Page 16 of 25

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:12 am
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:It simply is not possible that Abbasids on one hand protected quran and on other hand fabricated the hadiths. It means that entire generation of Abbasids were corrupt so there is no stopping them from corrupting quran.
As I've said you must prove this other wild assumption. You won't ! :sleeping:
skynightblaze wrote:Your translations are flawed as Debunker pointed out. Every single arabic word has a root but its not necessary that every time the word in question gets the meaning of its root.
Is Debunker able to debunk me from Classical Arabic Dictionaries? Your assumption only meet his.
skynightblaze wrote:Most of my posts are based on logic and not Sunnite arguments.
Oh I guess I was the one relying on al Kalbi as a reliable historian.
skynightblaze wrote:I mean historical or archaelogical evidence doesnt tell us anything about illiterate society or corruption in political or religious layers etc.It seems that you selectively pick from those sources again.... Yes historians would fabricate because they were getting paid but my question is very specific. Getting paid would explain as to why Ibn Ishaq would fabricate things but this doesnt explain why Abbasids would want Ibn Ishaq to include facts like construction of mecca in the 4th century AD especially when their aim was to say that Mecca was built in the time of Abraham.
That's only showing your total ignorance on history all over again.
They first started to forge so to establish a blood-link with Muhammad through the fictitious Abd al-Muttalib. The first layer was political...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Zab" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Abbasid caliphs descended (???) from Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib (566 – 662), one of the youngest uncles of Muhammad, because of which they considered themselves the true successor of Muhammad as opposed to the Umayyads. The Umayyads were descended from Umayya, and were a clan separate from Muhammad's in the Quraish tribe. They won the backing of Shiites (i.e. the Hashimiyya sub-sect of the Kaysanites Shia) against the Umayyads by temporarily converting to Shia Islam and joining their fight against Umayyad rule.
_____________________
skynightblaze wrote:I do this because I see the dishonesty in the first place from the quran alone muslims.
Thanks for admitting your basic dishonesty. Theirs is just a sophist's excuse.
skynightblaze wrote:Are you really so gullible to believe that one who is bent on hell to defame muhamamd would only corrupt hadiths instead of corrupting quran??
A vast majority of Muslims still believe that the hadiths sanctified Muhammad...

He's a model, Muslims' dignity
Image

Do they think the hadiths defamed Muhammad?
Image
skynightblaze wrote:Keep in mind your threads could be getting hits because you are stupid.
That's stupid but anyway, just like you. You're only good at being trivial... What else from a self-admitted dishonest person.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:14 am
by skynightblaze
Yeezevee wrote:His point is simply if Hadith is forged by Abbasids then the potential of forging Quran by them can not be neglected.
Why potential? why not say that quran is 100 % fabricated if hadiths are fabricated? Lets see an example . There are plenty of hadiths on wife beating but CAT;s claim here is that A-Z hadiths are fabricated so this means that hadiths regarding beating one's wife are fabricated but again the same instruction to beat wife is also found in the quran so now we see the same corrupted instruction is also found in the quran. What does that tell anyone? Abbasids corrupted quran too !

I merely brought one common element between the quran and hadiths. Now there are plenty of hadiths which confirm quran. So if A-Z hadiths are fabrications then so is the corresponding part of the quran which confirm these hadiths fabrications! IT cant happen that quran is true but at the same time the hadiths which confirm are fabrications. So here is the end of debate. I have proved that even quran was corrupted by Abbasid i.e ofcourse if we assume CAT;s stupid logic that Abbasids corrupted hadiths from A - Z.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:15 am
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:

I think he wants to tell us that that "with one hand Abbasids were writing hadiths in huge numbers by calling muhammad a paedophile, a thief, a rapist, a mass murderer etc etc and with the sword in the other hand saying " Dare anyone touch our holy book and corrupt it or defame our prophet muhammad(pbuh) " . :*)" This displays abundantly how weak this person is when it comes to using common sense.
I don't think "The Cat" is trying do that but unfortunately his posts leads to that conclusion. I think The Cat has some other ideas about Islam/Muslims and Quran which he has not spelled it clearly. The only thing that appeals to me from his posts is., "if Some Muslim guy reads his posts., it will be convincing to him/her to put a doubt and that Hadiths are completely bogus, Quran is a decent book and its rules are good enough to live life as good Muslims., hence Islam can be modified/softened a bit consequently all these killings/wars can be eliminated "

beyond that i don't see any good reason., or may be he is really interested in this early Islam as an academician..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:22 am
by yeezevee
skynightblaze wrote:
Yeezevee wrote:His point is simply if Hadith is forged by Abbasids then the potential of forging Quran by them can not be neglected.
Why potential? why not say that quran is 100 % fabricated if hadiths are fabricated?
Spoiler! :
Lets see an example . There are plenty of hadiths on wife beating but CAT;s claim here is that A-Z hadiths are fabricated so this means that hadiths regarding beating one's wife are fabricated but again the instruction to beat your wife is also found in quran so now we see the same corrupted instruction from the hadiths is being also found in the quran. What does that tell anyone? Abbasids corrupted quran too !

I merely brought one common element between the quran and hadiths. Now there are plenty of hadiths which confirm quran. So if A-Z hadiths are fabrications then so is the corresponding part of the quran which confirm these hadiths fabrications! IT cant happen that quran is true but at the same time the hadiths which confirm are fabrications. So here is the end of debate. I have proved that even quran was corrupted by Abbasid i.e ofcourse if we assume CAT;s stupid logic that Abbasids corrupted hadiths from A - Z.
When I said that I wanted to convince the Cat to think the possibility of modifying some existing Quran by Abbasid rulers. I don't know may be he thinks 'QURAN CAN NOT BE CORRUPTED" i doubt that . I also don't think this A to Z hadith is corrupted by Abbasid rulers as you pointed out the common stories in them


Well Quran and Hadith were already present before Abbasid came in to power., so there every chance of rewriting both of these things..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:23 am
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:His point is simply if Hadith is forged by Abbasids then the potential of forging Quran by them can not be neglected. Even if Abbasid dynasty forged one sentence of Quran means, it is forged by those guys. It doesn't need to be every word is forged by Abbasid rulers.
That's the fallacy of moving the goalposts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The last two ayats of sura 9 are actually disputed by some. And SNB would still have to demonstrate that it was done on purpose by some Abbasid caliph. So it would only demonstrate that this one verse was added or modified, not the whole Koran. SNB would still have to prove that the Koran was, overall, an Abbasid forgery.

__________________
skynightblaze wrote:So basically his point is Abbasids were honest to the core when it came to quran which means he is here to tell us how quran is authentic and hadiths are not which is what Free minders say.
Prove us how the Abbasids corrupted the Koran. Don't be so lazy, shifting your duty to me. That's your conclusion, not mine.
If they portrayed Muhammad as such, it may pretty well be to cover their own lusty depravity...

But for a huge number, Muslims hold the prophet with the highest esteem, not as you want it (ie. the Danish Cartoons).

Again, as before, waiting for proofs... in the concerned main... :sleeping:

btw. Someone who still upholds the authenticity of the hadiths, thus endorsing the Muslims' right
to mutilate young girls, childbride and stoning, is in no position to talk about me at all
skynightblaze wrote:I have proved that even quran was corrupted by Abbasid i.e ofcourse if we assume CAT;s stupid logic that Abbasids corrupted hadiths from A - Z.
So, by your logic, then the Koran is as genuine as the hadiths. :tongueout:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 2:30 am
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:His point is simply if Hadith is forged by Abbasids then the potential of forging Quran by them can not be neglected. Even if Abbasid dynasty forged one sentence of Quran means, it is forged by those guys. It doesn't need to be every word is forged by Abbasid rulers.
That's the fallacy of moving the goalposts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The last two ayats of sura 9 are actually disputed by some. And SNB would still have to demonstrate that it was done on purpose by some Abbasid caliph. So it would only demonstrate that this one verse was added or modified, not the whole Koran. SNB would still have to prove that the Koran was, overall, an Abbasid forgery.
forget about goal posts and fallacies dear The Cat., Tell me your intentions in this thread.

Are you acting like QURAN ONLY MUSLIM?? lol...
Do you think Quran is a word of Allah/God?

without the answers to those simple questions it is hard for me to understand your posts..

The Cat to SKB wrote:
So, by your logic, then the Koran is as genuine as the hadiths. :tongueout:
zee.. you write ..write and write... what SKB thinks is KORAN IS AS STUPID AS HADITH., why don't you get that "The Cat"?? But Hadith incriminates the character Muhammad as a CRIMINAL .

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 5:08 am
by The Cat
Since I'm not the subject of this thread but Muhammad/Mecca, and since SNB will NEVER bring any proof for his claims, but ad hominem as
red herring mixed with some of his 'logical thinking', essentially made of wrong premises, false dilemmas and hasty generalizations...

I will simply remind him to bring out PROOFS for his assumptions with this emoticon. :sleeping:
And his sophist trivialities with this one: :wacko:

Back to Muhammad/Mecca for good then
We've seen so far that NO ahaad hadith (99.9% of them all) are reliable, since the mutawatir type of multi-corroborated narrations
could be the only type of hadiths to be hold with any seriousness, even according to 2.282: 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
the other will remember. And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. Be no averse to writing down whether it be
small or great, with the term thereof. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah and MORE SURE FOR TESTIMONY,
and the best way of avoiding doubt between you.


The ahaad chain of one to one narrator goes against this injunction, as it was easy to forge the so-called 'testimony' of dead people!

The Criminals of Islam, by Shabbir Ahmed.
http://www.ourbeacon.com/wp-content/upl ... minals.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We saw that the Classical Arabic Dictionaries do not corroborate the rendition of Mecca (written binatni makkata in 48.24), and Mecca
would be an oddity since it's not even mentioned in 2.125; 2.196; 33.6 and 62.2, although so added in brackets by Pickhtal or Shakir.

We find other wordings for the Muslims ancestral place such as umm al-Qura (the mother of settlement, 6.92 & 42.7), most probably
referring to the ancient name for the area of al-Qura, which encompassed the volcano of Hala-'l Badr, al Haram (Dedan), Al-Hijr (Hegra)
and Tabuk, all these name very familiar to each and every Muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hala-%27l_Badr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This ancestral place must be the Maqam Ibrahim which is written in 2.125 and 3.96-97. This Maqam must be Mecca. Another perfidy of the
translators is shown when we read in sura 22 (the Hajj): Ibrāhīma Makāna Al-Bayti, not the usual Maqāmu 'Ibrāhīma, but the translators
falsely translated as if Maqamu was indeed written. Because Makana has the same root as Makna, still in existence today!
viewtopic.php?p=150221#p150221" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(with maps and links)

Such an ancestral northwest location is confirmed by Diodorus Siculus, talking about a temple 'highly venered by all Arabs'' near... Eilat!
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... ssical.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then, as we saw, we've got no valid testimony on the existence of nowadays Mecca in the 6th century. Quite the contrary:
viewtopic.php?p=150476#p150476" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(with maps and links)

To which I shall now add this article...

http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/history ... qurdoc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Apart from the obvious difficulty in finding any documentary or archaeological evidence that Abraham ever went to or lived in Mecca, the overriding problem rests in finding any reference to the city before the creation of Islam. From research carried out by both Crone and Cook, except for an inference to a city called "Makoraba" by the Greco-Egyptian geographer Ptolemy (), there is absolutely no other report of Mecca or its Ka'ba in any authenticated ancient document; that is until the early eighth century (Cook 1983:74; Crone-Cook 1977:22)....

Yet even more troubling historically is the claim by Muslims that Mecca was not only an ancient and great city, but it was also the centre of the trading routes for Arabia in the seventh century and before (Cook 1983:74; Crone 1987:3-6). It is this belief which is the easiest to examine, since we have ample documentation from that part of the world with which to check out its veracity. According to extensive research by Bulliet on the history of trade in the ancient Middle-East, these claims by Muslims are quite wrong, as Mecca simply was not on any major trading routes. The reason for this, he contends, is that, "Mecca is tucked away at the edge of the peninsula. Only by the most tortured map reading can it be described as a natural crossroads between a north-south route and an east-west one." (Bulliet 1975:105).

This is corroborated by further research carried out by Groom and Muller, who contend that Mecca simply could not have been on the trading route, as it would have entailed a detour from the natural route along the western ridge. In fact, they maintain the trade route must have bypassed Mecca by some one-hundred miles (Groom 1981:193; Muller 1978:723). ''The real problem with Mecca, however, is that there simply was no international trade taking place in Arabia, let alone in Mecca, in the centuries immediately prior to Muhammad's birth''....
The crossroad of north/south and east/west routes was Al Haram (Dedan) and al-Hijr (Hegra)!
Image


The eye-witness of Jacob of Edessa (d.708) in Cairo:
"All we have regarding Islam are the notices that Mhmt went down for trade to the lands of Palestine, Arabia and Syrian Phoenicia,' that 'the kingdom of the Arabians (arbaye), those whom we call Arabs (tayyaye), began when Heraclius, king of the Romans, was in his eleventh year and Khusrau, king of the Persians, was in his thirty-first year', and that 'the Arabs began to carry out raids in the land of Palestine.''

Very interesting remarks indeed on Mhmt! Including the beginning of the Arabs era (AH) here unrelated to the Hegira but to Heraclius.

Now on the prayers (qiblas)...
''For it is not to the south that the Jews pray, nor either do the Muslims (mhaggraye). The Jews who live in Egypt, and also the Muslims there, as I saw with my own eyes and will now set out for you, prayed to the east, and still do, both peoples—the Jews towards Jerusalem and the Muslims towards the Ka'ba. And those Jews who are to the south of Jerusalem pray to the north; and those in the land of Babel, in Hira and in Basra, pray to the west. And also the Muslims who are there pray to the west, towards the Ka'ba; and those who are to the south of the Ka'ba pray to the north, towards that place. So from all this that has been said, it is clear that it is not to the south that the Jews and Muslims here in the regions of Syria pray, but towards Jerusalem or the Ka'ba, the patriarchal places of their races.'' (Jacob of Edessa, Letter to John the Stylite).


Later we will have a look on 3.96 'Becca' (bibakkata), which name Muslims hold to be the former Mecca.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 5:34 pm
by The Cat
The historical context of the emergence of the hadiths about Muhammad...

Alfred Guillaume: The Traditions of Islam, An Introduction to the Study of the Hadith Literature (3 excerpts):
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Gu ... /index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1. From his introduction...
Our estimate of traditions circulated in their name cannot but be adversely affected by the frequent accusations of forgery levelled against many of the professional traditionists, by the many anachronisms they contain, and by the political and sectarian bias they display. When all these factors are allowed for, and account is taken of the inevitable mistakes that must occur when traditions are handed down through a long line of speakers, it is difficult to regard the hadith literature as a whole as an accurate and trustworthy record of the sayings and doings of Muhammad.....

Of a similar nature, though of far greater importance, is the Muwatta of Malik b. Anas. This work, which has always been highly-prized by Muhammadans, is not a collection of traditions. The author's interest was in jurisprudence, and his aim to establish a system of law based on the sunna of Medina. Thus he appeals to legal precedents as often as to hadith, which it was only incidentally his purpose to record for the sake of their legal significance.....

That Malik was no collector of traditions in the later sense is clear from his independent handling of his material. He does not always take care to trace back his isnad or chain of guarantors to the prophet, nor are all the links in the chain set out. Thus, although his Muwatta saw the light a century before the canonical collections, it contains many hadith which have no place in the later works, because they are not supported by a list of names reaching in uninterrupted succession from Muhammad to Malik. It is unfortunate for the study of Muhammadan origins that the extant versions of the text of the Muwatta differ so radically one from another.
There are something like 50 different versions of Malik's Muwatta (made of only 500 Medinan sunnas)!

2. The Umayyad Area...
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Gu ... ns/ch2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is undoubtedly due to later writers' ignorance of the practice of antiquity that they explain the references to 'Uthman sitting in the minbar during the khutba to betrothals (khutbatu-l-nikah). Curiously enough in this matter, in which they have been held up to reproach as godless innovators, the Umayyads were adhering to the sunna of the prophet, and preserved the early significance of the minbar as the seat of judgment on which the ruler sat. Only in the days of the next dynasty did the minbar degenerate into a pulpit from which the weekly sermon was delivered....

It can hardly be denied that the policy of the Umayyads — always with the exception of the piously brought up 'Umar b. 'Abdu-l-'Aziz — was dictated by considerations of a worldly rather than a religious nature. They had practically no interest in religious law, and no great veneration for the teaching of the prophet. The Book of Songs is an eloquent witness to the unbridled licence of thought and life at that time. Al Walid II, when threatened with the divine wrath pronounced in the Quran against the enemy of religion, actually threatened to use the sacred volume as a target for his arrows.....

Most probably the prolific output of pseudoprophetic hadith had their origin in the days of the Umayyad oppression. The pious, in the name of Muhammad, who by projecting himself into an unhappy future becomes a laudator temporis acti, pronounce condemnation on the degeneracy of the times. 'The best age for my community was the time when I was sent, then the time following, then will arise a people whose word none can trust.' This hadith exists in very many different forms and collections. The following from Ibn Hanbal is of interest as showing the interpretation given to it in the time of the next dynasty: 'Prophecy will be with you as long as God wills; then he will take it away; then will come a caliphate on the pattern of prophecy; then will come a tyrannical kingdom... then will come a kingdom in arrogance: then will come a caliphate on the pattern of prophecy. Then the prophet was silent.' .....

If any external proof were needed of the forgery of tradition in the Umayyad period, it may be found in the express statement of Al Zuhri: 'These princes have compelled us to write hadith.' Undoubtedly the hadith exalting the merit of the pilgrimage to the qubbatu-l-Sakhra at Jerusalem is a survival of the traditions Al Zuhri composed. Ibn 'Aun, who died in the middle of the second century, refuses to credit traditions resting on the authority of Shahr b. Haushab because he had held office under the government. It is difficult to imagine a more telling accusation. Al Bukhari a century later feels no compunction in including traditions in Shahr's name in the category of 'genuine', presumably because he knew little or nothing about the circumstances of the time in which Shahr lived, nor the pressure that was brought to bear upon him.....

It need cause no surprise that comparatively few traditions 'inspired' by the Umayyad house survive. We have seen that a great many were in circulation while the dynasty flourished, and we hardly need the express assurance that the Abbasids sternly repressed them. The house of Abbas had ruled for more than a century when the great written collections were made, and during this time the theologians and muhaddithun had been able to develop their doctrines and practices without the hindrance, and often with the help, of the government....

Thus a hadith which obviously has no greater authority than those it seeks to undermine says: 'After my death sayings attributed to the prophets who were before me. What is told you as a saying of mine you must compare with the Qur'an. What is in agreement therewith is from me whether I have actually said it or not.' This is but another way of saying that provided an invented hadith is edifying or unobjectionable to the orthodox, none need trouble to inquire whether it actually proceeded from the mouth of the prophet or not.....
So three chronological layers of forgery:
1. Political: To establish a link between the Abbas and Muhammad, thus gaining the Shias on their side against the Umayyads...
2. Juristic: As the basic will behind Malik's Muwatta, not caring to trace back all his traditions to the prophet, ie. he ignored them!
3. Religious: Hanbal & Shafi'i upheld the divinity of an uncreated Koran & the sanctity of Muhammad's Sunna, against the Mutaziles.

Mrs Crone saw very well the fundamental correlation between Moses' Jewish Sunna (Mishnah/Midrash) and that of Muhammad's...

Patricia Crone's Hagarism... (which I'll quote again when we get to Becca)
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ta08AAA ... ca&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The attitude of the early Iraqi schools towards the source of law is correspondingly close to that of the rabbis. In particular, there is the same rather unthinking acceptance of an oral tradition perfunctorily placed under the general aegis of the relevant prophet. In the eyes of the rabbis their oral tradition as a whole went back to Moses as in their maxim 'All Torah is Mosaic Halakha from Sinai'. Likewise the early iraqi lawyers use the notion of 'sunna of the Prophet' to invoke a similarly general sanction for the living tradition of their school.......

The Hebrew scriptures, heavily exploited by analogy, thus sufficed to keep Karaism in business as a halakhic faith. The Mu'tazila were less fortunate: their scripture was shorter... and the resulting is manifest in two ways. On the one hand, Mu'tazilite law is all root and no branch: they attempt to eke out the scriptural foundations of law with reason, and end up with reason instead of law.... The reduction of mischna to midrash item by item is just not feasible in Islam. The Muslim rabbis, by contrast, were far better placed than their Jewish equivalents to respond to the fundamentalist challenge..... Where the fundamentalists have failed to reduce Muslim mishna to midrash, the traditionists were able to glorify it by the multiplication of ishnads, the criticism of isnads is the Muslim gemara.
The Islamic Pharisees really went against many Koranic injunctions, like 9.31, in fact they did exactly the same:
They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks (imams) and the Messiah son of Mary (or Muhammad, son of Amina),
when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner!

Finally, back to the third excerpt of Guillaume's book...

3. The Abbasid Period
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Gu ... ns/ch3.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
During the Umayyad régime foreign converts had claimed in vain the equality, which the prophet assigned to all Muslims. The Umayyad and the nobles of Syria openly treated all foreigners as subordinate to free-born Arabs. One of the consequences of this racial pride was that the more ambitious and unscrupulous foreigners pretended that they were of pure Arab descent, discarded their foreign names, and produced forged pedigrees tracing their descent to men famous in the sagas of Arabia. Especially among the more intellectual Persians, with their age-long traditions of culture and civilization, was there fierce resentment of the Arab domination, a fact which explains their enthusiastic adoption of the Abbasid cause. With the accession of the new dynasty their chance had come......

A claim to the caliphate on the score of prophetic descent was a double-edged weapon, and one which the Alides were obviously more comfortable in handling. The latter never ceased to maintain their right. An enormous number of traditions were forged to further Abbasid interests, some of which are pseudo-prophetic, as for instance that quoted by Al Suyuti, 'The prophet said to 'Abbas: "In you shall rest prophecy and sovereignty." There was an immense volume of this kind of tradition which need not be quoted.....

Every corner of Irak and Hijaz was ransacked for traditions in support of the right of the house of Abbas. The doctors of law were required to formulate the principles of orthodoxy in explicit terms: and gradually the grand superstructure of the Sunni church was raised on the narrow foundations of Abasside self-interest,' says the Sayyid Amir 'Ali. Al Suyuti mentions a hadith in which the names of no less than six caliphs appear as guarantors of its contents......

The proud and independent Arab, while his authority was undisputed, could afford to ignore for the most part the dhimmis who adhered to their religion; but the Abbasid, who had thrown open the higher places in his kingdom to the foreigner, could not, or at any rate did not, accord the same toleration that Muhammad and his countrymen had displayed to the protected cults. With the Abbasid rule, the latent fanaticism of Islam burst forth, humiliating and subduing Jews and Christians to the position they occupy in purely Muhammadan countries today.....

Now the pious could emerge from their obscurity and take their place in regulating the life of the individual and the community according to the laws which had been evolved and deduced during the century and more since the prophet's death. With the definitely religious bent of the administration their importance in the community was enormously enhanced. Now that the sunna was to be the norm of life it was discovered that the Muhammadan world did not know what the sunna was. It may easily be conjectured what was the depth of the ignorance in the distant provinces from Bukhari's account of the conduct of public prayer in the mosque of Basra. Before the task of 'reviving the sunna' could be begun it had first to be determined what was the practice of the prophet. Malik in the middle of the second century could produce only six hundred sayings of the prophet of a legal character. Thus it is clear that the vast mass of material in the sunna was unknown to him......
In fact, the original sunna was simply the former and traditional ways of Muslims, especially those coming from Medina.
But it looks depraved by later Islamic standard, and against Koranic injunctions as reported by AB: The Brothel of Malik...
viewtopic.php?p=130951#p130951" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=131013#p131013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=131595#p131595" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nota Bene: Alfred Guillaume gives many scholarly references, and many more chapters are found in his book...

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 9:19 am
by booktalker
Oh at last this post has made me laugh - at first I thought you were talking about Uthman being in a minibar!!! :roflmao:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 4:09 pm
by skynightblaze
yeezevee wrote: That's the fallacy of moving the goalposts
Are you acting like QURAN ONLY MUSLIM?? lol...
Do you think Quran is a word of Allah/God?
Dont bother responding to him . He obviously doesnt understand what moving the goal posts mean. :lol:
Yeezevee wrote:
The Cat to SKB wrote:
So, by your logic, then the Koran is as genuine as the hadiths. :tongueout:
zee.. you write ..write and write... what SKB thinks is KORAN IS AS STUPID AS HADITH., why don't you get that "The Cat"?? But Hadith incriminates the character Muhammad as a CRIMINAL .
I wonder why he thought on this that i am exposed and showed his tongue.Surely there is some comprehension problem with this fellow. TO me the debate is over. If we are to accept the fact that Abbasids corrupted the entire hadiths then quran also becomes corrupt by the virtue of common elements. LO! the conclusion is quran was also fabricated with the hadiths. :D I think it will take light years for this person to understand such a simple and obvious common sense thing .

Anyway Yeeke I wanted to make one more point. Now eventhough CAT might be weak in logic these arseholes from free minders wouldnt mind to claim that hadiths which confirm quran are true while rest are junk. There is still a problem with this argument. This is what I want to highlight. The problem is...

What if Abbasids invented something and put the same in both the quran and the hadiths? In that case you will always find quran matching the hadiths but yet at the same time both will be corruptions. So we see we can easily dismiss this criteria used by quran only muslims but then there is a problem for quran alone muslims. So whats the conclusion?

The conclusion is obviously no book can be said to be reliable and hence both should be discarded if at all Abbasids were corrupt!

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 6:20 pm
by skynightblaze
Finally I would like to say something to those who are reading this thread. Never ever fall for the historical crap. I made a mistake of getting into historical things. Its a TRAP to set you up.If you fall for it you lose the case. Here the key is to beat the hunter by his own game. Just use the very same historical proofs to debunk quran . This demolishes their very purpose for which they deny hadiths i.e whitewashing sins of muhammad and make muhammad look a better person via the quran but sadly for them quran also goes down the drain.

Now in all the debates I made a few mistakes and I have learned from them so I can now gather all the things and put them in one thread in the resource center. Any suggestions would be welcome and I am open to correction.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 10:28 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:If we are to accept the fact that Abbasids corrupted the entire hadiths then quran also becomes corrupt by the virtue of common elements. LO! the conclusion is quran was also fabricated with the hadiths.
Wrong premise: The Abbasids couldn't corrupt nonexistent hadiths, they patronized their forging.
False dilemma: There are much more uncommon elements and far fetched Koranic twistings.
Hasty generalization: Contrary to hadiths, the Koran is multi-corroborated by the thousands.

And... from 2.282 vs ahaad narrators, they simply have NOTHING in common with the Koran.
skynightblaze wrote:What if Abbasids invented something and put the same in both the quran and the hadiths? In that case you will always find quran matching the hadiths but yet at the same time both will be corruptions.... The conclusion is obviously no book can be said to be reliable and hence both should be discarded if at all Abbasids were corrupt!
Same as above. But ''What if'' must be a logical proof for you...
skynightblaze wrote:I wonder why he thought on this that i am exposed and showed his tongue.
You gave up any 'logical thinking' the minute you upheld the very authenticity of the hadiths,
although disagreeing on their contents, it still means endorsing their legitimacy. See below...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/authenticity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
--The quality of being authentic, trustworthy, or genuine.
--Genuineness, legitimacy.
--Believability, credibility, credibleness.


You trashed yourself into an abyssal depth, back again, herein...
viewtopic.php?p=149214#p149214" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=149472#p149472" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=150500#p150500" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?p=150486#p150486" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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 (etc). 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.
I wouldn't mind a typo, a mental error, followed by a shadowy recantation. But, out of track,
you kept on this back again. Wrecking for good ANY credibility (all along with the hadiths)...

As if needing further proofs...
skynightblaze wrote:Never ever fall for the historical crap. I made a mistake of getting into historical things. Its a TRAP to set you up.If you fall for it you lose the case. Here the key is to beat the hunter by his own game. Just use the very same historical proofs to debunk quran . This demolishes their very purpose for which they deny hadiths i.e whitewashing sins of muhammad...
History has proven him wrong so it's... crap-trap, but how then can he debunks the Koran with this same crap-trap? :wacko:
Signed: SNB, the personification of... 'logical thinking'!
skynightblaze wrote:Now in all the debates I made a few mistakes and I have learned from them... I am open to correction
Noops, deluded fellow, for you even haven't learned the meaning of authenticity yet.
As they say: Pride comes before a fall. In your case, its tumultuously deafening !
skynightblaze wrote:TO me the debate is over.
There never was such a debate. I displayed researches and evidences; you came with opinionated wild assumptions, as above.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 6:39 pm
by skynightblaze
@Cat

You can go and play with the kids from the 5th grade. You dont belong to this forum because you are not fit for a coherent and logical discussion. I would be wasting my time if I reply to your below average arguments so keep dancing around and shouting how you have defeated me.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 12:36 am
by yeezevee
The Cat may have good intentions of proving that there was No Muhammad and NO Quran in 7th century hence whatever 1.5 billion Muslims following is rubbish & cock bull stories made by some Beduion baboons, some Persian baboons and some in the middle of that triangular area between Egypt_Persia and Syria.,

But if he only looks in to hadith and leaves Quran alone without any criticism and as an authentic allah book for Muslims, then people will consider Cat as an Apologetic Muslim like many other Quran only Muslim. I KNOW THE CAT IS NOT an apologetic Muslim guy ., So he must have another good reason to explore Islamic history through the angle of Muhammad Myth or Reality to educate Muslim folks that are reading FFI. But I would say his posts in this thread will be far more useful to Mullah Muslims than Non-Muslim like SKB..

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 6:28 pm
by skynightblaze
yeezevee wrote:The Cat may have good intentions of proving that there was No Muhammad and NO Quran in 7th century hence whatever 1.5 billion Muslims following is rubbish & cock bull stories made by some Beduion baboons, some Persian baboons and some in the middle of that triangular area between Egypt_Persia and Syria.,
His only intention is tell people that quran alone is the correct faith.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 9:36 pm
by The Cat
Historical Facts about the Origins of Islam, by William A. Percy
http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/index ... s_of_Islam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The detailed historical picture put forth by the Muslim historian is completely dependant on uncorroborated, late and biased sources. In short, Muslim sources (alone) fail to provide an accurate and authentic picture of the events of the 7th century - a fact that will be displayed with a critical analysis of these “sources.” (...) The heavily relied on Sira written by Ibn Ishaq, the primary authority for the life of Muhammad, was written at least 100 years after Muhammad’s death. Furthermore, we do not even have an actual manuscript of Ishaq’s Sira. It survives only in the work of a number of later scholars – primarily Ibn Hisham, who relied almost exclusively on his predecessor, and who conceded that he edited it so as to omit “things which are disgraceful to discuss, matters which would distress people and such reports as al-Bakkai told me he could not accept as trustworthy. Hisham lived even later than Ishaq and died in 823 A.D. Hence, his Sira, is even more removed from the facts it attempts to describe......

The “chain” of authority is entirely dependent upon corroboration and veracity – not available with the Muslim sources. Furthermore, another problem was that the science of Isnad only started in the 10th century, long after the Isnads had apparently been compiled. In sum, we simply don’t and can’t know whether the names on the Isnad list truly passed accurate information that we can use today to recreate the events of the 7th century. Like Sira, Hadith simply can not be relied upon as an authentic source for history. Like Sira, this exclusively Muslim source must also be considered far too late and removed from the subject events and most likely biased as well. ....

Central to the Islamic story is the event of “Hijra” where according to traditional Muslim sources Muhammad and his followers left Mecca for Medina in 622. This journey is at the heart of the Islamic religion. However, two Nestorian ecclesiastical documents from 676 AD and 680 AD respectively tell us that the emigration of the Arabs at the early part of the 7th century didn’t start at Mecca and end at Medina (as the Muslim story goes) but was headed to what was deemed the promised land – Jerusalem! If true, the original Hijra was in fact outside of Mecca and even Arabia and completely undermines the rendition offered by Muslim historians. ......

Yet another significant piece of the traditional Islamic narrative is rendered suspect by recent archaeological research done on ancient mosques in present day Iraq and Egypt. According to these studies, which examined the structures and contents of six 7th century structures, the prayer rooms were built such that the direction of prayer could not possibly have been towards Mecca - a blatant and transparent inconsistency with Islamic doctrine. Indeed, of the six ancient mosques examined, not one was constructed so that prayers could be directed to Mecca as commanded by the Koran. Further corroboration of this assertion is provided by Jacob of Edessa, a contemporary Christian writer from 705 who wrote a letter (still in existence) noting that the Arabs prayed toward the east.
........

One last category of external, non-Muslim evidence further undermines the traditional Muslim account of the 7th century. Archeologist Yehuda Nevo completed a detailed study where he analyzed numerous rock inscriptions and coins dated to the 7th century found on rocks that had been discovered primarily in the Syro-Jordanian desert and the and the Nevo desert. The earliest reference to Muhammad was found on an Arab-Sassanian coin of Xalid Abdallah dated 690 A.D. Nevo concluded that there was “religious content” on many of the earlier stone inscriptions recovered and that several of the early 7th century inscriptions did contain “a message of monotheism related to a body of sectarian literature with developed Judeo-Christian conceptions.” However, he also failed to find a single inscription with a reference to Muhammad – the most (allegedly) prominent religious figure of the century and concluded that “in all the Arab religious institutions during the Sufyani period (661-684) there is not one reference to Muhammad. It is hard to imagine that not a single stone inscription attesting to Muhammad’s’ influence could be found. Unless, of course, the traditional description of Muhammad during the 7th century was simply not accurate. How else to explain this absence of reference to one of the (if not the most) influential and significant characters of the 7th century? .........

What to conclude from the exposed failures of the Islamic sources coupled with the telling evidence offered by external sources that significantly undermine the traditional Muslim narrative of the origins of Islam in the seventh century? To start, we simply don’t know exactly what happened during the seventh century. We do know that a group of Arab invaders successfully conquered vast territories within and well beyond the Peninsula – for certain a significant feat. However, apart from their own sources – appropriately identified as biased “salvation history,” we don’t know how the development of Islam related to these invasions.

My estimate, supported by the conclusions of several revisionist historians, including Wansbrough and Crone, is that Islam as we know it today did not begin to truly “crystallize” until the beginning of the 8th century. At that time, the conquerors realized that they needed a distinctively Arab deity and a system of law to rule a large and diverse group of recently conquered peoples. Hence, the literary creation of Islam.
This is furthermore corroborated by Jacob of Edessa (more fully quoted above):
'The kingdom of the Arabians (arbaye), those whom we call Arabs (tayyaye), began when Heraclius, king of the Romans, was in his eleventh
year and Khusrau, king of the Persians, was in his thirty-first year',
and that 'the Arabs began to carry out raids in the land of Palestine.''

That's the historical fact behind the beginning of the Muslim's calendar, nothing thus to do with some Muhammad's Hegira!
This is corroborated by the said Muawiya's inscription at the bath of Gadara, opening with a cross sign, by 662-663 (42AH):

''In the days of the servant of God Mu‘āwiya (Abdalla Maavia), the commander (amira) of the faithful,
the hot baths of the people there were saved and rebuilt by ‘Abd Allāh son of Abū Hāshim,
the governor, on the fifth of the month of December, on the second day (of the week),
in the 6th year of the indiction, in the year 726 of the colony,
according to the Arabs (kata Arabas) the 42nd year,
for the healing of the sick, under the care of Ioannes, the official of Gadara.''


No mention of a Muhammad, of a prophet leading some Hegira (the Islamic version of the Exodus)! And December is Christian!

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 3:15 pm
by yeezevee
What happened "The Cat"?? Please continue on this subject, it is quite important., Forget about hadith., we all know it is filled with stupid stuff. Focusing on Quran & Muhammad or Myth of Muhammad + Origins of Quran is far more important than spending time on Hadith..

I wish you could write some sort of conclusions from these 15 or posts you have in this thread..

with best regards
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 5:45 pm
by booktalker
Oh yeezevee I'm so glad you asked that - I agree.

It would be great to have a summary of what Cat has been telling us here. We need a timeline where we can compare purported Islamic historical dates with dates where we have factual evidence for what happened.

Now, I'm thinking it might be better to work backwards, from the point when SOMEONE said "guys, if we're going to go out and conquer the world, we need a religion, and a book. Someone make something up, but base it on what's gone before so we look legit...", which I guess would have been late 7th century?

BT
x

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 6:26 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
yeezevee wrote: I wish you could write some sort of conclusions from these 15 or posts you have in this thread..
:lol:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 6:32 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
The Cat wrote: And his sophist trivialities with this one: :wacko:
It really takes a self impressed person to use words like "sophist" and "sophistry". I could picture you as one of those people who half close their eyes when they talk to you. I knew there was a reason why I never liked you, and I think I'm spot on.