Page 13 of 25

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:30 am
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
.....
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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!
All of the irrelevant garbage that you brought will be ignored . Now the point you are making here is the translation of 48:24 isnt correct.I bought 7-8 translations previously . You stupid troll there are around 35 translations of the same verse at link that I have given below . All of them translate that verse to include Mecca in the verse. Enough your stupidity you troll! Rather than getting angry with you I am feeling sympathy for you... All these people were certainly skilled in arabic and you a non muslim who doesnt even know arabic is teaching arabic here based on your copy pastes from free minders.

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/48/. ... efault.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Debunker a native arabic speaker wrote: I don't understand what the dispute is but the verse literally translates
to:

"And it is He who withheld their hands from you and withheld your hands from
them, in the belly of Mecca, after He had made you overcome them".

In context, the verse simply talks about the event of the Muslims capturing
Mecca without a fight.
Even he accepts that the verse contains mecca and even I consulted Ahmed Bahgat( a native arabic speaker) who to agreed that the correct translation of the verse should include MECCA . This will be my last reply to you regarding translation of 48:24. There is no proof further needed .I deliberately answered this argument first because your entire historical proofs and other things collapse if quran mentions mecca as you believe its the product of 6th century or 7th century so this establishes existence of MECCA. Now you have lost here because claiming mecca didnt exist till 8th century means that we had no quran till 8th century and quran is a product of Abbasid dynasty. SO bid goodbye to your holy and dear quran only stand PISSY CAT!!! :D

EDIT

I am sure CAT must have read somewhere about appeal to authority fallacy and now he is bound to bring it here so before he brings it in I will quote what Debunker had to say to me regarding translations made by FREE MINDERS..
Debunker wrote: P. S. The CAT is an idiot whom I never engaged in a conversation with, because
he believes whatever he wants, anyway, regardless of any evidence. Btw, I
guess some of his more recent arguments are influenced by Quranists. Those
people are the most dishonest Muslims you'd ever meet anywhere. They twist
the meaning of verses by heavily relying on the *roots* of words, twisting
every verse they don't like, forcing it to say what they want it to say.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:06 am
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.
Learn something from that past. Every time you show me your teeth you end up getting them broken. History can sometimes save you from getting embarrassed!
What you brought merely proves that location of mecca during the time of your historian was not the same place that its today.

IT DOESN’T PROVE THAT ABBASIDS INVENTED THE CONCEPT OF MECCA BECAUSE YOUR HISTORIAN MAKES A MENTION OF MECCA EVEN BEFORE THE ABBASIDS CAME INTO RULE! IT ONLY MEANS THEY CHANGED THE LOCATION OF MECCA FROM ITS ORIGINAL PLACE

Let’s go a step ahead with this argument of yours. If what your historian says is true then it would mecca’s location was changed by Abbasids. If that was the case then certainly atleast 1 non muslim other than him or after him would have recorded this significant event. This event has a historical significance so please quote any non muslim scholar apart from Continuatio Byzantia Arabica who makes the mention of shift of the location of MECCA.

Now finally what if we decide to trust the testimony of Continuatio Byzantia Arabica of the Chronicle of Isidor?? It would only mean that Abbasids changed the location of MECCA but how does that translate that they were corrupt people and they corrupted the concept of mecca in itself??

Lastly if we are decide that today is the day where we are going to create Guinness book of record for being stupid and believe that concept of MECCA was indeed fabricated by Abbasids then it disproves even Quran. In such a case we can’t have a case for quran alone. Both hadiths and quran have to go down the drain. SO sorry pussy CAT you are finished but I am sure you will come back and write long irrelevant garbage with those smilies and claim that you won because stupidity is infinite in your case.
The CAT wrote:
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!
IF today anyone asks me as to why I am unbeliever , I will give your example to them. Certainly GOD who creates people cant be so ruthless that he makes you stupid first of all and to add to the misery he doesn’t give you the wisdom to understand your stupidity when others point it out.
THE CAT wrote:
Spoiler! :
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.!
I have explained enough and it would be stupid on my part to explain it to someone who doesn’t even the basic of common sense.
THE CAT wrote:
Spoiler! :
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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 !!! :*)
I have made my argument in such a way that if you deny hadiths you have to deny quran so I really didn’t even care to read your arguments. So bid good bye to quran too pussy cat if you believe hadiths are corrupted because of the historical proofs that you have brought.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:23 am
by skynightblaze
The CAT wrote:
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?
It means there is no sacred book of islam. IF quran inspite of being corrupted can be a sacred book of islam then why cant hadiths be the sacred book of islam in your terms? Do you see how inconsistent you are in your stand?? I think I am talking to a wall now.
The Cat wrote: 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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So how many times should quran make a mention of character of Muhammad(whom you consider a myth) so that we classify quran as a myth? Even mention of Muhammad once is sufficient because Muhammad is the central character in the quran. Everything revolves around him . IF he was a myth then quran is purely a myth.
The Cat wrote: 3. You've already been refuted on this...
viewtopic.php?p=123806#p123806" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[/quote]

I dont disagree that you have posted some content but has anyone ever taught you that just because you post something it doesnt mean you are making sense.

The first problem with your argument is you are using islamic sources for your case which you discard otherwise. Thats called selective picking. YOu can at the max say that see islamic sources mention of a character narrating hadiths from Abu huraira when the character was born after Abu Huraira was born so you see how stupid they are. This is the only argument that you can make however even this argument can be debunked. The first problem is how do you know that sources which make a mention of birth dates of Huraira and the character UMAR 2 are reliable? Its just like proving Aisha being of 20 years old by quoting some unauthentic sources and claiming that Sahih hadiths are unreliable. You need to prove me that the islamic sources which you used to find out birth dates and death dates of concerned people here are more authentic than sahih hadiths and hence Sahih hadiths are proved to be a product of backward composition.

M0re ever even if assume that the birth dates and death dates are correct how can anyone make a case for backward composition of hadith depending upon a single hadith? It could also be a honest mistake from Bukhari .Anyone can make such a mistake when he/she is dealing with thousands of hadiths.How can surely say that it was a case for backward composition??

TO make such a case you need to bring decent amount of evidence. YOu need to show atleast 5-10 such cases for anyone to give it a thought but since logic is never your domain its impossible that you have even understood what I have said.
The CAT wrote:
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.
I didnt say quran is unauthentic because it also mentions the birth of muhammad. My argument is that we have some common part between the hadiths and the quran so if hadiths are complete forgery then we have a problem for quran as well because it cant happen that quran is true while at the same time hadiths confirming quran are false.I guess this must have flown over your head.
The CAT wrote: 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:
I am honored when a troll calls me a troll . IF a troll calls you a scholar then there is a very good reason for you to worry about your intellectual capabilities so I thank you for calling me a troll. :lol:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:17 am
by skynightblaze
I was in touch with Sam Shamoun over this issue.. He has some questions here for quran alone muslims..
Sam Shamoun wrote: Ask him since you follow the Quran ALONE then tell me the following using ONLY the Quran:

1. Who is Abu Lahab in Surah 111. What was his crime that got Allah so angry that he even composed a Surah about him?

2. Who is Zayd in Q. 33:37? What is this story all about?

3. Surah 30:1-4 says that the Romans have been defeated in the lower or nearer part of the land and would then be victorious in a few years. Have him answer the following: WHO defeated them, WHERE were they defeated, and WHY were they defeated? These are vitally important questions which will help us know whether this prophecy came to pass or not.
For more questions of that sort....
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Incoherence/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:47 am
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote: .....claiming mecca didnt exist till 8th century means that we had no quran till 8th century and quran is a product of Abbasid dynasty. So bid goodbye to your holy and dear quran only stand PISSY CAT!!! :D
Without that word "PISSY CAT".., rest of it I have to agree with SKB., It is clear that Quran has SO MUCH JUNK IN IT that there is little doubt that it was written by multiple authors and put together at different times. But I have a strong doubt that "The Cat" considers Quran as a holy book". What I think he is doing at the best is, He is trying to extract "HISTORY OF ISLAMIC FAITH" from its verses. I doubt he can succeed on that. Hadith has lot more information on "Islamic history" than Quran. Off course being bigger version of Islamic rules & regulations, it also filled with lot more junk than what you see in Quran.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:10 pm
by The Cat
All your so-called 'arguments' are so weak that they do not deserve a lengthy response...

Your post #1
Argumentum ad populum is not a valid argument but another logical fallacy.
You MUST disprove my MKK argument using Classical Arabic dictionaries...

Your post #2
--Since the Abbasids changed the location of 'Mecca' than it indeed demonstrate how corrupted they were.
--The earliest Korans that we have are all dated +/- 790. But the Sana'a manuscript is much older...
--Your ''I have explained enough..... so I really didn’t even care to read your arguments...'' Is what Muslims do when defeated.

Your post #3
--You wrote: ''Muhammad is the central character in the quran''. WRONG, it's Allah by far... and then the Koran itself,
and then the prophets. You'll find that the names of Abraham, Moses and Isa are written much more times than that of Mo.

--The very chain of one to one narrator (ahaad type) is prove enough that the hadiths are backward writings.
No hadith can be said authentic (sahih) when of the Ahaad type. Only the Mutawatir/Tawatur type is reliable.

The tafsirs (3.7), the sira (3.80) and the hadiths (31.6) go against repeated Koranic injunctions, and I should
also add that no hadith of the ahaad type (99.9%) may have any juristic value whatsoever according to 2.282:
And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women, of such as ye approve
as witnesses, so that if one erreth (though forgetfulness) the other will remember. And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned.

Bukhari and al went against this clear asking of two witnesses to validate -each step- of their narrator chain!

So all you came up with are HOT AIR balloons, like answering archaeological evidences (see below) with al-Kalbi! :reading: :lotpot:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:22 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote: Only the Mutawatir/Tawatur type is reliable.
huh? I was under the impression, you threw out all hadith out of Islam., So you are O.K. with Mutawatir/Tawatur type of selection from haidth "The Cat"??
"A hadith is said to be mutawatir if it was reported by a significant, though unspecified, number of narrators at each level in the chain of narration, thus reaching the succeeding generation through multiple chains of narration leading back to its source. This provides confirmation that the hadith is authentically attributed to its source at a level above reasonable doubt."
Don't you have problem with such hadith selection??

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:50 pm
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:So you are O.K. with Mutawatir/Tawatur type of selection from haidth "The Cat"??
As asked by 2.282 any hadith MUST have at least TWO witnesses -at each step of the narrating- to have any Islamic juridic value.

I also differentiate between hadiths of purely historical content, which can be criticize for their own historical pertinence...
AND the so-called religiously or juridical binding ones. These MUST be confirmed by many before any further considerations.

Then the last sermon contains three different versions, each witnesses by a 'great number of people', yet contradicting each other:

1) For the Sunnites
--I leave with you Quran and Sunnah.
Muwatta (Ibn Malik), 46/3

2) For the Shiites (and Abbasid)
--I leave with you Quran and Ahl al-bayt.
Muslim 44/4, Nu2408; Ibn Hanbal 4/366; Darimi 23/1, nu 3319.

3) Yet...
--I leave for you the Quran alone you shall uphold it.
Muslim 15/19, nu 1218; Ibn Majah 25/84, Abu Dawud 11/56.

Using the Occam razor, we can deduce that only the third one is genuine: ''I leave for you Quran (alone)'

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:06 pm
by yeezevee
With that post., you again write as if "Cat" sitting on the wall and trying to jump this side or that side "the Cat" ..lol...

First of all why are you even getting into this last sermon business?
Then the last sermon contains three different versions, each witnesses by a 'great number of people', yet contradicting each other:

1) For the Sunnites
--I leave with you Quran and Sunnah.
Muwatta (Ibn Malik), 46/3

2) For the Shiites (and Abbasid)
--I leave with you Quran and Ahl al-bayt.
Muslim 44/4, Nu2408; Ibn Hanbal 4/366; Darimi 23/1, nu 3319.
why don't you say., Muhammad was never there and last sermon never happened and it is all cock and bull story of Shia Islam and Sunni Islam?
The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:So you are O.K. with Mutawatir/Tawatur type of selection from haidth "The Cat"??
As asked by 2.282 any hadith MUST have at least TWO witnesses -at each step of the narrating- to have any Islamic juridic value.

I also differentiate between hadiths of purely historical content, which can be criticize for their own historical pertinence...
AND the so-called religiously or juridical binding ones. These MUST be confirmed by many before any further considerations.
I don't even get the basics of what you said., Once you dwell in to this investigation of hadith with some conditions like

a). hadith MUST have at least TWO witnesses
b). I also differentiate between hadiths of purely historical content


then that will be a never ending discussion. Now any one can ask you this simple question, "pickup any hadith and prove it that it has "Two witnesses" and those "Two witnesses" are real not some guy telling you a story 100s of years later that he heard from "two witnesses for a given hadith"?

that will put you in to never ending running around circle. In a blunt way., tell me What hadith is really original in your view?? give some examples.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:09 pm
by The Cat
Summing up the archaeological evidences

First conclusion made herein:
viewtopic.php?p=94550#p94550" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Evidences for a Northwest location of 'Mecca' (most probably some corruption for al-Maqam, Abraham's place).

1)--The geographical implausibility of an Abraham/Ishmael foundation to such southern location.
viewtopic.php?p=135038#p135038" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2)--The Abraha inscription...
viewtopic.php?p=135047#p135047" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3)--The direction of the earliest qiblas & the testimony of Jacob of Odessa, corroborated by Baladhuri's Futuh.
http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/coolcalm/qibla.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Image

4)--The silence of the Yeminite/Nabataean inscriptions over such an 'important' trading and pilgrimage center.
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... eology.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

5)--The silence of near contemporary Greek historians and geographers.
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... ssical.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

6)--The calligraphic evidences...
viewtopic.php?p=135050#p135050" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

7)--The Umayyad numismatic evidences, it's absence on the Dome of the Rock
viewtopic.php?p=94306#p94306" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=94468#p94468" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=150131#p150131" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

8)--Yehuda D. Nevo's researches in the Negev.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_D._Nevo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/qurarch.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Finally,
9)--The probability that the Koranic al-Masjid al-Haram means an Arabic Mt Sinai: Hala-'l Badr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hala-%27l_Badr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Image
viewtopic.php?p=135751#p135751" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=136044#p136044" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=136632#p136632" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/mosesinyemen.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Medieval Arab geographer Yaqut al-Hamawi (d. 1229).
Faaraan (Paran): An Arabicized Hebrew word. It is one of the names for Mekkah mentioned in the Torah.
It has been said that it is a name for the mountains of Mekkah.
In Hebrew Paran means 'the place of caverns'. Paran and Midian became embroidered.
http://www.guidedbiblestudies.com/topics/mount_seir.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

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

All these evidences are countered, according to SNB, by the irrefutable testimony of al-Kalbi, a reliable 'historian'! :turban:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:20 pm
by yeezevee
All these evidences are countered, according to SNB, by the irrefutable testimony of al-Kalbi, a reliable 'historian'! :turban:
The cat, you have to realize here SNB doesn't care about al-Kalbi or x, y,z .,

He just want to put everything of Islam in Dust bin . He considers Quran, hadith, Muhammad all is rubbish. At the best he may support the idea of that "there was some "criminal character "Muhammad" who used Allah for his loot and booty. Read his signature
Quran is an obvious lie and the only miracle of quran is that people can dare to believe that its really from God even after reading it!
On the other hand, in some of your posts you give the impression that Quran is indeed original/authentic ., I still don't know the meaning of "authentic" here.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:48 pm
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:in some of your posts you give the impression that Quran is indeed original/authentic .
On the Koran's authoritativeness.
viewtopic.php?p=130980#p130980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SNB is the one endorsing the hadiths' legitimacy, acknowledging Muslims' right to:
viewtopic.php?p=130181#p130181" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
By using and repeating the word -authenticity- as opposed to content you have proven yourself unfit to any logical debate.
That is because you reconstruct EVERYTHING from your own fantasy world and holds it to be sacrosanct. That's DELUSION.

Your logic comes down to uphold its content as LEGITIMATE, accurate.
Then, logically, you become morally responsible for its outcome, such as:

Female circumcision
Image
Marriage of genitally mutilated childbride
Image
Stoning
Image

You have disqualified yourself both ways:
Either you misconstrued your thoughts, time again, and so are unfit to debate, or not... which makes you an abjection.
Are you still a fan of such?

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:03 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:in some of your posts you give the impression that Quran is indeed original/authentic .
On the Koran's authoritativeness.
viewtopic.php?p=130980#p130980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
well let me read through it and please add any more of your posts on that "Koran's authoritativeness"
SNB is the one endorsing the hadiths' legitimacy, acknowledging Muslims' right to:
viewtopic.php?p=130181#p130181" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No..No. SNB is NOT endorsing anything in Islam., SNB is using hadith to INSULT ISLAM and Muslims. he is telling them in his signature that you Muslims are fools to believe in hadith and in Quran.. lol
Are you still a fan of such?
well I am FAN of many things. In summer fans help every one. Any ways., let me read through your Quran authoritativeness..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:16 pm
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:SNB is NOT endorsing anything in Islam
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...
He doesn't endorse their content but... the legitimacy of Muslims to carry on their hadiths religious duty such as:
Female genital mutilation, childbride marriage and stoning. And that is disgusting.

The only other way to interpret his stand on this is that he doesn't know the meaning of what he's talking about...
And like I've said this does discredit him for any meaningful debate, but hot air and logical fallacies such as above.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:44 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:SNB is NOT endorsing anything in Islam
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...
He doesn't endorse their content but... the legitimacy of Muslims to carry on their hadiths religious duty such as:
Female genital mutilation, childbride marriage and stoning. And that is disgusting.

The only other way to interpret his stand on this is that he doesn't know the meaning of what he's talking about...
And like I've said this does discredit him for any meaningful debate, but hot air and logical fallacies such as above.
you are twisting it "the Cat"., read "YOUR WORDS AGAIN" the Cat.. You said it "He doesn't endorse their content ". Yes this "Female genital mutilation, childbride marriage and stoning. And that is disgusting." is indeed disgusting.,

and SNB is using it to insult Muslims and Islam by saying
You disgusting Muslim., you fools, The Islam you are following has done and doing such horrible things and you consider it as religion of allah/god?
that is what he is SAYING and he is using Books from Muslim to Insult Islam and Muslims.

I am sure you realize that dear The Cat., the difference is., you are trying to legitimize Quran as authentic(whatever authentic means) and he is throwing everything of Islam in to trash, That includes, Quran, hadith, Sunnah and everything...

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:52 pm
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:
The Cat wrote:You said it ]"He doesn't endorse their content. Yes this"Female genital mutilation, childbride marriage and stoning. And that is disgusting." is indeed disgusting.,

the difference is., you are trying to legitimize Quran as authentic (whatever authentic means) and he is throwing everything of Islam in to trash
How can he trashes Islam by recognizing on the other hand the genuineness of the hadiths? This is ludicrous!
This is like saying to Muslims: I despise your traditions but, on the other hand, go ahead... they are rightful.

Just like SNB, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, the very meaning of the words you use.

Read again...
He doesn't endorse their content but... the legitimacy of Muslims to carry on their hadiths religious duty such as:
Female genital mutilation, childbride marriage and stoning. And that is disgusting.


Then you dare to switch this acknowledgement to me, ''whatever authentic means'', or authenticity for that matter. That's disgusting!
Read again:
viewtopic.php?p=130181#p130181" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=130980#p130980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, do you have anything to say about the archeological evidences presented or is red herring your only motive here?

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:17 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote:
How can he trashes Islam by recognizing on the other hand the genuineness of the hadiths? This is ludicrous!
he can and he is doing it, the reason is simple., Because Muslim followed and following the words in hadith more than they are using Quran as Islamic legitimized scriptures to make sharia laws across the world for 100s of years. So he is using the works of early Islamic sharia rules to Insult Islam. In fact Muslim themselves are doing that..
Just like SNB, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, the very meaning of the words you use.
off course i don't get it., Don't get upset "the cat"
Read again...
He doesn't endorse their content but... the legitimacy of Muslims to carry on their hadiths religious duty such as:
Female genital mutilation, childbride marriage and stoning. And that is disgusting.
I read it Cat.,
Then you dare to switch this acknowledgement to me, ''whatever authentic means'', or authenticity for that matter. That's disgusting!
I am not switching anything., What I am saying is that you are trying to tell FFI folks that Quran as the only Islamic scripture And SKB is saying Quran is trash., hadith is trash and everything in islam is trash
Read again:
viewtopic.php?p=130181#p130181" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=130980#p130980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I will
Now, do you have anything to say about the archeological evidences presented or is red herring your only thing here?
Archeological evidences of that time can be erased in few years, deleting them from the face of the planet is not a big deal... and that is not relevant.

But you have the right to prove through archeology., "MUHAMMAD NEVER EXISTED" Quran is baloney The cat. We know well Hadith is Junk..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:36 pm
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:SKB is saying Quran is trash., hadith is trash and everything in islam is trash

Archeological evidences of that time can be erased in few years, deleting them from the face of the planet is not a big deal... and that is not relevant.

But you have the right to prove through archeology., "MUHAMMAD NEVER EXISTED" Quran is baloney The cat. We know well Hadith is Junk..
WRONG. SNB has always uphold the authenticity of the hadiths, he cannot trash them anymore.
He's saying to Muslims: I despise your traditions but, go ahead since they're rightful. That's ludicrous!

Then the archeological evidences are not relevant? This is the #1 basic in history! You really don't know what you're talking about.

And we have too many external evidences about some Muhammad to state that he never existed.

I usually don't care much to answer you. Now you may know why...

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:10 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote:
WRONG. SNB has always uphold the authenticity of the hadiths, he cannot trash them anymore

He's saying to Muslims: I despise your traditions but, go ahead since they're rightful. That's ludicrous!
That is ludicrous?? no..no.. that is smart. That is how smart people do., "INSULT YOU WITH YOUR OWN WORDS" ., His goal being eradicating Islam from the face of the earth., he knowing well Haidth is Trash using it to Insult Islam & Muslims. On one side he says to Muslims "Hadith is authentic" and on other side he says "You foolish Muslims, you are following cult doing all stupid things for the past 1000 years"
Then the archeological evidences are not relevant?This is the #1 basic in history! You really don't know what you're talking about.
I didn't say that ., what I said was this "Archeological evidences of that time can be erased in few years, deleting them from the face of the planet is not a big deal... and that is not relevant"., it is NOT relevant for those who wants to insult Islam and eradicate islam
And we have too many external evidences about some Muhammad to state that he never existed.
you say that and BILLION Muslims says this

and that is what precisely SKB using to Insult Muslims.
I usually don't care much to answer you. Now you may know why...
You have the right to do what you want to do The Cat., it is your computer, your key board and your fingers to type or not to type.. lol..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:40 pm
by booktalker
It seems to me that the closer this debate gets to peoples' hearts, the more high-pressure it gets... buttons get pushed. True colours emerge. Cards on the table, or held close to the chest?

It would be good to 'calm down dears' as the English Prime Minister was vilified for saying recently, and go back to establishing common ground where possible, no?

For example: CAT said:
You MUST disprove my MKK argument using Classical Arabic dictionaries
I agree and it might be more fruitful to work to the logical conclusion of one argument as far as possible before embarking on another. Hard I know but I do think the content of this thread is of value.

Ah but mine is only a small cry in the wilderness.

Love

BT
x