Page 3 of 25

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:14 pm
by The Cat
We've just seen throughout this study how Mecca (its Kaaba, Quraysh, Hajj) were fictitious inventions of some later Arabic imperialism,
from the creation of a 'prophet' starting with a twisted interpretation of 'The Year of the Elephant', which happened in 552 and not in 570
as it is alleged in the Islamic tradition. Such dating confines the whole oral transmissions into the field of myths more than that of history.

All pertinent links and sum up were given in:
viewtopic.php?p=94550#p94550
viewtopic.php?p=95686#p95686

So is everything related to Muhammad in the so-called Medina period... As we've also seen, the whole traditional account of Muhammad
was built from the Abbasids to out-rule the former Umayyad dynasty. The best way to prove this is looking into its codification of laws...

Joseph Schacht (1902-1969; Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 1950)
http://www.answering-islam.net/Books/Sc ... uation.htm
The whole concept of Medina as the true home of the Sunna turns out to be a fiction of the early third Century and as yet unknown to the end of the second. This direct evidence of our sources enables us to draw conclusions which we could not draw with anything like the same certainty if we had to apply our historical intuition or personal prejudice to the historical tradition which is notoriously weighed in favor of Medina and against the Umayyads. (...)

According to the ancient schools, traditions from the Prophet as such do not as yet possess an overriding authority; only Shafi'i, obviously under the influence of the pressure group of traditionists, upholds consistently the doctrine that when there exists a tradition from the Prophet, no other argument is valid. Shaf'i's work is full of monotonous repetitions of this essential doctrine of his, and it is clear that this doctrine was a startling innovation in his time. It is certain, too, that the great mass of legal traditions which invoke the authority of the Prophet, originated in the time of Shafi'i and later(see below); we can observe this directly by following the successive stages of legal discussion and the ever-increasing number of relevant traditions incorporating gradual refinements. It can further be shown that legal traditions from the Prophet began to appear, approximately, in the second quarter of the 2nd century A.H. (i.e. 750, thus from the emerging Abbasids......)

Instead of relying on individual traditions from Companions, the several schools adopted rather one or the other Companion as their eponym, or I might say patron saint, putting their doctrine as a whole under his aegis, and referring to him as their authority in general terms. (...) In other words: even the general reference to Companions (or to Successors), a stage which preceded the technical and formal reference to individual traditions from the Prophet, date only from about the year A.H. 100. We must therefore abandon the gratuitous assumptions that there existed originally an authentic core of information going back to the time of the Prophet. (...) in general we can say: the more perfect the isnad, the later the tradition. (...)

As regards the biography of the Prophet, traditions of legal and of historical interest cannot possibly be divided from one another. The important point is that to a much higher degree than hitherto suspected, seemingly historical information on the Prophet is only the background for legal doctrines and therefore devoid of independent value. For instance, the Medinese regarded the marriage concluded by a pilgrim as invalid, the Meccans and the Iraqians regarded it as valid. The Medinese projected their doctrine back to Ibn 'Umar and, with spurious circum­stantial details, to 'Umar himself.

The opposite doctrine was expressed in a tradi­tion to the effect that the Prophet married Maymuna as a pilgrim. This tradition was countered, on the part of the Medinese, by another tradition related by Sulaiman b. Yasar who was a freedman of Maymuna to the effect that the Prophet married her in Medina, and therefore not as a pilgrim, and by more explicit tra­dition to the same effect related by Yazid b. Asamm, a nephew of Maymuna. We see that even the details of this important event in the life of the Prophet are not based on authentic historical recollection, notwithstanding the family isnads; but are fictitious and intended to support legal doctrines....

A considerable part of the standard biography of the Prophet in Medina, as it appeared in the second half of the second century A.H., was of very recent origin and is therefore without independent historical value...

The oldest school of law is said to be the Hanifi one, founded by Abu Hanifa (689-767?) but it's not the one prevailing in... Arabia !
They differ upon their recognized chain of transmissions, each one having -as said above- their own patronizing alleged sources. :huh:
But wait... we have -nothing- directly from Abu Hanifa! What we have comes from his 'pupils' Abu Yusuf (d.798) and Muhammad
al-Shaybani (d.805) and they differed with Hanifa from traditions unavailable to the earlier scholar! i. e. They weren't yet fabricated!
And, we've seen before how 'his' Fiqh Akbar I is without reference to the Koran, I guess another 'tradition' unavailable to Abu Hanifa...

The Shafi'i school of law is said to have been founded by Imam ash-Shafi'i (767-820?), yet the oldest biography we have about him is,
according to wikipedia, that of Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi (died 327H/939) and is no more than a collection of anecdotes, some of them
fantastic. The first real biography was made by Ahmad Bayhaqi (died 458H/1066) and is filled with... ''pious legends''.... :whistling:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:06 am
by crazymonkie_
The Cat: Keep up the good work!

P.S.: Have you thought about buying "The Hidden Origins of Islam," ed. Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R. Puin? I bought it the day it was (finally) released... It was supposed to be released in November, but I gather there was some problem with the translators or something. Who knows, it's Prometheus Books.... they tend to have issues with timeliness.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:25 pm
by The Cat
crazymonkie_ wrote:The Cat: Keep up the good work!

P.S.: Have you thought about buying "The Hidden Origins of Islam," ed. Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R. Puin? I bought it the day it was (finally) released... It was supposed to be released in November, but I gather there was some problem with the translators or something. Who knows, it's Prometheus Books.... they tend to have issues with timeliness.

Thanks again, crazymonkie.
Well I've quoted a few things from them right here, showing important coins...
viewtopic.php?p=94468#p94468
And there was a thread on this subject in the old forum about the book ('kereng' posts were great):
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56994

Bye...

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:26 pm
by crazymonkie_
Ah, good. This is all new to me, even though I know it's been out there for decades and decades. I just like religious history in general- it's fascinating to me to see the evolution of ideas and philosophies.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:05 pm
by Trojan
The Cat,
Its always such a joy to read your posts. Keep it up!

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:19 am
by The Cat
Thanks Trojan, I enjoy your posts too. Just like crazymonkie, yourself, Ibn Rushd, and some others here, I have a passion for history in
general, and for religious history in particular. The rest is just years and years of studies. Basically I like to search and learn, much more
than to win or lose an argument. Or, as they say in spirituality: the fulfillment is in the process (like of being alive) not in the finality...

See you around.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:33 am
by BlackDog
The Cat wrote:Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.
This thread will focus on the historical Muhammad: The Islamic tradition vs Western scholarship.

Part one: -The Year of the Elephant
The Islamic tradition says that Muhammad was born in the Year of the Elephant, that's 570.
This event is related to the invasion of Southern Saudi Arabia by king Abraha who marched
on Mecca, his elephant (named 'Mahmud') refusing to enter the city, not to harm the Ka'ba!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraha
http://www.muhammadanreality.com/yearelephant.htm

This event is recorded in sura 105 (Chr.19th):
-Hast thou not seen how thy Lord dealt with the owners of the Elephant ?
-Did He not bring their stratagem to naught,
-And send against them swarms of flying creatures,
-Which pelted them with stones of baked clay,
-And made them like green crops devoured (by cattle) ?
:sadangel:

That's already mythical enough but we found an inscription infirming 570 and without any mention to Mecca.
As a matter of fact it is also proving sura 105 a rotten baloney, as the Northern Arabs -lost- to king Abraha.
Image

The inscription is now dated 552ce and reads:
"With the power of the Almighty, and His Messiah King Abraha Zeebman, the King of Saba'a, Zuridan, and Hadrmaut and Yemen and the tribes (on) the mountains and the coast wrote these lines on his battle against the tribe of Ma'ad (in) the battle of al-Rabiya in the month of "Dhu al Thabithan" and fought all of Bani A'amir and appointed the King Abi Jabar with Kinda and Al, Bishar bin Hasan with Sa'ad, Murad, and Hadarmaut in front of the army against Bani Amir of Kinda. and Al in Zu Markh valley and Murad and Sa'ad in Manha valley on the way to Turban and killed and captured and took the booty in large quantities and the King and fought at Halban and reached Ma'ad and took booty and prisoners, and after that, conquered Omro bin al-Munzir. (Abraha) appointed the son (of Omro) as the ruler and returned from Hal Ban (halban) with the power of the Almighty in the month of Zu A'allan in the year sixty-two and six hundred."

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9389.0;wap2
As one can clearly see, the Abraha expedition is described in detail and contrary to the fairy tales that we heard from Ibn Ishaq and traditionalists there is absolutely no mention of anything related to Kaaba or Makka. The inscription doesn't mention elephants. Given the fact is that it would have been highly impractical to bring elephants into the desert and carry their weight in water, I would say that Abraha did not use elephants. (...)

As you may have noticed, the story of Abraha as told in the inscription is kind of dull and with no happy ending for the Arabs. On the other hand, the hearsay tales from the likes of Ibn Ishaq are filled with amazing details, suspense, and drama. They capture people's imagination with the amazing detail of the character of an old frail man (the fictitious Abd Al-Mutilib) standing in the path of the Army of Abraha. The stories have special effects of amazing creatures (the elephants) and gore (the flesh and blood flowed like water and the skin of Abraha and his soldiers falling off and exposing the bones, etc.). These hearsay stories that the Arabs concocted two hundred years after the fact have very high entertainment value and appeal to the masses much as Hollywood flicks often do. However, they have no value for those interested in the truth. (...)

As a side note, the date on the inscription converts to 552AD. According to traditionalists accounts of the sira/story of the prophet, he was born in the year of Abraha's expedition and they say that he was born in 570AD. So this pushes back the date of birth of the prophet by about 20 years. This creates a big problem for traditionalists. They now either have to revise the entire Sira/story of the prophet or they have to give up all their Hadiths. This is for the simple reason that all the chains of transmission of their "Sahih" Hadiths will now be broken as a result of pushing back the dates by 20 years.


Indeed, with the Year of the Elephant dated 552, the whole traditional account of Muhammad (570-632) falls down! (Muhammad = ?-?).

Added by editing:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... man_av.htm
A far greater problem for the Islamic traditions is that the Sabean date on this inscription is 552 A.D. According to the most recent scholarship, Abraha died in 553 A.D. or shortly thereafter – but, according to the Muslims, Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. So, if we want to believe the Muslim traditions concerning Abraha, we have to push Muhammad's birth back 15, 16 or even 18 years. This has enormous consequences for much of early Islamic history. If Muhammad was born 18 years earlier, when did Muhammad begin to receive revelations? When did the Hijrah occur? When did Muhammad die? When did various battles take place, and when did the first four Caliphs reign? This is potentially messing up everything that Muslims believe about their early history. Moreover, this may cast doubt on much of the Islamic Traditions. The accuracy of their so-called "Sahih" Hadiths cannot be trusted because the "chains of transmission" may now be broken - most events in the life of Muhammad has been pushed back 18 years and gaps are bound to open up somewhere in the chains between Muhammad and the time of Bukhari, Muslim, and the other collectors. (...)

Muhammad ibn al-Sa'ib (died 726 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 15 years before the "Year of the Elephant". Ja'far ibn Abi 'l-Mughira (died early 8th century A.D.) dates Muhammad's birth 10 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Al-Kalbi tells us that Shu'ayb ibn Ishaq (died 805 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 23 years after this event. Al-Zuhri (died 742 A.D.) believed that Muhammad was born 30 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Musa ibn 'Uqba (died 758) believed that Muhammad was born 70 years later!8 If we assume that the "Year of the Elephant" was 570 A.D., then Muhammad could have been born anytime between 555 A.D. and 640 A.D. and could have died anytime between 615 A.D. and 700 A.D.! How can we trust any of the hadiths? The "transmitters" cited by the hadith may not have been alive during Muhammad's lifetime, to witness the events which they are believed to have "transmitted". The problem of dating Muhammad's birth date is an issue that not only affects the hadith traditions; but also affects the reliability of the history of the Quran's collection and compilation.

All the hadiths and sirah of the prophet, the whole chain of oral transmissions gets derailed, obsolete. Kaput... Kapishe! :bye:



Sir, I applaud you. Wonderful work.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2010 7:44 pm
by ayman
A kind colleague on another forum pointed me to this thread. I didn't know that what I wrote several years ago had made its way here (thanks to The Cat). It is great that many people all over the world are starting to realize that the traditional stories about Muhammad are false. Unfortunately, perhaps due to shortsightedness, most of those people don't yet appreciate the full implications of this realization. This same myopic narrow-minded attitude can be seen, for example, at Islamic-Awareness where they bring the inscription of Abraha to prove one immediate point but they don’t realize that the inscription content as a whole destroys their traditional accounts.

Since those who established Mecca had to hijack a common noun from the Quran to name their city and give it credibility, then this actually inadvertently proves the Quran’s astonishingly confident assertion that its text was fully preserved and protected. This presents the scary proposition that the Quran could very well be what it claims to be.

Thanks and all best wishes,

Ayman

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:08 am
by yeezevee
ayman wrote:A kind colleague on another forum pointed me to this thread. I didn't know that what I wrote several years ago had made its way here (thanks to The Cat). It is great that many people all over the world are starting to realize that the traditional stories about Muhammad are false. Unfortunately, perhaps due to shortsightedness, most of those people don't yet appreciate the full implications of this realization. This same myopic narrow-minded attitude can be seen, for example, at Islamic-Awareness where they bring the inscription of Abraha to prove one immediate point but they don’t realize that the inscription content as a whole destroys their traditional accounts.

Since those who established Mecca had to hijack a common noun from the Quran to name their city and give it credibility , then this actually inadvertently proves the Quran’s astonishingly confident assertion that its text was fully preserved and protected. This presents the scary proposition that the Quran could very well be what it claims to be.

Thanks and all best wishes,

Ayman
welcome to FFI Mr. ayman., Yes Cat's posts are always intriguing and educational at ffi., I wonder whether you could give the link of your original article if it is still on net, other wise you could write one into ffi mentioning your old article. Next is, those red colored words from you. I am unable to understand how one correct statement in Quran(If it is correct) proves that its text is/was fully preserved and protected dear Mr. Ayman?

Or would you consider that nothing in Quran has been changed since it became a book. Even if that is true, would you consider that book is word of Allah/God.

Again I am glad you joined ffi and I hope you continue to visit the forum

with best regards
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:11 pm
by The Cat
ayman wrote:A kind colleague on another forum pointed me to this thread. I didn't know that what I wrote several years ago had made its way here (thanks to The Cat). It is great that many people all over the world are starting to realize that the traditional stories about Muhammad are false. Unfortunately, perhaps due to shortsightedness, most of those people don't yet appreciate the full implications of this realization. This same myopic narrow-minded attitude can be seen, for example, at Islamic-Awareness where they bring the inscription of Abraha to prove one immediate point but they don’t realize that the inscription content as a whole destroys their traditional accounts.

Since those who established Mecca had to hijack a common noun from the Quran to name their city and give it credibility, then this actually inadvertently proves the Quran’s astonishingly confident assertion that its text was fully preserved and protected. This presents the scary proposition that the Quran could very well be what it claims to be.

Thanks and all best wishes,

Ayman

Welcome indeed at FFI, dear Ayman. When I got acquainted with many Koran-only sites I began to redress my critics toward Islam, as I understood it better, sometimes from my own. Maybe you'd like to see another main topic of mine emerging from this new understanding:

The Koran's Deceptive Proper Names
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5978
A resume (and links) for the topics therein:
viewtopic.php?p=110064#p110064

Just be aware that FFI is quite sharky against Islam. So my new position got me a lot of criticism from all black or white stands.
Basically I'm not against religions per se, but against their idolatrous side. To be religious and bowing to a creed is so different.
By necessity, we all have to live side by side with one another and get civilized through our incumbent differences in a heartbeat.

FFI would gain a lot from open minded Muslims like you. As the Arab proverb goes: ''Trust in God but tie your camel''.
Welcome again at FFI. Take care now...
Bye.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:05 pm
by ayman
yeezevee wrote:welcome to FFI Mr. ayman., Yes Cat's posts are always intriguing and educational at ffi., I wonder whether you could give the link of your original article if it is still on net, other wise you could write one into ffi mentioning your old article.


Thank you for the warm welcome. Here is the link to the original article, which is a little dated now.

http://www.free-minds.org/ayman

Since the article was written in 2006, we have learned a great deal more on how all this fits together. I am in the process of writing a book that provides a more or less "unified" theory. The missing link was how Classical Arabic developed. The currently widely proposed theory that CA developed as some kind of Poetic Koine is severely flawed.

yeezevee wrote:Next is, those red colored words from you. I am unable to understand how one correct statement in Quran(If it is correct) proves that its text is/was fully preserved and protected dear Mr. Ayman?


I thought it would have been obvious. It would have been infinitely easier for those who wanted to promote this pagan cultural center to insert whatever “xxx” pagan town name in the Quran. The strange fact that they couldn’t do it and had to hijack what is clearly a common noun proves the extraordinary claim made in the Quran about its preservation.

yeezevee wrote:Or would you consider that nothing in Quran has been changed since it became a book.


I think that extraordinary claims such as the claim of preservation of the Quran require extraordinary evidence. The strange fact above is not an isolated observation but it is part of an amazingly consistent pattern. This pattern even goes down to individual letters.

For example, the language of the Quran clearly deviates from the Triptote and Diptote CA rules. If one scans for the name of the tribe of "Thamud", for example, it can be seen that it is Diptote one time and Triptote another. In fact, in the same verse (Quran 11:68) it is both but it should be a Diptote according to CA rules because it is a proper name of non Arabic origin. One more thing that is noticeable upon scanning all the occurrences of “Thamud” is that the inconsistencies all occur in the accusative where an Alif is in the text. On the other hand, the rule is applied uniformly in the other declinations. This would point to an artificial regularization by grammarians. They applied the rule uniformly in all declinations except the accusative because they could freely adjust vocalization marks but they couldn't even delete the letter Alif from the Quran. This raises some interesting points:

1. Firstly, this observation is a “smoking gun” showing that CA grammarians artificially regularized the vocalization marks of the Quran to conform to their artificial CA rules.

2. Secondly, this would also prove that the consonantal text of the Quran is indeed very well preserved since the vocalizers couldn’t delete or add even a single letter (Alif) to make the text match their artificial grammar rules.

yeezevee wrote: Even if that is true, would you consider that book is word of Allah/God.


The Quran claims that its text was fully preserved and protected with the same astonishing confidence as when it claims that it came from the god. Ironically, through the actions of its opponents, we can empirically verify that the first claim is true. If there is even a 1 in a Million chance that the second claim is true then this is indeed very scary if you know what the Quran is talking about.

Thanks and best regards,

Ayman

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:50 pm
by charleslemartel
Welcome to FFI, Ayman.

Your article, and the other one from The Cat, has certainly intrigued me. The Cat has been mocked by some friends here, but with you present at this forum with your insights, I am sure we would have a look at Islam's roots from a different angle.

I don't know what are your beliefs, but I would tell you this much about myself: I don't have any problems with any religious text as such as long its believers behave properly. Unfortunately, the followers of the Islamic texts have been behaving most horribly in the modern times.

What is your opinion on sana'a manuscripts?

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:14 am
by Ibn Rushd
Could you explain diptote and triptote? I know they have 2 and 3 in them, but I don't know what ptote is.

Interestingly, Robert Eisenman says that Thamud is a misprinting of Thamus or Thamuz, which is Thomas. Hud and Salih, Ad and Thamud are always paired together: Hud and Salih are Judas and Silas of NT Acts fame, while Ad and Thamud are Addai/Thaddeus and Thomas fame, also mentioned in the NT, and in the Doctrina Addai written in Syriac.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:28 am
by ayman
The Cat wrote:Welcome indeed at FFI, dear Ayman. When I got acquainted with many Koran-only sites I began to redress my critics toward Islam, as I understood it better, sometimes from my own. Maybe you'd like to see another main topic of mine emerging from this new understanding:

The Koran's Deceptive Proper Names
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5978
A resume (and links) for the topics therein:
viewtopic.php?p=110064#p110064


Thank you for your kind welcome and for pointing me to those interesting topics.

The Cat wrote:Just be aware that FFI is quite sharky against Islam.


Against Islam with a capital “I” yes but no sane person is against islam/“peacemaking”.

The Cat wrote:So my new position got me a lot of criticism from all black or white stands.
Basically I'm not against religions per se, but against their idolatrous side. To be religious and bowing to a creed is so different.
By necessity, we all have to live side by side with one another and get civilized through our incumbent differences in a heartbeat.


I agree.

The Cat wrote:FFI would gain a lot from open minded Muslims like you. As the Arab proverb goes: ''Trust in God but tie your camel''.
Welcome again at FFI. Take care now...


I am not the member of the some religion with a meaningless name. I am a peacemaker. It is by actions not labels. :)

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:55 pm
by skynightblaze
Ayman wrote:The Quran claims that its text was fully preserved and protected with the same astonishing confidence as when it claims that it came from the god. Ironically, through the actions of its opponents, we can empirically verify that the first claim is true. If there is even a 1 in a Million chance that the second claim is true then this is indeed very scary if you know what the Quran is talking about.


Can you please provide the empirical evidence here? I would be interested in seeing it.Secondly I believe that there is not 1 in a million chance for quran to be true. When one is that confident he/she doesnt have to fear about what quran says.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:20 pm
by Wootah
ayman wrote:Against Islam with a capital “I” yes but no sane person is against islam/“peacemaking”.
Don't lie at FFI please. Carry on for now.

Code: Select all
I am not the member of the some religion with a meaningless name. I am a peacemaker. It is by actions not labels. :)


I used the code tag. You and I both know that what you said is code. There is no peace until the world is Islam. Keep up your inner struggle :)

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:16 am
by yeezevee
http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/uiatm/un_islam.htm
This page was incorporated from the book, Understanding Islam and the Muslims, prepared by The Islamic Affairs Department, The Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Washington DC., Consultants The Islamic Texts Society, Cambridge, UK, 1989.

#Who is Muhammad?

Muhammad, was born in Makkah in the year 570, at a time when Christianity was not yet fully established in Europe. Since his father died before his birth, and his mother shortly afterwards, he was raised by his uncle from the respected tribe of Quraysh. As he grew up, he became known for his truthfulness, generosity and sincerity, so that he was sought after for his ability to arbitrate in disputes. The historians describe him as calm and meditative.

Muhammad was of a deeply religious nature, and had long detested the decadence of his society. It became his habit to meditate from time to time in the Cave of Hira near the summit of Jabal al-Nur, the 'Mountain of Light' near Makkah.

How did Muhammad become a prophet and a messenger of God?


At the age of 40, while engaged in a meditative retreat, Muhammad received his first revelation from God through the Angel Gabriel. This revelation, which continued for twenty-three years, is known as the Quran.

Image
The Mountain of Light where Gabriel came to Prophet Muhammad.

As soon as he began to recite the words he heard from Gabriel, and to preach the truth which God had revealed to him, he and his small group of followers suffered bitter persecution, which grew so fierce that in the year 622 God gave them the command to emigrate. This event, the Hijra, 'migration', in which they left Makkah for the city of Madinah some 260 miles to the north, marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar.

After several years, the Prophet and his followers were able to return to Makkah, where they forgave their enemies and established Islam definitively. Before the Prophet died at the age of 63, the greater part of Arabia was Muslim, and within a century of his death Islam had spread to Spain in the West and as far East as China.

Image
The Prophet's Mosque, Madinah, the dome indicates the place where his house stood and where he is buried.


Well the above piece came out of After that 9/11 attacks. the Saudi Embassy of Washington hurried to produce a slick booklet entitled "Understanding Islam and the Muslims" in printed form. This was to explain the world how 15 of the 19 Muslim ROGUES were Saudi Arabians trained in different Islamic countries, the Saudi Embassy of Washington hurried to produce a slick booklet entitled "Understanding Islam and the Muslims"


http://www.allaboutmuhammad.com/propaga ... ality.html

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:55 am
by yeezevee
So, our Cat., TheCat stopped writing in to this wonderful and confusing thread., But he seem to tap in to that website of http://www.free-minds.org/ heavily.
Image
free-minds.org questions traditional Islam that uses Hadith but it is within Islam and supposed to reform Islam. Its proponents includes

Ahmed Subhy Mansour http://www.free-minds.org/Mansour
Image

Already Dead(Murdered by Muslim) Rashad Khalifa
Image

Kassim Ahmad of Malaysia
Image

Ghulam Ahmad Parwez (1903-1986 Already Dead) of Indian subcontinent http://www.tolueislam.com/Parwez/parwez.jpg
Image

Muhammad Shahrour of Syria http://www.free-minds.org/Muhammad-Shahrour
Image

And our FFI good friend Edip Yuksel with whom Ali Sina and FFI members had a long discussion
Image

So let us carefully read that website to figure out what truth they discovered from Islam and early Islam.. Edit Student of Rashad Khalifa Edip has his own.org http://www.yuksel.org/..

with best
yeezevee

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:04 am
by Ibn Rushd
So all those guys are Qur'an only muslims?

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:24 pm
by calgacus
That Guy? called Muh or Moh.. he was like thousands of other of his time, an imposter. Moh wanted an A-Rabb brand of relgion, Moh had read or known well about the Jesus guy who actually claimed he was the son of god.

Moh was sneaky, cunning, and smart, he claimed he was visited by god, not a relative, what a bloody nerve eh? God visited Him only!!! the rest is well known and we have so many of the worlds popultation brainwashed, scared and intimdated about what created the cosmos ect, no one knows, period.

I greatly admire the brave, intelligent ex-muslims who have thrown-off the shackles of Islam, what minds, what backbones.
Of course the other relgions are drivel aslo, not as crude as Islam, but tripe all the same, at least the Jews still wait for their Messiah. :worthy:

PS : Mo was a known pervert, an ugly little twit who took advantage of the simple desert-dwelling nomads to spread his lies, then it was Believe-or-die, same today.. brainwashed from birth, bullied, lied to, not allowed to question or think, Islam should, and will one day, be where it Truly belongs~~ In The Garbage Can of History.

Calgacus

British Columbia