th and 7th century, not only in Arabia but from
Northeast of Syria to Southwest Persia and then those Nabataeans. All three influences are found intermingled in the Quran and,
if a forth, than it must be the Southeast coast of the peninsula, more or less including Yemen and Najran.

In short: all the sira/hadiths are proven rotten baloneys, written way too late for legal and hagiographic purposes, just like this
'Year of the Elephant' created to shape a mythological Prophet. This Muhammad is thus an hypothesis we must give up...

Muslims are thus confronted with this simple choice: either they shirk through conjectures and keep on worshiping a pedophile
or they search for sustainable historical alternatives, such as the ones I'm digging out. The statu quo is untenable as hell !!!

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:51 pm
by The Cat
I've maintained throughout this study that the Medina Constitution was the former furkan, or evident code of rules,
that united all kind of religious denominations into one former ummah. This was the sacred text of the Umayyad...
And I shall say a wonderful pledge which underlines why they maintained harmonious relations with Jews & Christians.
And why their success spread like wildfire: It provided a sense of unity in a world of bloody theological disputes.
Truly, it's way better, way more appealing, than the much later -sectarian- Koran emerging from later Abbasids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah
The Constitution of Medina, an early document said to have been negotiated by Muhammad in AD 622 with the leading clans of Medina, explicitly refers to Jewish and pagan citizens of Medina as members of the "Ummah". Hebrew אוּמָה Ummah also means a people (note: in the sense of laity).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina
It constituted a formal agreement between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of Yathrib (later known as Medina), including Muslims, Jews, and pagans. The document was drawn up with the explicit concern of bringing to an end the bitter inter tribal fighting between the clans of the Aws (Aus) and Khazraj within Medina. To this effect it instituted a number of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim, Jewish, and pagan communities of Medina bringing them within the fold of one community—the Ummah.

The precise dating of the Constitution of Medina remains debated but generally scholars agree it was written shortly after the Hijra (622). It effectively established the first Islamic state. The Constitution established: the security of the community, religious freedoms, the role of Medina as a haram or sacred place (barring all violence and weapons), the security of women, stable tribal relations within Medina, a tax system for supporting the community in time of conflict, parameters for exogenous political alliances, a system for granting protection of individuals, a judicial system for resolving disputes, and also regulated the paying of Blood money (the payment between families or tribes for the slaying of an individual in lieu of lex talionis).

Significance of the Ummah
Another important feature of the Constitution of Medina is the redefinition of ties between Muslims. The Constitution of Medina sets faith relationships above blood-ties and emphasizes individual responsibility. Tribal identities are still important, and are used to refer to different groups, but the “main binding tie” for the newly-created ummah is religion. This contrasts with the norms of pre-Islamic Arabia, which was a thoroughly tribal society.....

The non-Muslims included in the ummah had the following rights:
1. The security (dhimma) of God is equal for all groups,
2. Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.
3. Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the Ummah and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.
4. Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the Muslims.

The Koran and the mythology surrounding Muhammad was thus a later sectarian creed, built-up AFTER power corrupted former intends!

Food for thought !

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:22 pm
by yeezevee
So important conclusion I get out of Cat's hypothesis is No.9 and 10 from his conclusions
9. A). From all the above and the non-Muslims testimonies over a historical Muhammad, I came to the conclusion that this prophet
must have been alive and kicking by 640
and I also think that the former prophet wasn't the same as the later Medina one.


B). I identify Salman the Persian as the meek and giving former prophet and Muhammad ibn Maslamah (not Musaylima) as the warring
eschatological prophet described in those testimonies. This Maslamah by the way is described as being black, tall and sturdy, a small
commander known for his fierce character, who defied Amr, the Egyptian commander
, as well as burning down the palace of Sad ibn
Abi Waqqas, the victor at Qadisiyyah (636). He wasn't by far an easy dude to cope with! After he retired, he let a wooden sword
handing inside his house so to 'terrify people'. Our historical Muhammad indeed...! Neither he or Salman could become the official
prophet since they we're both of non-Arabic descent.

10). ....Everything suggest that it was formerly an Ismaili apocalyptic epithet for Jesus, taken over by some warlord like Muhammad ibn Maslamah in order to justify pillaging, looting and killing, under the garb of apocalyptic justifiers.


Keeping those things in mind., let us put historical Muhammad that is taught Muslim Historian and largely accepted by other religious scholars..

571: Birth of the Holy Prophet. Year of the Elephant. Invasion of Makkah by Abraha the Viceroy of Yemen, his retreat.
577: The Holy Prophet visits Madina with his mother. Death of his mother.
580: Death of Abdul Muttalib, the grandfather of the Holy Prophet.
583: The Holy Prophet's journey to Syria in the company of his uncle Abu Talib. His meeting with the monk Bahira at Bisra who foretells of his prophethood.
586: The Holy Prophet participates in the war of Fijar.
591: The Holy Prophet becomes an active member of "Hilful Fudul", a league for the relief of the distressed.
594: The Holy Prophet becomes the Manager of the business of Lady Khadija, and leads her trade caravan to Syria and back.
595: The Holy Prophet marries Hadrat Khadija. Seventh century
605: The Holy Prophet arbitrates in a dispute among the Quraish about the placing of the Black Stone in the Kaaba.
610: The first revelation in the cave at Mt. Hira. The Holy Prophet is commissioned as the Messenger of God.
613: Declaration at Mt. Sara inviting the general public to Islam.
614: Invitation to the Hashimites to accept Islam.
615: Persecution of the Muslims by the Quraish. A party of Muslims leaves for Abyssinia.
616: Second Hijrah to Abysinnia.
617: Social boycott of the Hashimites and the Holy Prophet by the Quraish. The Hashimites are shut up in a glen outside Makkah.
619: Lifting of the boycott. Deaths of Abu Talib and Hadrat Khadija. Year of sorrow.
620: Journey to Taif. Ascension to the heavens.
621: First pledge at Aqaba.
622: Second pledge at Aqaba. The Holy Prophet and the Muslims migrate to Yathrib.
623: Nakhla expedition.
624: Battle of Badr. Expulsion of the Bani Qainuqa Jews from Madina.
625: Battle of Uhud. Massacre of 70 Muslims at Bir Mauna. Expulsion of Banu Nadir Jews from Madina. Second expedition of Badr.
626: Expedition of Banu Mustaliq.
627: Battle of the Trench. Expulsion of Banu Quraiza Jews.
628: Truce of Hudaibiya. Expedition to Khyber. The Holy Prophet addresses letters to various heads of states.
629: The Holy Prophet performs the pilgrimage at Makkah. Expedition to Muta (Romans).
630: Conquest of Makkah. Battles of Hunsin, Auras, and Taif.
631: Expedition to Tabuk. Year of Deputations.
632: Farewell pilgrimage at Makkah.
632: Death of the Holy Prophet. Election of Hadrat Abu Bakr as the Caliph. Usamah leads expedition to Syria. Battles of Zu Qissa and Abraq. Battles of Buzakha, Zafar and Naqra. Campaigns against Bani Tamim and Musailima, the Liar.
that is what we have. Now if the 2nd guy was still alive in the year 640 means .. All this Caliphs history becomes bogus.. as we read that

634: Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr.
644: Murder of of Hadrat Umar
656: Murder of Hadrat Othman.
661: Murder of Hadrat Ali

Whole dating become big mess., and what is your opinion on that Battle of the Camel., A war between Ali son in law of Muhammad and Aisha wife of Muhammad(Not sure which Muhammad 1 or 2) dear CAT??

with best regards
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:33 pm
by Ibn Rushd
I would understand the Battle of the Camel as being a rehash of the Battle of Gamala which was participated in by Josephus. The location is right (a bumpy hill east of the Jordan), and similar circumstances (two parties: Romans & Jews, or Aishans and Alids). I believe a few scholars have contemplated whether the Battle of the Camel ever happened as described in the Islamic tradition, and whether or not it is a copy-paste job and Islamification of characters from Josephus. Many other "battles" are updated versions of Josephus, such as the genocide of the Banu Nadir is the same numbers and details as Masada.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:09 am
by yeezevee
I would understand the Battle of the Camel as being a rehash of the Battle of Gamala
that Battle of the Camel was supposed to have occurred in 656 and How about Battle at Karbala?? supposed to have happened in 680 and that Shia/sunni Islam ??

So dear Ibn., do you think this book Quran was also put together along with hadith., In fact if proven these two Muhammad concept is such a revelation it is unparallel to History and scholars that wrote History of this time..

with best
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:22 am
by Ibn Rushd
I am not understanding your questions. :clueless:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:31 am
by yeezevee
I am not understanding your questions. :clueless:


well question was Who put together this book Quran?
and when?? The other points were just comments as you were saying battle of Camel was a rehashed story of Battle of Gamala., which is much older event than Islam and it is even before Christ ..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:38 am
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:let us put historical Muhammad that is taught Muslim Historian and largely accepted by other religious scholars..

571: Birth of the Holy Prophet. Year of the Elephant. Invasion of Makkah by Abraha the Viceroy of Yemen, his retreat.

WRONG. With The Year of the Elephant confirmed by 552 and the Abraha inscription not mentioning Makkah or the Quraysh,
the whole Muhammad edification crumbles down hopelessly as well as the chain of oral transmission, the siras and hadiths.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... man_av.htm
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. (...)

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!8 If we assume that the "Year of the Elephant" was 570 A.D., 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". The problem of dating Muhammad's birth date is an issue that not only affects the hadith traditions; but also affects the reliability of the history of the Quran's collection and compilation.

So there's nothing left to be trusted about the Islamic traditional, hagiographic, account.

yeezevee wrote:632: Death of the Holy Prophet. Election of Hadrat Abu Bakr as the Caliph. Usamah leads expedition to Syria. Battles of Zu Qissa and Abraq. Battles of Buzakha, Zafar and Naqra. Campaigns against Bani Tamim and Musailima, the Liar. that is what we have. Now if the 2nd guy was still alive in the year 640 means .. All this Caliphs history becomes bogus.. as we read that

634: Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr.
644: Murder of of Hadrat Umar
656: Murder of Hadrat Othman.
661: Murder of Hadrat Ali

Whole dating become big mess., and what is your opinion on that Battle of the Camel., A war between Ali son in law of Muhammad and Aisha wife of Muhammad(Not sure which Muhammad 1 or 2) dear CAT??

with best regards
yeezevee

There were no caliphs until Marwan II in 748, but Amirs which meant provincial governor (for the Romans), just like the Ghassanids.
But that Muhammad ibn Maslamah was leading a small army (of about 1000 soldiers) under Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, that is until
he retired. I guess he has been over zealous in fighting, which brought the apocalyptic depictions of the Muhammad we find in all
non-Muslims accounts, starting with the Doctrina Jacobi (dated 634/640). As I've said he was black, tall and sturdy thus frightening.

It is said that he refused to take part in the later civil war, not to spoil Muslim's blood. He was M's companion from the beginning.
Being born in 591(we don't know where, but he wasn't an Arab), he retired around 657, to die at 75 years (in 666) old in Medina.

yeezevee wrote:question was Who put together this book Quran? and when??

I believe that the first and -only- recension was made by the then governor of Iraq, namely Yusuf al-Hajjaj, around 710.
According to the tradition, he took all existing copies to add the diacritical dots. But I think that there was no holy book
before that, just a collection of separate texts, without any order, verses or titles. There were no such thing as the Koran
before him and hardly anything known under this name until later. Quryan in Syriac is a generic for any religious lecture.

Everything we know, not only about Muhammad, but the Koran and Islamic early history were written 150 years later. They
were written from the Abbasids dynasty, beginning around 750. Al-Tabari himself said he was relying on hearsays! These
were coming from too distant a time, and he had not much written sources to quote. In short, he fabricated -everything-.

The biggest the lies, the more people are about to believe them! You brought this wonderful archaeological survey on Mecca:

No MECCA! (by Dr Rafat Amari)
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... eology.htm

This great archeological survey only confirms the conclusion reached by many scholars: there was no Mecca in the alleged time
of Muhammad and the first coin mentioning this name was minted in 828AD. Now without Mecca, not only the prophet of Islam
stands groundless but his whole epic goes into vapor of dust: no chain of transmission (isnads, Sira, hadiths) can stand up.

Without Mecca, there are no Hijra, no Quraysh, no former Ka'aba, no Hajj, no reliable prophet. Without Mecca, Islam is just
sand into one's eyes. Its beliefs stands like a sand castle erased by the wind of truth. The Koran alone avoids the fall for not
mentioning the name but everything else dry on, breathless. Everything is turned into a fable of ghosts.

Without Mecca, Islam has nowhere to go... it's groundless! Without Mecca, Islam crashes down like a windless sandstorm!

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:49 am
by yeezevee
That is a great response dear The Cat.. I think you may have uncovered some thing unprecedented in the history of Islam.. Please keep working.. It could be a great book for History if you could put a bit more efforts along authenticating sources from Muslims and Non Muslims + using your logic and rationale to support your claim.. By the way would it be O.K to share this in other forum linking your posts??

with best wishes
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:04 am
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:By the way would it be O.K to share this in other forum linking your posts??

with best wishes
yeezevee

Go ahead, dear yeezevee. With or without you, it's bound to happen.
At times I'm amazed by some of my own threads coming out from googgle! :oops:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:13 am
by yeezevee
indeed it is mind boggling to me..people have not looked in to this earlier .. not even thought about this., Ha! talk about Goggle and wiki ., here is an intersting information. In a way you with your Islamic timeline, you completely eliminated Umayyad Caliphate and its dynasty . wiki gives a funny picture Umayyad..

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

Image
vory (circa 8th century) discovered in the Abbasid homestead in Humeima, Jordan. The style indicates an origin in north-eastern Iran, the base of Hashimiyya military power. This clearly must have been dated properly .

well thanks for this wonderful thread dear Cat..

yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:33 am
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:indeed it is mind boggling to me..people have not looked in to this earlier .. not even thought about this., Ha! talk about Goggle and wiki ., here is an intersting information. In a way you with your Islamic timeline, you completely eliminated Umayyad Caliphate and its dynasty . wiki gives a funny picture Umayyad..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad..
vory (circa 8th century) discovered in the Abbasid homestead in Humeima, Jordan. The style indicates an origin in north-eastern Iran, the base of Hashimiyya military power. This clearly must have been dated properly .

well thanks for this wonderful thread dear Cat..

yeezevee

Thanks, but hold your horses back! I do not eliminate the Umayyad dynasty. It was different from the picture we got. But they were!

Since the Abbasid dynasty emerged from Harran, we find much more Chaldean influences than let say Judaic influences in the Koran.
It has a lot more to do with the Kurds, and those we call mountainous Jews, than the ones we find in Palestinia. I'll soon publish a
thread showing how the name 'Allah', from its root of il-ilah, is akin to the Akkadian god Enlil whom was known as ILU. Stay tune...

Bye.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:59 am
by yeezevee
http://religioncompass.wordpress.com/20 ... n-kalisch/

I wonder whether you are already familiar with the work of Muhammad Sven Kalisch dear The Cat