Page 12 of 25

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:36 pm
by Idesigner
Yes OBL you are right.

We kafirs sometime distract each other from serious discussions.I know Yee for 8 years and I am familar with his antics.Sometime in middle of serious discussion he will show provocative pics of some models. He used to do that in Islam vs other religions thread. He thionks he is trying to be peace maker. :cool:

Read my post in Phildige thread. Dont want to derail you though :D . You are ok.

I treid as much as I can to pin down Phi and he finally admitted Koran is not true.Ofcourse he even does not seem a native english speaker. Tell me now what is there to argue about ?

Id.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:39 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
Idesigner wrote:Yes OBL you are right.

We kafirs sometime distract each other from serious discussions.I know Yee for 8 years and I am familar with his antics.

Read my post in Phildige thread. Dont want to derail you though :D

I treid as much as I can to pin down Phi and he finally admitted Koran is not true.Ofcourse he even does not seem a native english speaker. Tell me now what is there to argue about ?

Id.


Ask him. I showed him his inherent misread of the challenge on page six of that other thread. That thread should have been over long ago, but he keeps trolling and inventing new angles.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:40 pm
by yeezevee
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
"yeezevee: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.
yeezevee: there is nothing wrong with that.. One must realize that there is no winner or looser here..
"Muhammad bin Lyin": 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??
well to explain all that stuff , we will be moving out of the subject and discussing some personal skits., But in this thread i don't think I am supporting either The Cat nor SKB.,

That colored stuff i didn't realize.. any ways .. getting back to the subject of Muhammad -Myth vs Reality., I would certainly suggest to "The Cat" to go back in time from Abbasid Islamic dynasty to Umayyad dynasty. So on that

The rule of Abd al-Malik around 691 and the Dome of the Rock will be interesting., After all that is an important monument for Muslims.

Image
The Dome of the Rock is located on Temple Mount on the eastern side of Old Jerusalem, and is the third most holy place in Islam. Built by Abd al-Malik in 72/691 AD, the Dome of the Rock stands atop the site where, according to Muslims, the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven after his Night Journey. When the sanctuary was under construction, Mecca was being occupied by a challenger to the Caliphate, Abd Allah Ibn az-Zubayr. Abd al-Malik decreed that the Dome of the Rock, rather than the Ka’bah, be the goal of the Muslim hajj (pilgrimage); this decree was annulled with the reconquest of Mecca.

The Dome of the Rock is an oblong building; although it was built by Syrian craftsmen trained in the Byzantine tradition, it is often cited as the first major example of Islamic architecture. The dome is now covered with aluminum and topped with a gold crescent. It contains splendid designs noted for their Byzantine/Syrian motifs. Calligraphic decorations (as used in much Islamic art) dominate the interior and the exterior (240 meters total). These inscriptions are all Koranic verses about Jesus and his relationship to Jerusalem. Both the exterior and the interior of the Dome have undergone continual restoration and renovation over the years.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:55 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
yeezevee wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
"yeezevee: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.
yeezevee: there is nothing wrong with that.. One must realize that there is no winner or looser here..
"Muhammad bin Lyin": 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??
well to explain all that stuff , we will be moving out of the subject and discussing some personal skits., But in this thread i don't think I am supporting either The Cat nor SKB.,

That colored stuff i didn't realize


Maybe you were just being sarcastic in the other thread when you posted verses from Revelations after I posted verses from the Quran. The reason I posted those verses from the Quran is because I honestly think he's never seen them. But enough of that, back to the topic at hand. :)

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:53 pm
by phildidge
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
Idesigner wrote:Yes OBL you are right.

We kafirs sometime distract each other from serious discussions.I know Yee for 8 years and I am familar with his antics.

Read my post in Phildige thread. Dont want to derail you though :D

I treid as much as I can to pin down Phi and he finally admitted Koran is not true.Ofcourse he even does not seem a native english speaker. Tell me now what is there to argue about ?

Id.


Ask him. I showed him his inherent misread of the challenge on page six of that other thread. That thread should have been over long ago, but he keeps trolling and inventing new angles.



You showed me nothing me old mucker, I know, you know that muslims disagree on hadiths, so do scholars, so how can any be used as evidence of his life, so we have no idea really waht mohammed did, so Ali's claim is not even theory, just his opinion, based on made up works, that even mohammed said not to use..... :*)

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:15 am
by Muhammad bin Lyin
phildidge wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
Idesigner wrote:Yes OBL you are right.

We kafirs sometime distract each other from serious discussions.I know Yee for 8 years and I am familar with his antics.

Read my post in Phildige thread. Dont want to derail you though :D

I treid as much as I can to pin down Phi and he finally admitted Koran is not true.Ofcourse he even does not seem a native english speaker. Tell me now what is there to argue about ?

Id.


Ask him. I showed him his inherent misread of the challenge on page six of that other thread. That thread should have been over long ago, but he keeps trolling and inventing new angles.



You showed me nothing me old mucker,


What makes you think I'm old, dumbass??

phildidge wrote: I know, you know that muslims disagree on hadiths, so do scholars, so how can any be used as evidence of his life, so we have no idea really waht mohammed did, so Ali's claim is not even theory, just his opinion, based on made up works, that even mohammed said not to use..... :*)


So if we have no idea what he did, how do you prove Ali wrong?? You have no literature to prove him wrong. How many times do I need to point this out to you, dummy??

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:41 am
by phildidge
Never said you were old, it is a phrase, have you not heard of this Muhammad bin Lyin , you complete wombat!
Ali, was wrong before he started, using works that are not historical, when he wanted to stir up hatred, his followers are small though, out of the world population, how many?

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:00 am
by Muhammad bin Lyin
phildidge wrote:Never said you were old, it is a phrase, have you not heard of this Muhammad bin Lyin , you complete wombat!


No, for you to even mention old, you were accidentally or subconsciously going by my avatar.

phildidge wrote:Ali, was wrong before he started, using works that are not historical,


OK, then show me the historical works that prove him wrong.

phildidge wrote: when he wanted to stir up hatred, his followers are small though, out of the world population, how many?


Yes, quoting the Quran and the hadiths is stirring up hatred. :lol:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:48 am
by skynightblaze
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
Idesigner wrote:Yes OBL you are right.

We kafirs sometime distract each other from serious discussions.I know Yee for 8 years and I am familar with his antics.

Read my post in Phildige thread. Dont want to derail you though :D

I treid as much as I can to pin down Phi and he finally admitted Koran is not true.Ofcourse he even does not seem a native english speaker. Tell me now what is there to argue about ?

Id.


Ask him. I showed him his inherent misread of the challenge on page six of that other thread. That thread should have been over long ago, but he keeps trolling and inventing new angles.


We can have something similar to LAS VEGAS Cassino here. We can start betting on how many pages the other thread will go . What do you say? :lol:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:53 am
by skynightblaze
yeezevee wrote:
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..


That is ok. I have to agree that I lost my temper too fast but however when I typically get pissed off when someone assumes an air of superiority and tries to show others as inferior especially when they themselves cant reason properly.

The Cat wrote:
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..


If Ummayad caliphates were corrupt then there is simply no reason as to why one should treat quran as a sacred book because some of the companions of muhammad belonged to that dynasty who were responsible for collecting the quran. So where does a case for quran alone exist? CAT doesnt understand that debunking hadiths debunks quran too but he is too intelligent to pay attention to others I think. Basically he wants to promote here faith of free minders and thats it.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:55 am
by phildidge
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
phildidge wrote:Never said you were old, it is a phrase, have you not heard of this Muhammad bin Lyin , you complete wombat!


No, for you to even mention old, you were accidentally or subconsciously going by my avatar.

phildidge wrote:Ali, was wrong before he started, using works that are not historical,


OK, then show me the historical works that prove him wrong.

phildidge wrote: when he wanted to stir up hatred, his followers are small though, out of the world population, how many?


Yes, quoting the Quran and the hadiths is stirring up hatred. :lol:


I never assumed you were old, me old mucker just that you are a complete metula, who thinks oral history is valid, but is unable to realise that that is called hearsay and rumour, which does not have a leg to stand on either in court or the academic world, sorry to burst your bubble, but the challenge was over the moment it started, using works that have no proof they are authentic.
He can quote the quatn and hadiths, it is his claims that are stupid, when will you learn dear child.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:56 am
by booktalker
Ladies, ladies, please... this bickering amongst yourselves is all so undignified, don't you think?

Uthman: what factual and documented historic evidence (i.e. proof) is there for his existence, please?

Love and peace :hug:

BT
x

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:58 pm
by yeezevee
booktalker wrote:Ladies, ladies, please... this bickering amongst yourselves is all so undignified, don't you think?

Uthman: what factual and documented historic evidence (i.e. proof) is there for his existence, please?

Love and peace :hug:

BT
x
booktalker good to see you., Uthman..Uthman: ., Now you are talking., yes that is where one has to start to inquire about prophet Muhammad and Mr. PBUH. Well you should add bit more information for the readers on that subject of sahaba– The Companions of The Prophet, Mr. PBUH, SAWS.. RAWS.. dear booktalker.,

But what is up with this thing "Ladies, ladies," ?? Huh! ladies? I don't see any lady here., all are guys ., do you see any lady dear booktalker ??

bad..bad... bad boy.,

So taking about Uthman, who is Uthman?? where is Uthman? where did he come from??
Uthman ibn Affan(c. 574-656)

Uthman ibn Affan was the third of the "rightly guided" caliphs. He married successively two of Muhammad's daughters and reigned as caliph from 644 until 656.

Uthman was born into the wealthy Umayyad clan of the Quraish tribe in Mecca, a few years after Muhammad. Unlike most of his kinsmen though, he was an early convert to Islam, and was also part of the first Muslim emigration to Abyssinia, and the later emigration from Mecca to Medina. Uthman was also one of the first men to memorize the Qur'an and he was instrumental in the compilation of the book after the death of Muhammad.

Uthman became caliph after the assassination of Omar in 644. He reigned for 12 years, and during his rule, all of Iran, most of North Africa, the Caucuses and Cyprus were added to the Islamic empire. In order to strengthen his control over the empire, Uthman appointed many of his kinsmen to governor positions. This move caused many problems, as many people were angered by Uthmans preferential treatment of his own kinsmen.

Perhaps the action which caused the most controversy for Uthman during his reign, however, was his attempt to develop a definitive text of the Qur'an at the expense of all others. His aim was simply to establish one true text of the revelation, in order for all Muslims to know of what the Qur'an consisted, what order it should be in, and how it should be written. Despite the controversy, Uthman was able to complete this task, which has since been recognised as a significant achievement in Islamic history. He reduced the number and frequency of disagreements over dogma, but many devout believers at the time accused Uthman of tampering with the sacred book. In 656, crowds protested his compilation of the new Qu'ran outside his home. Uthman refused help ld friends, and the siege ended when protesters broke into his house, and assassinated Uthman. He was eventually buried in Medina.
That is what a good teacher of History of Islam tell me dear "booktalker".


So you think all this Islam is Bogus and COCK & BULL story "booktalker"??., Damn a billion people are brain washed and running like wild sheep towards Mosques not knowing who is is Muhammad, what is Allah dear "booktalker".. Talk.. Talk man ..Talk..

with best wishes
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:09 pm
by The Cat
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.

Hi booktalker and Ibn Rusd!
Let us say we're fans of history, particularly the religious ones. Evidence is the name of the game!

To help our case, we must point out the archaeological evidence that the first coin ever to mention Mecca was minted in the
Abbasid's East Iran, around 822AD (Ohlig's Hidden Origins of Islam). It's not mentioned either on any Abd al Malik coins.

There's also no mention of such a sanctuary on the inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock, of which architecture & Iranian Piramouz
Kufic script reveal an obvious Iranian outset rather than an Umayyad one as featured by the mosques of al-Aqsa and of Damascus.

Among the earliest coins of Abd al Malik, we read 'Nasara Allah', the term in the Koran defining Christians.

Jesus as the Umayyad Mhmd (M)!
Image
Image

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:53 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote: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)

Wrong premise: The very scholars whom CAT trusts claim that substantiated claims about mecca were made in 724 AD- 743 AD.
False dilemma: which is even before the coming into existence of Abbasid rule....
Hasty generalization: this beyond a doubt proves that Abbasids werent the inventor of concept of mecca.

Did you check what the Continuatio says? Most obviously not. The 'concept of Mecca' and its nowadays location aren't the same!
viewtopic.php?p=149101#p149101

The Continuatio Byzantia Arabica of the Chronicle of Isidor (second half of 8th century) mentions a battle ... "apud Maccam,
Abrahae, ut ipsi putant, domum, quae inter Ur Chaldaeorum et Carras Mesopotamiae urbem in heremo adiacet" ("... in Mecca,
Abraham's house, as they [the Arabs] believe, that is located in the desert between Ur in Chaldea and Carras, in Mesopotamia".
(Ohlig, Der frühe Islam S.368).

Was Arabia ever extended so to include Chaldea and Mesopotamia? :roflmao:

So like Crone/Cook stated: the first source to name it fails to locate it in Arabia.

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

Who didn't 'bother to think'? Can anyone discredit himself further more!

___________________
skynightblaze wrote:When a statement is made it has equal chances of being false or true..... 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.

Wrong premise: When a statement is made it has equal chances of being false or true.
False dilemma: if this story is false then it means there is absolutely no connection between muhammads birth and Abraha's expedition.
Hasty generalization: we dont have to shift the events 15-20 years back.

1. If I state that Mexico is in the USA, does it have equal chances of being false or true? :lol:

2. There's no connection between the inscription (552 vs traditional 570) and Abd al-Muttalib, Mecca and the Quraysh.

3. Shift them as much as you want, we are left with no valuable historical background for Muhammad.
Without this reliable background, the Abraha landslide debunks most every bit of the Hadiths & sira...

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


____________________
skynightblaze wrote:(1)I am interested in seeing your evidence for direction of qiblas.
(2) You and your lovers believe that quran was a product of 7th century
(3) Mecca was also mentioned by Ibn Abbas who wasnt abbasid
(4) This person (al-Kalbi) has been found historically accurate in most of his narrations

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

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

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

If you take a map you will find where it is that these mosques were pointing. All four of the above instances position the Qibla not towards Mecca, but much further north, in fact closer possibly to the vicinity of Jerusalem. If, as some Muslims now say, one should not take these findings too seriously as many mosques even today have misdirected Qiblas, then one must wonder why, if the Muslims back then were so incapable of ascertaining directions, they should all happen to be pointing to a singular location; to an area in northern Arabia, and possibly Jerusalem?

We find further corroboration for this direction of prayer by the Christian writer and traveler Jacob of Edessa, who, writing as late as 705 AD was a contemporary eye-witness in Egypt. He maintained that the ‘Mahgraye’ (Greek name for Arabs) in Egypt prayed facing east which was towards their Ka'ba (Crone-Cook 1977:24). His letter (which can be found in the British Museum) is indeed revealing. Therefore, as late as 705 AD the direction of prayer towards Mecca had not yet been canonized.

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

(2) Prove that this once. For even the Samarkand codex is dated roughly at the end of the... 8th century.
And the one codex kept in the British museum is dated 790, so roughly from the same.... Abbasid period.

(3) How's that: the forgery mills forged Muhammad backward... but his companions were truer than him! :prop:

(4) Of course, fabricating a link between Abraham and Mo is most credible... That all Arabs come from Ishmael should prove his reliability,
and that he relied HEAVILY on -easily forged- oral sources, who aren't there anymore to comment, makes him a sound historian....

And that's the only 'proof' you brought !!! :*)

_____________________________
skynightblaze wrote: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 .

1. What is the sacred book of Islam then?
2. In the Arabic Koran, Muhammad occurs only 4 times, all Medina verses: 3.144, 33.40, 47.2, and 48.29. It's an oddity by itself!
viewtopic.php?p=94060#p94060

3. You've already been refuted on this...
viewtopic.php?p=123806#p123806
The Koran is -completely silent- about his year of birth, of his father or mother. It's solely in the hadiths and sira.....
So you have been defeated twice.... Game over for you. Period.


In short, a lot of :blahblah1: to cover up the fact that you found no archeological evidence to back up your Sunnite trolling gullibility. :sleeping:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:05 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote: :roflmao:

:prop:
:*)
:blahblah1: . :sleeping:
The Cat., just a suggestion...

Get rid of all those emoticons., once in a while is Ok., but too many of them will make your response silly and UNCATTISH..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:16 pm
by booktalker
Hi yeezevee

I don't see any lady here


I know but you're all bitchin' like girls.....

what is Allah dear "booktalker"


Don't get me started on that one! [Well, you can if you like].

But back to Uthman for a moment: did he really burn all those mis-spelt, unreliable Qur'ans, or was that story made up later to explain to Muslims why there wasn't any evidence of any Qur'an anywhere before then? Hmmm...

Lots of love

BT
x

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:02 pm
by yeezevee
booktalker wrote:Hi yeezevee

I don't see any lady here


I know but you're all bitchin' like girls.....
well you can say anything to the folks here., but that is sexiest remark and unfair., is it not booktalkie?? You know girls bitch.. boys bitch., that remark is very 19th and early 20th century fox.. We got to move on dear booktalker.
what is Allah dear "booktalker"

Don't get me started on that one! [Well, you can if you like].
well just a simple question could have answered in few words..
But back to Uthman for a moment: did he really burn all those mis-spelt, unreliable Qur'ans, or was that story made up later to explain to Muslims why there wasn't any evidence of any Qur'an anywhere before then? Hmmm...

yes back to Uthman ibn Affan., Talk to me about him dear booktalker, tell me your version of his story before we go and say "He burned all those qurans"

who was this guy Uthman ibn Affan? where is he from? who are his parents ..siblings, wives.. relatives.. pets dogs? tell me your version of his story dear booktalker., That character is very important for early Islam consequently to the origin of present Quran.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:45 pm
by booktalker
You tell me, gorgeous yeezevee, that's why I'm askin! xxx (You've got me going on emoticons now - I'm looking for one which blows you a kiss but can't find one).

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:02 am
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:I can refute CAT even without bringing proofs of mecca's existence. Even the quran talks about MECCA.....
CAT is proven wrong so I think its bad news for fans of CAT to see their hero losing to me .

Wrong premise: I can refute CAT even without bringing proofs of mecca's existence.
False dilemma: Even the quran talks about MECCA...
Hasty generalization:CAT is proven wrong so I think its bad news for fans of CAT to see their hero losing to me.

It's worthy of interest to see what this 'makkata' of 48.24 could mean, when using some Classical Arabic Dictionaries (CAD)...

Survey...
--The Koran also talks about the mother of settlement (umm al-Qura, 6.92 & 42.7) and Becca (3.96) as the first sanctuary;
--Pickthall added a Mecca in brackets (not found in the Arabic text) in 2.125, 2.196 & 33.6;
--Similarly, did Shakir in 62.2.

These additions in the verses, versus the Koranic silence where Mecca/Makkata would be most expected, is indeed much questioning!

We also have Maqam Ibrahim (2.125, etc). Checking on this:
http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/islam ... awting.htm
In connection with this verse (2.125) the exegetes give a number of different explanations of what is meant by Maqam Ibrahim. In addition to the view that the name here refers to the stone which is now so called, it is also said to indicate the whole of the haram or various extended areas within the haram. The context seems to require explanations such as these since it is necessary to explain away the preposition min as a redundant particle if it is desired to see the Qur'anic reference as to the stone which is now called Maqam Ibrahim.

On the whole, therefore, the verse seems inconsistent with the usually accepted signification of the name Maqam Ibrahim. Furthermore, in some traditions and verses of poetry the name Maqam Ibrahim, or more frequently simply al-Maqam occurs in contexts which suggest that we are dealing with something other than the stone which now bears the name.

It seems clear that, whether the references are to al-Maqam or Maqam Ibrahim, there is frequently some difficulty in reconciling the references with the Meccan sanctuary as we know it, or some suggestion that they are not to the stone which now bears the name Maqam Ibrahim. Since it seems impossible that such references could have originated after the Muslim sanctuary had become established at Mecca in the form in which we know it, it seems to follow that they must date from an earlier period when the name Maqam Ibrahim meant something else....

The attempt to reconcile the Qur'anic reference with the facts of the Meccan sanctuary, however, seems obviously forced, and when the evidence is taken as a whole it does seem to indicate a development of the sort suggested. In general, it seems likely that the literary sources we have for early Islam represent the outcome of a long process of editorial amendment and revision (...) In the case of the Qur'anic reference, where the contradiction between its conception of Maqam Ibrahim and that of later Islam is more clear, amendment of the text would not have been so easy for obvious reasons. In this case the necessary reconciliation was attempted in the tafsir literature rather than by alteration of the text itself.

Yep the tafsirs first served as directing people into the believe wanted, although contrary to 3.7

Now, if the Koran is silent in all those verses about Mecca/Makkata, where it would be badly needed, and since sura 48 deals
with expectations of war, then searching the most evident Classical meaning for Mkk (being also its MAIN meaning), we get:

Lisan Al-Arab: MKK: Used with brains to mean sucking it all
Al-Waseet: MAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent.
Al-Ghani dictionary: MKK: Sucking; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.
Al-Qamus Al-Muheet: Used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.

Using this rendition we come to better catch 48.24:
And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them,
in the midst of swindles, after He had made you victors over them....


Back to Maqam Ibrahim, one verse is much revealing when joining old Midian geography and basic etymology...

Sura 22: The Hajj !
22.26: And (remember) when We prepared for Abraham the place (Ibrāhīma Makāna Al-Bayti) of the House.
This time we don't read Maqam Ibrahim, but Makana al-Bayti, a very rare proper name indeed!

Because Makana has the same root as Makna... nearby Mount al-Lawz, topped with non-volcanic black stones!
SEE... Makna is close to Madiana (Maghair Shoaib, n.b. Jethro=Yathrib; nowadays al-Bad), & the Hajj road...
Image

And al-Qura was simply the old name for the area encompassing Hala-'l Badr, Dedan/Al-Haram, Hegra/Al Hijr, Khaybar and Tabuk.
All these names are very familiar to the Muslims: the battles of Badr, Khaybar and Tabuk; Al-Hijr (sura 15) and the Hegra/Hegira.
More so I am now inclined to think that the Quraysh were simply the inhabitants of al-Qura, the Koranic Umm al-Qura (6.92/42.7) !

The profanity of the Muslims' displaced holy places is breath taking!
Image