Page 11 of 25

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:10 pm
by skynightblaze
The CaT wrote: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..


Well lets leave for others to decide . People can judge for themselves. Let them decide who commits a lot of fallacies and who doesnt.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:27 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote: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.

You don't catch the huge difference between an archaeological evidence such as this inscription and traditionally held beliefs.
This inscription is an archaeological proof debunking all the sira and hadiths based on a Muhammad's birth in the Year of the Elephant,
his al-Muttalib ancestry AND the very existence of the Quraysh as a tribe! No Mecca on his way, nor a Quraysh tribe led by al-Muttalib!

All of them must now be proven from archaeological and sound evidences, if to counter this single inscription.
None of the Abbasid forgery mills will do anymore. Period.

skynightblaze wrote: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.

You conveniently skipped parts of the wiki article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham_Ibn_Al-Kalbi
Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi (737 AD - 819 AD/204 AH),.... Hisham established a genealogical link between Ishmael and Mohammed and put forth the idea that all 'Arabs' were all descendants of Ishmael. He relied heavily on the ancient oral traditions of the Arabs.
:roflmao:
This is NO historian but a fabulist only relying on story-tellers, working to establish the blood-link between the Abbasid and Muhammad,
via the fictitious al-Muttalib & the Quraysh tribe. You must now confirm the very existence of this Quraysh tribe from external sources.

As you know I'm not even stating that there was no Mecca, only that the gathering of testimonies, including Abraha's, infer that this
pilgrimage center was north, not south, of Yathrib. You must sharpen your notion of what constitute an evidence. And the direction
of the earliest qiblas stands as yet another archeological evidence which you've met with sweet nothings.

See: one hundred apologist historians, all from the Abbasid forgery mills, can not stand against the Abraha inscription. Which is confirmed
by ALL external sources which ignored such an 'important' city. None of these apologist historians constitute a single archaeological proof.
That's the main weakness of Dr Amari, otherwise an excellent researcher. He MUST be more critical of his biased Sunnite sources...

And, again, such an important pilgrimage center on the spice road isn't noted by any external Greek historians and geographers. There's not a shred of evidence from any Yemite inscription, according to Dr Amari himself, challenging its 4th/5th century Yemenite Mecca !

http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... eology.htm
The Absence of Mecca in the Yemeni Inscriptions
From Yemeni inscriptions, we find a significant amount of information about the various kingdoms of southern Arabia. For example, Kinda was a kingdom in central Arabia located about 500 miles from where Mecca was later built. It is well-represented in the Yemeni inscriptions. Likewise, the northern Arabian cities of Qedar and Dedan, which are north of today’s Mecca, are also richly represented in the Yemeni inscriptions. They confirm the commercial relationships which existed between the Yemeni kingdoms, and the Arabian cities and kingdoms east and north of Mecca’s eventual location. Even the city of Yathrib, also called Medina, is represented in the Yemeni inscriptions.....

Yet, with all this rich detail, we still don’t find any Yemeni inscription mentioning Mecca.

There are ALSO none Yemenite inscription about a Mecca up to at least... the middle of the 6th century,
as PROVEN by the Sabaean/Yeminite archaeological evidence from the inscription of king Abraha (553AD).

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

Wrong premise: this should prove... (-reliable history can't be based on oral, easily forged, or from biased, sources-).
False dilemma: Al kabli was an authentic historian (-paid by the Abbasids for the false genealogy empowering them-).
Hasty generalization: That proves Mecca in the 6th century. (!!! Again, where's your archaeological evidence?)

As I've said you never, ever, come out of this logical fallacy circular reasoning (another fallacy of its own).

Sound premise: The earliest qiblas & the Abraha's inscriptions are both archaeological evidences supported by the overall
absence of Yeminite inscriptions about the traditional location of Mecca. Altogether they corroborate the absence of such
a city, unmentioned by ALL Greek historians and geographers, although they knew about Khaybar, Yathrib and even Ta'if!

Conclusion: Sunnite historiography of Mecca & Muhammad is unsourced, likely biased fabrications relying on story-tellers.

p.s. Unless you bring on some real archaeological stuff, still wanting, none of your Sunnite trolling holds any water.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:57 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:
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.

Wrong premise: ''Ahadith are authentic document of Islam... they are genuine sources from where one can study Islam''.

There's only one sacred book in Islam, the Koran. The hadiths are rather genuine documents of its falsification.

Example of such falsification:
31.6: --And of men is he who takes instead frivolous discourse (lahwa al-hadeethi) to lead astray from Allah's path without knowledge,
and to take it for a mockery; these shall have an abasing chastisement. (Shakir)

31.6: --But among people, there are those who invest their time in HADITH which is unfounded, so as to lead those without knowledge
away from the Path of Allah, making mockery of it (the Qur'an). For such there is shameful punishment in store. (Shabir Ahmed)

Religionists usually quote 31.6, along with a bunch of hadith fables, to enforce their prohibition of singing and of music in Islam!
31.6 rather condemns 'idle discourse' (lahwa al-Ĥadīthi) such as the hadiths themselves! It's in the tafsirs of Abdullah ibn Abbas,
And that of Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud who used to "swear by Allah and say that idle talk is singing."

So the verse ain't referring to singing but condemning the hadiths in general as vain discourse (lahwa al-hadeethi).
The forgers of hadiths, of course, couldn't possibly bare this. So they forged furthermore and imposed it to the people!

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 8:09 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote:
None of the Abbasid forgery mills will do anymore.
Would you consider ALL THE HADITH is Abbasid forgery or some of it is NOT forgery but related Quran "the Cat"?

Next question is, if All ahadith has come out of Abbasid Caliphs forgery mills, then which forgery mill produced Quran and at what date/s did get produced from where dear "the Cat"???

You know well who Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib was and the origin of Abbassid caliphate in 750 C.E Don't you???

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:19 pm
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:Would you consider ALL THE HADITH is Abbasid forgery or some of it is NOT forgery but related Quran "the Cat"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Zab
Umayyads could claim no direct descent from Muhammad, however the Abbasids could make such a claim — a fact they played upon greatly during the revolution, although not specifying until the revolution had been won that they were in fact descended from Muhammad's uncle.

That's how the Abbasid forgery mills began, through the sira of Ishaq/Hisham and pseudo-historians like al Kalbi & al-Waqidi.
So this original line of forgery established the blood affiliation of Abbas al-Muttalib with Muhammad for obvious political goal.
It goes like this: Abraham/Ishmael -- Quraysh/Mecca -- Abd al-Muttalib/Muhammad, who was very conveniently some orphan.

There are many flaws in this, like Ishmael/Mecca (covered by Buraq!) and the very name of Quraysh which weren't a tribe!
viewtopic.php?p=92237#p92237
viewtopic.php?p=92599#p92599

It was originally designing the Arabs who allied with Heraclius against Persia. That's year 622, the starting of their calendar!
The Persian Abbasids couldn't possibly bare that meaning so they twisted it to fit them as well: the fathering tribe of 'Mecca'.

Then what became the Ulema took over (Malik, Hanbal, Shafi'i) to dispose of the reigning Mutazilites school of rationalism.
Malik had only 500 hadiths but soon Hanbal came out with 40,000. Shafi'i took over stating that the sunna was sanctified!

The Golden Days of Islam were over when the Mutazilites were relegated, except in the Umayyad Spain, up to Averroes...

yeezevee wrote:if All ahadith has come out of Abbasid Caliphs forgery mills, then which forgery mill produced Quran and at what date/s did get produced from where dear "the Cat"???

It wasn't canonized until the Abbasid for even Abu Hanifa ignored such a book in his 750 Fiqh Akbar I! Then John of Damascus
(who worked for the Umayyad, like his father did) seems to know only suras 2 to 5, adding a book called 'The Camel of God',
which isn't found in the canonized version (yet in bits and pieces). He still taught 'Islam' as some ''heresy of the Ishmaelites''...
some sort of Christian Gnostic teachings... from someone he named MAMED (not Muhammad as often transliterated).

yeezevee wrote:You know well who Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib was and the origin of Abbassid caliphate in 750 C.E Don't you???

We must keep in mind that they originated in Khorasan, the most north-eastern region of Persia...
ImageImage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Khorasan
In Islamic theology, jurisprudence and philosophy, and in Hadith collection, many of the greatest Islamic scholars came from Khorasan, namely Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Hanifa, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Abu Dawood, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa'i, Al-Ghazali, Al-Juwayni, Abu Mansur Maturidi, Fakhruddin al-Razi, (etc).

Provided by AB, from his site: free-Islam.com
Image

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 10:20 pm
by booktalker
Hello peeps

Have been away but it's nice to be back and CATching up on this lively and interesting discussion. I hope you're all well.

This is from http://www.harvardhouse.com/quran_purity.htm. I would love to have your comments on which (if any) parts of the information in here can be demonstrated as being factually true - or at least cannot be proved to be false. Inserts in red directly into the text would be good. It's a bit long, but the comments might help the current debate, perhaps.

Love

BT
x

Why were these unique versions
of the Qur'an later destroyed by fire?

When Muhammad died in 632 CE, the Qur’an had not been recorded and collected into a book. Instead, Muslims memorized large portions of the Qur'an. This was especially true of people who knew Muhammad in person. The Qur’an means to recite. It is possible that some of the verses had been recorded on bones, rocks, or hides before Muhammad died. Regardless, it didn’t take long for the early Muslims to decide that they needed to have the Qur’an collected into a book.

The original Qur’an was completed by 634 CE. It is important to understand that a political process is what produced the Qur’an. In 633 CE, a military battle caused 700 Muslims to be killed. A close friend of Muhammad (named Salim) that could recite a large portion of the Qur’an was killed. What would happen if all the close followers of Muhammad were killed? Early Muslims wanted to maintain the purity of the Qur’an as Muhammad had spoken it.

So the original Qur’an of 634 CE was created during the political reign of Abu Bakr. This original Qur’an came to be known as the Hafsah codex (about 10 years later when Hafsah began to maintain it). However, this most important original manuscript of the Qur’an was destroyed by Muslim leaders in 667 CE. (Hafsah was one of Muhammad's wives. She maintained the original Qur'an until her death in 667 CE. Muslim leaders wanted to destroy the original Qur'an before Hafsah died. But she refused to hand over the codex for burning. She was successful until her death [Refer to Al-Masahif 24] It is most important to ask, "Why did Hafsah not wish to have this most important original manuscript of the Qur'an to be burnt?").

Based on Muslim sources alone, it appears that the Hafsah codex was one of the last Qur’ans to be willingly destroyed by Muslims. Since the original Qur’an was not accepted, what happened to cause such a drastic change that required the original Qur’an to be destroyed? Why wasn’t the Hafsah codex maintained since it was created (in 634 CE) within two years after Muhammad died (in 632 CE)?

To begin, an excellent procedure was in place during the collection of the original Qur’an. Abu Bakr ordered that the Qur’an could only include words that were vouched for by the testimony of two men. The earliest version of the Qur'an would have been most fresh in the minds of Muhammad's followers in 634 CE. Is it any wonder why Hafsah refused to release the original manuscript?

The history of how the Qur’an came to be recorded comes from reliable Muslim source materials. These are called the Hadith. Problems for the Qur’an began to occur during the reign of the 3rd political leader of Islam, whose name is Uthman (644 TO 656 CE). It appears that as the Islamic faith spread with military conquest across a large area, the soldiers were reading different versions of the Qur’an. These men wondered, "Is the Qur’an truly as pure as those close to Muhammad believed and taught?"

The 2nd most trusted Hadith is called Sahih Bukhari. In Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510, the story about Muslim soldiers arguing about different versions of the Qur’an reads as follows: [Search on the referenced site to find the number "510" if you want to verify the written literature].

"Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur'an, so he asked 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Qur’an as Jews and the Christians did before."

In response to the request, the Caliph Uthman sent a message to Hafsah since she had the most important original manuscript sheets collected about 634 CE. We find written:

"Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsah sent copies to Uthman.

Caliph Uthman had men who knew the Qur’an to assemble it again. We find written:

Uthman then ordered four men to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. After this had been done, the Hafsah codex was returned to her. "Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah."

Having obtained this new version, Uthman ordered all other Qur’ans to be destroyed by fire. We find written:

Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

This means that drastic changes occurred. After all, "Why were the other copies and fragments ordered to be burnt?" The answer is found in the original statement: "Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur'an"

Hudhaifa did not want different versions of the Qur'an. To Hudhaifa, unity of the Qur'an meant unity of all Muslims. If Muslims troops were not united, Islam would crumble.

Since all other copies of the Qur’an were ordered to be burned, what was wrong with them? Is the Qur’an pure as believed by modern day Muslims? Since the decision to burn all other Qur’ans was politically motivated, the Qur’an of today reflects the political whims of early Muslim political leaders, not the prophet Muhammad. Questions like this will never be answered. But it is certain that the Qur’an of today is not the original Qur’an recorded only 2 years after Muhammad died. It is certain that the Hafsah codex would have been the most accurate and original Qur’an of all time. But Muslim political leaders made sure that it was destroyed. So what actually happened in the early years of Islam?

Evidence of Multiple Qur'anic Versions

Muslim source materials report that at least four different versions of the Qur’an existed before the political order was given to have them burned. (Refer to "Al-Tamhid 2, 247).

The four versions were written by people who knew Muhammad in person. Each person created their unique version of the Qur’an. Based on Muslims sources, the differences were serious enough to cause Muslims to be divided. The Islamic source "K. al Masahif" reports differences so serious as to cause one Muslim group to call another group heretics:

During the reign of `Uthman, teachers were teaching this or that reading to their students. When the students met and disagreed about the reading, they reported the differences to their teachings. They would defend their readings, condemning the others as heretical.'[Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif]

So a political decision was made to have only one Qur’an. This did not go over well with the original people who created their unique version of the Qur’an. Who were these chosen people?

Muslim source materials reveal some of these select people who are known to have created their unique version of the Qur'an. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 150). [Search on the referenced site to find the number "150" if you want to verify the written literature].

I heard the Prophet saying, "Learn the recitation of Qur'an from four persons: (1)Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, (2)Salim (who was killed in the 633 CE battle), the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, (3)Ubayy B. Ka'ab and (4)Muadh bin Jabal."

So a few select people close to Muhammad thought they knew the Qur’an and collected their personal version. These versions of the Qur’an became widely distributed and used. This is why Muslim soldiers were arguing and calling one another heretics.

After the "official" Qur’an was released and the order was given to burn all other versions, some very bad feelings came out. The following information from Muslim sources is probably the most important information you can learn about people who actually knew Muhammad in person. Let’s begin with Mas’ud, who was asked to burn his personal version of the Qur’an.

"How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy Surahs?" "Am I," asks Abdullah, "to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?" (Masahif" by Ibn abi Dawood, 824-897 AD, pp. 12, 14).

Would Mas’ud accept the Qur’an of today as being pure since he refused to destroy his unique version? Since Mas’ud did not want to have his unique version of the Qur’an destroyed, it is doubtful that Mas’ud would honestly answer that the Qur’an is pure. It is important to ask, "Why did Mas’ud refuse to give in and destroy his version of the Qur’an?"

Mas'ud was a close companion and personal servant of Muhammad. The prophet Muhammad taught the Qur'an to Mas’ud in person. Due to his close relationship with Muhammad, Mas'ud would have had confidence that he was qualified to create his unique version of the Qur'an.

Mas'ud, moved to Kufa, Iraq where he completed his unique version of the Qur’an (commonly called the Kufan Codex). The unique Qur’an created by Mas’ud was completed years after the most important original manuscript (634 CE) that Hafsah kept until she died in 667 CE. In addition, the Qur'an version created by Mas'ud did not have chapters 1, 113, and 114 that are in the "official" Qur'an of today. Is the Qur’an truly pure as believed by Muslims today?

Another unique Qur’an was created by Ubayy B. Ka'ab. He was a close companion of Muhammad and served as a secretary to Muhammad. Ubayy could recite much of the Qur’an, which he had learned from the prophet Muhammad. Scholars have found that Ubayy's version differed from the "official" Qur'an with two additional chapters (entitled: Surat Al-Khal and Surat Al-Afd). Since Ubayy was taught the Qur'an by the prophet Muhammad, why doesn't the "official" Qur'an contain the two additional chapters?

Ubayy died during the reign of Umar, which was before the "official" Qur'an was created by Uthman. Therefore, Ubayy did not have to witness that his version of the Qur'an was burned by Uthman's order. Since Ubayy created a unique version of the Qur'an and had learned from the mouth of the prophet Muhammad, would he have agreed with Mas’ud by refusing to give in and destroy his version of the Qur’an?"

Due to Uthman’s decision to create an "official" version of the Qur'an, Ubayy's version of the Qur’an was destroyed. It is important to ask, "Is the Qur'an pure?"

Now consider the original Qur’an called the Hafsah Codex. It was destroyed by Muslims leaders immediately after Hafsah died. It is most important to ask, "Why did Hafsah not wish to have this most important original manuscript of the Qur'an to be burnt?"

The "official" Qur’an version of today comes from Zaid ibn Thabit, who was the youngest writing member. Zaid, being very young, outlived the older people who had spent more time with Muhammad. However, in the end it was Zaid's version of the Qur'an that was selected by Uthman for the "official" Qur'an version.

Muslims who had been close to Muhammad became righteously angry when Uthman insisted that only one version of the Qur’an be used. Islamic sources show that the purity of the Qur’an from the days of Muhammad appears to have been compromised. If no variants existed, then no burning party would have been held.

Muslims believe that seven versions of the Qur'an exist but that only Uthman’s Qur’an is correct. So Muslims disregard the "official" book burning party cited in Muslim source materials. However, it takes "blind faith" to believe and accept this viewpoint.

If Muhammad could consistently foretell the future, then the Qur’an could be regarded as coming from God. However, this has not been demonstrated. The politically motivated book burning party of early Muslim leaders confirms the Qur’an is from a false Gabriel.


Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:18 am
by Ibn Rushd
Welcome back booktalker, I missed you.

I'm forced to agree with the Cat on this. It's been established firmly that hadiths are all forgeries from a later time, mostly to give legitimacy to the Abbasid revolution. They also have as their main agenda to "prove" that it all took place in Mecca, where Mecca is today. Using the criterion of dissimilarity or criterion of embarassment we are forced to conclude that this overkill of "it was in Mecca" shows that it was a new idea and they had to shove it down everyone's throat due to their resistance: everyone knew it was a new place.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:21 am
by skynightblaze
Ibn Rushd wrote:Welcome back booktalker, I missed you.

I'm forced to agree with the Cat on this. It's been established firmly that hadiths are all forgeries from a later time, mostly to give legitimacy to the Abbasid revolution. They also have as their main agenda to "prove" that it all took place in Mecca, where Mecca is today. Using the criterion of dissimilarity or criterion of embarassment we are forced to conclude that this overkill of "it was in Mecca" shows that it was a new idea and they had to shove it down everyone's throat due to their resistance: everyone knew it was a new place.


I am finding evidence of mecca and thats the only valid point that he has made here. Do you wish to defend his other arguments like quran is a sacred book of islam and others are not or quran is the only valid document of islam???? If yes be my guest. I challenge you here..

Also CAt tries to discredit my source saying that Al Kalbi tried to establish that all arabs were descendants of Ishmael. I didnt quote him to prove here descendancy of anyone. He equally ignored a link from answering islam which says that whatever historical records he made were found to be correct. Obviously all muhammadans try doing that. That is nothing new but that doesnt mean they lie every single they say. The person whom I quoted has been found historically correct apart from the usual fallacies that mohhamadans commit.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:38 am
by skynightblaze
Ibn Rushd wrote:. It's been established firmly that hadiths are all forgeries from a later time, mostly to give legitimacy to the Abbasid revolution. They also have as their main agenda to "prove" that it all took place in Mecca, where Mecca is today.


I find you a sensible person and thats why I am more willing to debate you rather than CAT who has no grasp of logical thinking. Here is the first question for you . IF Abbasids were the fabricators of hadiths and their main agenda was to invent a new place called mecca then why do you think early islamic scholars like Ibn Abbas who was companion of muhammad make a mention of mecca? Abbasid revolution started in 750 AD and Ibn Abbas was long dead by that time. If what you say was true then how come we find the mention of mecca in the pre abbasid period?

Also there is one more problem with this argument. If the whole thing about mecca was a fabrication then can you explain me how people in different centuries could corroborate this lie? I mean Ibn Abbas died in 687 AD while Abbasids came into power in 750 AD. So please explain me how all these liars could successfully plan and come up with same exact lies.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:46 am
by skynightblaze
I think I should have brought this before and there would really be no need for me go into historical details of mecca something which I aint good at. SImple common sense would finish CAT here for once and all... See the quran....

Spoiler! :
Yusuf Ali:
[048:024] And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makka, after that He gave you the victory over them. And God sees well all that ye do.

Dr. Munir Munshey (one of http://www.answering-christianity.com's authors):
[048:024] It is He Who restrained their hands (and kept them) from (hurting) you. After He had caused you to triumph over them in the city of Makkah, He held your hands back (and kept you) from (hurting) them. Allah watches everything you do.

Transliteration:
[048:024] Wahuwa allathee kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi an athfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahu bima taAAmaloona baseeran

Arabic (from right to left):
‏48:24 وهو الذي كف ايديهم عنكم وايديكم عنهم ببطن مكة من بعد ان اظفركم عليهم وكان الله بما تعملون بصيرا

Sher Ali:
[048:024] And HE it is Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca, after HE had given you victory over them. And ALLAH sees all that you do.

Shakir:
[048:024] And He it is Who held back their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca after He had given you victory over them; and Allah is Seeing what you do.

Pickthall:
[048:024] And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.

Sale:
[048:024] It was He who restrained their hands from you, and your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca; after that He had given you the victory over them: And God saw that which ye did.

Muhammad Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan:
[048:024] And He it is Who has withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makkah, after He had made you victors over them. And Allah is Ever the All-Seer of what you do.

Palmer:
[048:024] He it was who restrained their hands from you, and your hands from them in the mid-valley of Mecca after He had given you the victory over them; for God on what ye do doth look!

Arberry:
[048:024] It is He who restrained their hands from you, and your hands from them, in the hollow of Mecca, after that He made you victors over them. God sees the things you do.

Khalifa: (why is he here?)
[048:024] He is the One who withheld their hands of aggression against you, and withheld your hands of aggression against them in the valley of Mecca, after He had granted you victory over them. GOD is Seer of everything you do.

Rodwell:
[048:024] And He it was who held their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca, after that He had given you the victory over them: for God saw what ye did.


I can refute CAT even without bringing proofs of mecca's existence.

Even the quran talks about MECCA. Now I think CAT believes that quran is a product of 6 -7 th century so If quran uttered the word Mecca then Mecca must be existing even that time otherwise there is no way how quran is going to mention a city that never existed during its time so this disproves CAT 's assertion that mecca was a product of 8th century. If CAT still insists that mecca was fabricated in 8th century then we can wish good bye to quran as well so now it means that quran is a product of 8th century so its mean good bye to hadiths as well as quran but CAT the free minders fart -"CAT" wants everyone to believe that quran is not as corrupt as hadiths. Either ways CAT is proven wrong so I think its bad news for fans of CAT to see their hero losing to me .


So the conclusion is that we cant have a case for quran alone which is what CAT is arguing for.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:18 am
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: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.

You don't catch the huge difference between an archaeological evidence such as this inscription and traditionally held beliefs.
This inscription is an archaeological proof debunking all the sira and hadiths based on a Muhammad's birth in the Year of the Elephant,
his al-Muttalib ancestry AND the very existence of the Quraysh as a tribe! No Mecca on his way, nor a Quraysh tribe led by al-Muttalib!

All of them must now be proven from archaeological and sound evidences, if to counter this single inscription.
None of the Abbasid forgery mills will do anymore. Period.


Abraha's inscription doesnt speak anything of mecca so abraha attacking mecca and that too in the year when muhammad was born is not a historical proof. Its what muslim scriptures and if I not wrong its ibn Ishaq to be precise who mentions this.
Your post is a clear proof that you are unable to comprehend what people write. I asked you a counter question as to why anyone is supposed to take the islamic scriptures seriously when they claim that Abraha attacked Mecca in the year of muhammads birth? Since you seem to have no grasp of basic mathematics let me explain you some basic math.

When a statement is made it has equal chances of being false or true.We need to use logic to determine the truth and we cant take every single thing we see as a fact. It could be very well that muslims have invented this story of Abraha attacking mecca in the year of muhammads birth i.e 570 AD. I am not saying I am 100 % sure about this and thats why I am assigning a probability of 0.5 to your claim which means that Abraha's inscription debunks islamic scriptures however its equally likely that if this story is invented by muslims to falsely glorify muhammads claims about Kaaba and mecca being protected by God and hence if this story is false then it means there is absolutely no connection between muhammads birth and Abraha's expedition which means we dont have to shift the events 15-20 years back. I am damn sure that you still wont get what I am saying .

The CAT wrote:
skynightblaze wrote: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.

You conveniently skipped parts of the wiki article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham_Ibn_Al-Kalbi

Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi (737 AD - 819 AD/204 AH),.... Hisham established a genealogical link between Ishmael and Mohammed and put forth the idea that all 'Arabs' were all descendants of Ishmael. He relied heavily on the ancient oral traditions of the Arabs.
:roflmao:
This is NO historian but a fabulist only relying on story-tellers, working to establish the blood-link between the Abbasid and Muhammad,
via the fictitious al-Muttalib & the Quraysh tribe. You must now confirm the very existence of this Quraysh tribe from external sources.


Even you ignored the link I gave you. This person has been found historically accurate in most of his narrations so you cant just disqualify him. I didnt quote him to prove arabs are descendents of Ishmael. If this person was as you say we wouldnt have found him to be historically accurate. None is 100 % perfect but that doesnt mean we discard everything that onesays.

Also I want to ask you one question which I doubt you will understand.

Why would islamic historians speak about mecca and its construction in the 4th or 5th century AD if at all they were fabricating the whole thing??? Common sense tells us that if a person is a liar and is fabricating things he will hide all those things that expose his mission. Ibn Ishaq and many other islamic historians speak about construction of Kaaba and its building by some Pagan. This shows their honesty and as well stupidity .The stupid part is that it seems that Ibn Ishaq didnt realize that this exposes muhammad's claim that Abraham had built the kaaba. This can only be a honest mistake or sheer stupidity but certainly someone cant do that deliberately especially when his mission is to fabricate history about mecca and claim that about its existence since the time of Abraham. Logic says it can happen only if someone utters a truth mistakenly .

The Cat wrote:
As you know I'm not even stating that there was no Mecca, only that the gathering of testimonies, including Abraha's, infer that this
pilgrimage center was north, not south, of Yathrib. You must sharpen your notion of what constitute an evidence. And the direction
of the earliest qiblas stands as yet another archeological evidence which you've met with sweet nothings.



I am interested in seeing your evidence for direction of qiblas.I know you have quoted somewhere. If you can quote it again I can have a look at it but even if we assume they are reliable evidences you lose the case because of a simple reason that quran makes a mention of mecca which is very important and I should have brought it early in the discussion.

You and your lovers believe that quran was a product of 7th century and after muhammad everyone corrupted the hadiths. IF mecca was mentioned in the quran in 6-7th century then its obvious that it existed during 6-7 th century so your historical evidence goes for a toss provided quran was written in the 6th-7th century .The other possibility is that quran was written in the 8th century along with hadiths so again your position that quran alone is a sacred book of islam goes for a toss.

The Cat wrote:See: one hundred apologist historians, all from the Abbasid forgery mills, can not stand against the Abraha inscription. Which is confirmed by ALL external sources which ignored such an 'important' city. None of these apologist historians constitute a single archaeological proof. That's the main weakness of Dr Amari, otherwise an excellent researcher. He MUST be more critical of his biased Sunnite sources...


.Secondly copy pasting things doesnt make one a scholar.You seem to be under impression that copy pasting others work makes you an intelligent person.

Btw Mecca was also mentioned by Ibn Abbas who wasnt abbasid so if you accuse abbasids of forgery then how do you explain people before them making a mention of mecca?

Thirdly your own sources as I found claim that mecca was first mentioned around 724-740 AD.Now if we use common sense then we can easily see that a city cannot be built within a day. It takes years to build a city . So assuming that mecca was never mentioned before 724 AD we still can say that mecca existed at-least 50 years before taking into account how little access to the technology these people had . Mecca had to evolve as a city worth mentioning in historic books which means it must have its origin atleast 50 years before 724 which takes us into 600 series.

Finally if we assume that none of my above 3 arguments are applicable then my previous posts debunks you thoroughly . You have no chance of escape.

Anyway here is the proof for first mention of MECCA by your lovers CROne and COOK
As Crone and Cook maintain the earliest substantiated reference to Mecca occurs in the Continuatio Byzantia Arabica, which is a source dating from early in the reign of the caliph Hisham, who ruled between 724-743 A.D. (Crone-Cook 1977:22,171)


http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/history ... qurdoc.htm



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

Wrong premise: this should prove... (-reliable history can't be based on oral, easily forged, or from biased, sources-).


I showed you that this person whom I quoted was historically accurate in his claims from the answering islam's link that I provided.

The Cat wrote:False dilemma: Al kabli was an authentic historian (-paid by the Abbasids for the false genealogy empowering them-).
Hasty generalization: That proves Mecca in the 6th century. (!!! Again, where's your archaeological evidence?)

As I've said you never, ever, come out of this logical fallacy circular reasoning (another fallacy of its own).


Oh please spare me about logical fallacies. There are infinite logical fallacies that you have committed throughout the course of our debate. It would take me atleast day to gather them together. Btw If Abbasids were so corrupt then you should forget for a case of quran alone being the book of islam. There is no book of islam which is sacred in that case but i think you have a different agenda here. You are not happy with the idea that quran also goes down the drain by the virtue of your arguments . YOu want to promote here Free minders faith.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:23 am
by skynightblaze
Lastly if anyone isnt tired of seeing logical fallacies and incoherence I shall show them one more gem from a CAT .
I guess the original intention of CAT to start this topic was to show that muhammad was a myth. IF muhammad was a myth then quran also becomes a myth because it does make a mention of Muhammad. In such a case how can any sane person contradict himself so horribly by claiming that only quran is a sacred book of muslims???.Quran also becomes a myth and hence in that case it cant be a sacred book .

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:26 am
by skynightblaze
The CAT wrote:In Islamic theology, jurisprudence and philosophy, and in Hadith collection, many of the greatest Islamic scholars came from Khorasan, namely Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Hanifa, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Abu Dawood, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa'i, Al-Ghazali, Al-Juwayni, Abu Mansur Maturidi, Fakhruddin al-Razi, (etc).

Provided by AB, from his site: free-Islam.com
Image[/quote]

:roflmao: Continuing on the same lines as of Ahmed's animation ...I can ask ... Did the prophet take the pain to collect the quran ? If not then how can anyone claim that its the only sacred book of islam?? :lol:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:22 am
by skynightblaze
Ibn Rushd wrote:Welcome back booktalker, I missed you.

I'm forced to agree with the Cat on this. It's been established firmly that hadiths are all forgeries from a later time, mostly to give legitimacy to the Abbasid revolution. They also have as their main agenda to "prove" that it all took place in Mecca, where Mecca is today. Using the criterion of dissimilarity or criterion of embarassment we are forced to conclude that this overkill of "it was in Mecca" shows that it was a new idea and they had to shove it down everyone's throat due to their resistance: everyone knew it was a new place.


I know you are a fan of CAT and there are many others on the forum as well so none is going to like me when I am going to kick him but you shall see as to why I keep on iterating that he is incapable of thinking. Here is the knock out punch for you ....


Abbāsid Dynasty, second of the two great dynasties of the Muslim Empire of the Caliphate. It overthrew the Umayyad caliphate in ad 750 and reigned as the ʿAbbāsid caliphate until destroyed by the Mongol invasion in 1258.


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... id-Dynasty

Abbasid dynasty originated in 750 AD but I am not sure whether you have noticed this or not. The very scholars whom CAT trusts claim that substantiated claims about mecca were made in 724 AD- 743 AD which is even before the coming into existence of Abbasid rule so this beyond a doubt proves that Abbasids werent the inventor of concept of mecca.See the proof below..

As Crone and Cook maintain the earliest substantiated reference to Mecca occurs in the Continuatio Byzantia Arabica, which is a source dating from early in the reign of the caliph Hisham, who ruled between 724-743 A.D. (Crone-Cook 1977:22,171)


http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/history ... qurdoc.htm

sO what this means is CAT merely copy pasted stuff without even bothering to think.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:14 pm
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:
Ibn Rushd wrote:Welcome back booktalker, I missed you.
........


I know you are a fan of CAT and there are many others on the forum as well so none is going to like me when I am going to kick him but you shall see as to why I keep on iterating that he is incapable of thinking.
what happened SKB., i am FAN of you., I constantly try to cool you down a bit..
Here is the knock out punch for you ....
Abbāsid Dynasty, second of the two great dynasties of the Muslim Empire of the Caliphate. It overthrew the Umayyad caliphate in ad 750 and reigned as the ʿAbbāsid caliphate until destroyed by the Mongol invasion in 1258.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... id-Dynasty ..
rest of your post may not be relevant but that is a valid question and history of Umayyad caliphatemust be considered in light of "if the Character Muhammad" was created by some folks of that time..

May be, the Cat considers whole Umayyad Caliphate is a also STORY that also came out of those Abbasid Caliphate mills similar to Hadith andeven Quran..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:34 pm
by yeezevee
So talking about Muhammad_The Myth or the Muhammad_The real., exploration of history of Umayyad Caliphate is necessary. After there were supposed to be the alleged expansionist of Arab empire through Muhammad's Quran/hadith/sunnah ..whatever. So let us read a bit f them..

UMAYYADS, the first Muslim dynasty (661-750)

Image

The Umayyad house was one of the major clans of the Quraysh tribe. Technically, Uthman, the third "Righteous Caliph", was the first Umayyad caliph. During his tenure (644-655), he appointed members of his clan to various posts; in particular, Muawiya b. Abi Sufyan was given the governorship of Syria. Upon the accession of Ali to the caliphate, Muawiya refused to pay him allegience, and in 658 the Syrians acknowledged Muawiya as caliph. That same year he gained control of Egypt; following Ali's death in 661, he subdued Iraq and then formally established himself as caliph.

The first line of Umayyads were the Sufyanids (descendants of Abu Sufyan) who ruled from 661- 684. Under Muawiya (661-680) the capital of the Muslim empire was transferred to Damascus. He is credited with raising a highly-trained army of Syrian soldiers which was used to expand Muslim authority east into Khorasan and west into North Africa. Muawiya also led excursions into Anatolia beginning in 672 which culminated in an unsuccessful three-year seige of Constantinople (674-677). He retained the administrative structures left by the Byzantines and Persians but consolidated his authority by appointing kinsmen to key posts. Before his death, Muawiya secured allegiance to his son, Yazid, thus introducing dynastic succession to Muslim rule.

Yazid's reign (680-683) was marked by rebellions led by Husayn b. Ali at Kerbala and Ibn al- Zubayr at Mecca, both of whom refused to recognize Yazid's authority. Upon the death of Muawiya II (683-684), civil war broke out between two Arab factions, the Qaysites and the Kalbites, the latter of whom supported the candidacy of Marwan b. al-Hakam. His ascendance to the caliphate in 684 established the Marwanid line of Umayyad caliphs. As he died a year later, the task of reunification was placed in the hands of his son, Abd al-Malik.

During Abd al-Malik's reign (685-705), order was gradually restored to Iraq and Arabia; Ibn al-Zubayr, who had taken advantage of the civil war in Syria to extend control into Iraq, was defeated in 692. Arabic was made the official language of administration, and Byzantine coins were replaced with a new Islamic-style coinage. Under his sons, Walid I (705-715) and Sulayman (715-717), the empire expanded westward to Morocco and Spain, and eastward to Transoxiana. Constantinople was beseiged, again unsuccessfully, for one year (717-718). This period also marks the building of several grand palaces and the famous Umayyad mosque in Damascus.

With the death of Sulayman, power was transferred to his cousin Umar b. Abd al-Aziz (717-720). He enacted fiscal reforms which placed all Muslims, Arab and non-Arab (mawali), on equal footing. His successor, Yazid II (720-724), caused a renewal of the hostilities between the Qaysites and the Kalbites by openly favoring the the former. During Hisham's long reign (724-743), the Muslim empire reached the limits of its expansion. Discontent with the Umayyad regime manifested itself with the rebellion of Zayd b. Ali in 740, while Berber revolts in North Africa that same year effectively cut off what is today Morocco and Spain from Umayyad rule. Under Hisham's successors, Walid II, Yazid III, and Ibrahim, a series of rebellions paralyzed the caliphate: Kharijites seized Kufa, and feuds between the Qaysites and Kalbites errupted.

The last Umayyad caliph of Syria, Marwan II (744-750), attempted to restore order, but by this time the Abbasid revolutionary movement had gained momentum in the eastern provinces of the empire. In 749 Abu al-Abbas al-Saffah was proclaimed the first Abbasid caliph; the Umayyads were massacred in 750. Only one Umayyad, Abd al-Rahman, escaped: he fled to Spain where he established the dynasty of the Umayyads of Cordoba.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:04 pm
by yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:13 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
yeezevee wrote:what happened SKB., i am FAN of you., I constantly try to cool you down a bit..


Actually, you merely get in his way as far as I can tell.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:16 pm
by yeezevee
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
yeezevee wrote:what happened SKB., i am FAN of you., I constantly try to cool you down a bit..


Actually, you merely get in his way as far as I can tell.
there is nothing wrong with that.. One must realize that there is no winner or looser here..

The Treasure:
http://www.treasurerealm.com/coinpapers ... ayyad.html

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:22 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
yeezevee wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
yeezevee wrote:what happened SKB., i am FAN of you., I constantly try to cool you down a bit..


Actually, you merely get in his way as far as I can tell.
there is nothing wrong with that.. One must realize that there is no winner or looser here..

The Treasure:
http://www.treasurerealm.com/coinpapers ... ayyad.html


So you do purposefully get in his way?? Why?? Please explain. Thank you. You do the same with me, and honestly, you often do it in a less than coherent fashion and raise points that really don't talk to the central point being discussed. Sorry, but I just don't understand why. What's your objective? Is it to be skewed on purpose because the other person is losing?? While to you, that might seem like you trying to be fair, but is it really fair if you are being subjective and skewed by playing some false equalizer role??