Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

[marduk]

"Jew Named Mahommed" looks interesting. I found a page about it. Some quotes;

"The prophets, these goats with a long beard, cannot pretend to any intellectual or spiritual superiority... Their duplicity is obvious by their very contradicting each other... As for the Coran, it is only a bundle of nonsensical fables... The treatises of the Ancients such as Plato, Aristotle, Euclides or Hippocrat have rendered greater services to humanity." (Ibn Warraq quoting Abdel Razin Why I am not a Muslim, p.324)...

...This Manichaeism appears again in the concept of dar-ul-islam and dar-ul-harb. The land which have been conquered by Islam are "land (House) of submission". The other countries are "lands of the war". Intoxicated herds, which have been rendered mad by heinous preachers, are allowed to plunder, kill, destroy the countries of the "infidels" - who in fact they are themselves. Just as Mohammed was put above God by making him speak, one puts Muslims beyond the others, and the vociferous preacher feels he is superior to the one who is good. Thus, a stupid person feels authorized to abuse a girl if she eats during the Ramadan. Any pretentious fellow, because he prostrates before nothingness, feels that he has the power to judge the scholar. Here lies undoubtedly the biggest tragedy, and the basis of every tyranny: to give to mediocre people the power to judge their neighbors...

http://www.bernard-raquin.fr/spirituali ... ammad.html

How true. The extremely mediocre person Muhammad was raised to the level of a great scholar, able to decide what is just and what is not, simply by implanting the suggestion in others that they should regard him as superior to all other humans, on a level equal to Allah himself. What qualifies him for such a lofty position? Years of study in the greatest schools of the middle ages? Innate superior genetics based on his parents being incredibly intelligent? Nope, none of that, just because he said so, or perhaps because of his skills in trading. Must be one or the other because I can't think of one other possible reason.

People are summoned not to believe in jinns, but if they believe, they are punished. Here is a constant feature of the Coran: pretending everything and its opposite, installing a series of double binds which prevent reflection, paralyze logic, to force the acceptance of any theological contortion. These permanent contradictions are strong evidence that the Coran is a collective work. Every religion has its own contradictions. But the Coran is false and contradictory on almost everything. And neither the Bible or the Gospels claim to have an unique author. Or one should admit that Gabriel had become doting.
The "double bind" means receiving two opposite orders, which provokes a stupefaction and paralyze intelligence: Allah agrees only to Islam as a religion - but he says "no coercion in religion". Don't force your women into prostitution - but if you do it, Allah will console them. Be stoned to death if you don't believe in Allah - but anyhow everything comes from Allah. Don't be among those who associate Allah with other divinities - but anyhow your destiny is already written on a tablet since your birth. Allah does not like that we divulgate wicked words - unless one is being victim of them. "We have divided the earth into communities: among them there are the right ones - and others which are not" (Co 7, 168 ). There is no other God than God - and still, there are angels, jinns, ogers; now, coming from Allah, they incite to disagree with him.
But other assertions are still worse : "There is refuge against Allah only in Him" (Co 9, 118) or "Who defends you day and night against the Benefactor?" (Co 21, 42) or "I am seeking the protection of the Lord of the Dawn against the evil he has created..." (113)
This reminds of the child beaten by his or her mother, and who, having only her, goes and seek refuge near her. Neurosis and despair are guaranteed. Take refuge against Allah in Allah ? Defend oneself against the Benefactor? Ask from the creator of evil for protection? p. 68-69

He really did see Islam in a clear light. Very good writing.

[skynightblaze]

I'm blasted! A bunch of people here have acknowledged that their level of understanding is about that of 'iffo'.

You're an insane moron that takes yourself way too seriously, that's all. Bye.

Well we could have given him concession if he really was a scholar. You should have seen his latest brain storm!. HE claimed islam was older than quran and he quoted quran to justify it

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

I'm blasted! A bunch of people here have acknowledged that their level of understanding is about that of 'iffo'.

You're an insane moron that takes yourself way too seriously, that's all. Bye.

Well we could have given him concession if he really was a scholar. You should have seen his latest brain storm!. HE claimed islam was older than quran and he quoted quran to justify it

No, I liked simply being unjustifiably arrogant enough to simply say "bye", like this lunatic has done many times in the past.

[Multiple]

I'm blasted! A bunch of people here have acknowledged that their level of understanding is about that of 'iffo'.

You're an insane moron that takes yourself way too seriously, that's all. Bye.

The Moggy has always been so far up itself that it never sees daylight. As they say self praise is no recommendation and the egocentric , narcissistic (such very Mohammedan attributes) Pussy certainly is proof of that.

[phill01]

I'm blasted! A bunch of people here have acknowledged that their level of understanding is about that of 'iffo'.

You're an insane moron that takes yourself way too seriously, that's all. Bye.

Well we could have given him concession if he really was a scholar. You should have seen his latest brain storm!. HE claimed islam was older than quran and he quoted quran to justify it

I'm not sure where "The Cat" mentioned this (Red highlight). ? But I think Gerd Puin (Saana Script's) mentioned that some of the script's "COULD" possibly be older than Islam itself by a century or so ?.

If this assumption by Puin turns out to be correct then it throws a rather large spanner in the works. The scripts are Hijazi which means they are earlier than Kufic. Puin could have been mentioning the Pamplisets which were rubbed off which can still be read under special conditions. It may be these older scripts that he may be using to make them pre-Islamic in nature ??.

Not sure if the analysis of the scripts has been fully published yet, but am looking forward to the day I read it.

[skynightblaze]

I'm not sure where "The Cat" mentioned this (Red highlight). ? But I think Gerd Puin (Saana Script's) mentioned that some of the script's "COULD" possibly be older than Islam itself by a century or so ?.

HE didn't mean a century or so older when he said that. He also didn't mention Sanaa manuscript anywhere. See my correspondence with CAT.

Spoiler! :

16.123: And afterward We inspired thee (Muhammad, saying):
Follow the religion of Abraham, as one by nature upright. He was not of the idolaters.

So why follow Muhammad, himself ordered to follow Abraham?
That's the shitty logic of the Sunnites you keep parroting.

Muhammad was asked to follow Abraham and hence muslims cant follow Muhammad. A team leader is asked to follow the Project Manager and hence a junior level programmer cant follow the team leader.

Read again the underline part.

The word translated 'religion' is Millata, meaning path, trace, way of example. The word 'nature upright' is the Arabic Hanifa (Hanif).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanif

--It confirms that Islam is much older than the Koran.
--2.124 gives the title of IMAM solely to Abraham; Isaac, Jacob (21.72-73) and Moses (46.12)!

You may be shocked PHIL. All you have to do is read the following thread. I gave the link to Badranaya also. Please read from page 9 till 19 and see for yourself what kind of person you are defending...

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=9828&start=160

Anyway the thread deals with compilation of quran. It shows how sloppy these early muslims were in collecting the present day quran.

Anyway , Puin doesn't mention the manuscripts a century before islam. The manuscripts found date back to 645 AD to 720 AD which is after 632 AD when Muhammad was dead.
The Sana'a manuscripts, found in Yemen in 1972, are considered by some to be the oldest existent version of the Qur'an.[1] Although the text has been dated to the first two decades of the eighth century (i.e. 70 or so years after the death of Prophet Muhammad), carbon-14 tests indicate that some of the parchments in this collection date back to the 7th and 8th centuries.

Anyway let me clarify that I have no enmity against you or Badranaya but I think you all are mislead by this person but the decision lies with you as to what you want to believe..

If this assumption by Puin turns out to be correct then it throws a rather large spanner in the works. The scripts are Hijazi which means they are earlier than Kufic. Puin could have been mentioning the Pamplisets which were rubbed off which can still be read under special conditions. It may be these older scripts that he may be using to make them pre-Islamic in nature ??.

Not sure if the analysis of the scripts has been fully published yet, but am looking forward to the day I read it.

Puin says the scripts MAY BE OLDER THAN ISLAM ITSELF. Again it shows uncertainty. Even if its older than islam itself by a century CAT's argument was not that it just a century or two older than quran but rather that islam dates back to the time of Abraham.

As far as academic discussion is concerned you are correct that palimpsests were used re used . Now the question is how can we say with surety that palimpsests contained previously written quran? ? I mean it can also happen that those palimpsests were used to write something else(other than the quran) and after some time when Quran was revealed they were reused and quranic verses were written on it. Is there any way to know the content of these palimpsests before they were scrapped off ??

One thing we can ascertain from this historic find is that these manuscripts were manipulated until 720 AD i.e after Uthman had standardized the quran in 652 AD.

Anyway CAT believes that quran was compiled properly and there is no corruption or distortion of quran so actually he will disagree with you here.You really need to take a look at the link I gave you to see how desperately he defended the compilation of quran and ended up making a big fool of himself.

[Ibn Rushd]

Hello. I was not able to connect to internet for the weekend.

Phil, sorry but the only online information about the book is through Amazon.com, and I had to photocopy some pages because I got it through interlibrary loan.

Badranya, good stuff on the Indonesian translation. I think it's a great effort that you've undertaken, and I'm glad that more are getting exposed to this research.

[phill01]

Hi SNB

Now I see what you meant . No I don’t subscribe to Islam going back to the time of Abraham.

I’m not defending “The Cat”, it’s just that a find some of his hypotheses convincing in light of history, especially around the place called Mecca and that it’s current location is an Abbasid concoction. However, I always research the information Cat presents. However you won’t find either Bukhari or Muslim don’t mention where it is. But external references to Islam do.

As for the more recent controversy surrounding 48:24, I happen to like the translation that Cat has provided and it appears more sound than the one given where it is clear the word “Bibatni” has never meant Valley. Yet so many so called Arabic experts translate it as such ?. It should say “Wadi” just as Cat explained. So it is interesting as to why they translated it as such don’t you think??.
Anyway I am trying to get a decent copy of a Classical Arabic dictionary (with English translation) where I can check the translations myself. If you have a link to one it would be much appreciated.

As for the Sanna scripts, Puin has been able to read those rubbed off scripts but only through a certain procedure that highlights them, though he doesn’t say if they are Koranic scripts or not. I guess we will just have to wait until everything is published, but I’m hedging my bets they are Koranic material.

I’m of the opinion that Hajjaj’s Quran is the one we have today and not the Uthman one. I think The Cat mentioned this way back in this thread which backs up your claim to around 720 A.D since he died in 715 A.D.

[phill01]

Hello. I was not able to connect to internet for the weekend.

Phil, sorry but the only online information about the book is through Amazon.com, and I had to photocopy some pages because I got it through interlibrary loan.

Badranya, good stuff on the Indonesian translation. I think it's a great effort that you've undertaken, and I'm glad that more are getting exposed to this research.

Hi Rushd

No problem. Will just have to save my coins an buy it. I am wanting a full copy of Patricia Crones Meccan Trade, but it sells for anywhere between $100 - $180 so will be saving for a while

[skynightblaze]

Hi SNB

Now I see what you meant . No I don’t subscribe to Islam going back to the time of Abraham.

I’m not defending “The Cat”, it’s just that a find some of his hypotheses convincing in light of history, especially around the place called Mecca and that it’s current location is an Abbasid concoction. However, I always research the information Cat presents. However you won’t find either Bukhari or Muslim don’t mention where it is. But external references to Islam do.

The arguments that you support are not actually from CAT. They have been borrowed from someone else. Anyway lets focus on the message rather than the messenger. I don't contend against historical research but what I say is historical research will disprove both the quran and the ahadith and not just ahadith.

Now if Abbasids were corruptors who made a saint like person look like a THUG then then we can see how much of hate they had for islam and muhammad. If they could freely attribute lies to Muhammad in the ahadith why won't they touch the quran and change its contents? If you think from a perspective of a person who wants to corrupt things then he will always go for the main book i.e quran and then the ahadith.

Now if one claims that Abbasids forged every single thing then we have a problem for quran too.There are many things that are common between ahadith and quran so if ahadith are corruptions then so is the quran because the same corrupted content is found in the quran too and hence historical research in my opinion puts the entire religion of islam at doubt.

Now as far as change of Meccan location is concerned I read this...

Crucially, Walid I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715, wrote to all the regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of all mosques. Could it be the Qibla only then shifted to Mecca?

http://isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/q ... ology.html

Now an interesting point to note is that archaelogical evidence shows that quran underwent revisions and variant readings existed. Now ahadith make a mention of this and therefore ahadith which talk about variant readings of quran musn't be a lie so infact historical evidence backs ahadith upto some extent.

As for the more recent controversy surrounding 48:24, I happen to like the translation that Cat has provided and it appears more sound than the one given where it is clear the word “Bibatni” has never meant Valley. Yet so many so called Arabic experts translate it as such ?. It should say “Wadi” just as Cat explained. So it is interesting as to why they translated it as such don’t you think??.
Anyway I am trying to get a decent copy of a Classical Arabic dictionary (with English translation) where I can check the translations myself. If you have a link to one it would be much appreciated.

Well its pitch dark for me as far as arabic is concerned

Look at the following translators. They dont use the word Valley in there however a native arabic speaker told me that the word Mecca already exists in the verse so I am not sure whether translation of bibatni meaning something else would matter but I would be open to learn something new .

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

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

As for the Sanna scripts, Puin has been able to read those rubbed off scripts but only through a certain procedure that highlights them, though he doesn’t say if they are Koranic scripts or not. I guess we will just have to wait until everything is published, but I’m hedging my bets they are Koranic material.

Agreed. Any idea when would the complete research would be out?? I will be more than happy if its debunking the entire religion of islam .

I’m of the opinion that Hajjaj’s Quran is the one we have today and not the Uthman one. I think The Cat mentioned this way back in this thread which backs up your claim to around 720 A.D since he died in 715 A.D.

Actually you could be correct. There is ahadith in Abu Dawud which mentions this that the governor of Al Hajjaj made some eleven changes to the quran. I never brought it in my debate with CAT because muslims doubt the authenticity of the narrators who narrated the ahadith. Anyway if historic proofs support it then there would be no need to depend on reliability of narrators. I would say the quran of today is AL hajjaj + Uthmanic quran and not exactly just "Uthman's quran"

Anyway I don't remember CAT ever saying in this thread because if he really did say then he is a complete LIAR because I have been arguing with him for 10 pages about compilation of quran in the other thread and he made claims like Uthmanic quran is the most trustable of quran and he claimed it was the final version that we have today.

Btw I am enjoying discussion with you rather than CAT who is devoid of any sense so I look forward to learn a few things from you.

[phill01]

The arguments that you support are not actually from CAT. They have been borrowed from someone else. Anyway lets focus on the message rather than the messenger. I don't contend against historical research but what I say is historical research will disprove both the quran and the ahadith and not just ahadith.

I tend to agree with you here and don’t subscribe to the Koran as being the word of God but rather a compilation of various text (lectionaries) that existed in Arabia at the time.

Now if Abbasids were corruptors who made a saint like person look like a THUG then then we can see how much of hate they had for islam and muhammad. If they could freely attribute lies to Muhammad in the ahadith why won't they touch the quran and change its contents? If you think from a perspective of a person who wants to corrupt things then he will always go for the main book i.e quran and then the ahadith.

But yet these text are available to all Muslims to read and they don’t see Mohammad as a thug but a liberator instead and the best example to follow?. As for corrupting the Koran I think they have, particularly the Medinan verses.

Now if one claims that Abbasids forged every single thing then we have a problem for quran too.There are many things that are common between ahadith and quran so if ahadith are corruptions then so is the quran because the same corrupted content is found in the quran too and hence historical research in my opinion puts the entire religion of islam at doubt.

I don’t discount all Hadith as some of it is backed up by non Islamic sources. It’s a matter of dissecting the true from the false which is the hard part because fabricating Hadith became a popular political pastime for personal gain right down to being able to buy Hadith from your local street market shonk (Thas how bad it was).

Now as far as change of Meccan location is concerned I read this...

Crucially, Walid I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715, wrote to all the regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of all mosques. Could it be the Qibla only then shifted to Mecca?

http://isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/q ... ology.html.

Interesting question SNB and you may be right there. Govenor Qurra b. Sharik 709 -714 of Egypt had to change the Qibla in the Fustat Mosque during his reign but that still places it in the Ummayed era. The other two Mosques in Iraq were built in 698 and 705. It isn’t known when the Qiblas of these 2 mosque were re-oriented to Mecca as far as I know. Walid only said to demolish and make them bigger ?.

Look at the following translators. They dont use the word Valley in there however a native arabic speaker told me that the word Mecca already exists in the verse so I am not sure whether translation of bibatni meaning something else would matter but I would be open to learn something new .


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

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

Look at the following translators. They dont use the word Valley in there however a native arabic speaker told me that the word Mecca already exists in the verse so I am not sure whether translation of bibatni meaning something else would matter but I would be open to learn something new .
Here is a link you provided for translation of the verse http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/48/24/default.htm
As you can see there are many translations that say Valley, interior, precints, vale, midst, hollow, centre, with inside, middle, city and frontier.
I really don’t think they have a clue as to what it means !!

As for the Sanna scripts, Puin has been able to read those rubbed off scripts but only through a certain procedure that highlights them, though he doesn’t say if they are Koranic scripts or not. I guess we will just have to wait until everything is published, but I’m hedging my bets they are Koranic material.

Agreed. Any idea when would the complete research would be out?? I will be more than happy if its debunking the entire religion of islam ..

No idea but it is frustrating. A few short paragraphs is all we have.

I’m of the opinion that Hajjaj’s Quran is the one we have today and not the Uthman one. I think The Cat mentioned this way back in this thread which backs up your claim to around 720 A.D since he died in 715 A.D.

Anyway I don't remember CAT ever saying in this thread because if he really did say then he is a complete LIAR because I have been arguing with him for 10 pages about compilation of quran in the other thread and he made claims like Uthmanic quran is the most trustable of quran and he claimed it was the final version that we have today..

Page 1 and 2 at the start of this thread. Just do a word search.

[skynightblaze]

Phil I must say that we are agreeing onto almost everything with the exception of only 48:24 The rest of your post is perfect and I agree. This discussion with you was far more fruitful than any discussion with CAT before.

Anyway here is where I disagree ..

Here is a link you provided for translation of the verse http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/48/24/default.htm
As you can see there are many translations that say Valley, interior, precints, vale, midst, hollow, centre, with inside, middle, city and frontier.
I really don’t think they have a clue as to what it means !!

These are universally accepted translations of the quran. Now I am as good as a blind when we talk about arabic. Anyway I will show you another problem with this argument.

BATN in 'bi-batni makkata':
In 48.24 -bibatni makkata-, bi (preposition, in) batn is even wrongly translated as 'valley'
while it rather means: midst, center, belly. These words mix with 'Mecca' don't fit at all...
These negociations were never conducted in the 'center', or 'belly' of Mecca!

More so, in Arabic a valley has always been written WADI and it's not found at all in 48.24.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi

Now the part colored is the crux of his argument. He concludes that these negotiations never took place in the center of Mecca and hence the word MECCA cannot go hand in hand with "Bibitna" which means amidst or center or belly.

Now here are 2 questions to ponder upon..

1) What is CAT's source from which he came to a conclusion that negotiations never took place in center of Mecca?
2) What is CAT's source for knowing that this verse is talking about negotiations between 2 parties? If you read the verse from quran alone you don't get this information at all.

TO answer both the questions one requires sources other than quran which otherwise are considered unreliable by CAT. This is the first problem. Secondly IF CAT is referring to sources other than quran to understand the context here he should also take a note of what place they refer to . Sources other than quran clearly make a mention of MECCA so CAT cant selectively pick up the context of that verse from sources other than quran and at the same time ignore about the location that they speak.



Finally you asked me to refer to first 2 pages in this thread. I just saw that CAT says that there was no quran before 710 AD but yet on the other thread he was arguing for existence of Uthman's quran . There is a striking contradiction between what he has written on page 2 of this thread and what he has written on the other thread that I asked you to refer. I think CAT has changed drastically since July 2010 . Those posts on page 2 were written in February or March 2010. If you examine all his posts after July 2010 then you won't see any criticism of Quran.

He is clearly contradicting what he has said on page 2. I see no decent explanation for such a drastic change unless we reason that he has converted to quran alone islam after july 2010 or some time later immediately. He even has said plenty of times that nowadays islam is not supported by quran which means he believes quran to be a good book.He also never answered the question when asked whether he believes quran is a word of GOd or not when atleast 3-4 people have asked him this question multiple times. He argues exactly like muslims and he also defends quran and Muhammad desperately. What do we make of this?

[Multiple]

Phil I must say that we are agreeing onto almost everything with the exception of only 48:24 The rest of your post is perfect and I agree. This discussion with you was far more fruitful than any discussion with CAT before.

Anyway here is where I disagree ..

Here is a link you provided for translation of the verse http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/48/24/default.htm
As you can see there are many translations that say Valley, interior, precints, vale, midst, hollow, centre, with inside, middle, city and frontier.
I really don’t think they have a clue as to what it means !!

These are universally accepted translations of the quran. Now I am as good as a blind when we talk about arabic. Anyway I will show you another problem with this argument.

BATN in 'bi-batni makkata':
In 48.24 -bibatni makkata-, bi (preposition, in) batn is even wrongly translated as 'valley'
while it rather means: midst, center, belly. These words mix with 'Mecca' don't fit at all...
These negociations were never conducted in the 'center', or 'belly' of Mecca!

More so, in Arabic a valley has always been written WADI and it's not found at all in 48.24.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi

Now the part colored is the crux of his argument. He concludes that these negotiations never took place in the center of Mecca and hence the word MECCA cannot go hand in hand with "Bibitna" which means amidst or center or belly.

Now here are 2 questions to ponder upon..

1) What is CAT's source from which he came to a conclusion that negotiations never took place in center of Mecca?
2) What is CAT's source for knowing that this verse is talking about negotiations between 2 parties? If you read the verse from quran alone you don't get this information at all.

TO answer both the questions one requires sources other than quran which otherwise are considered unreliable by CAT. This is the first problem. Secondly IF CAT is referring to sources other than quran to understand the context here he should also take a note of what place they refer to . Sources other than quran clearly make a mention of MECCA so CAT cant selectively pick up the context of that verse from sources other than quran and at the same time ignore about the location that they speak.



Finally you asked me to refer to first 2 pages in this thread. I just saw that CAT says that there was no quran before 710 AD but yet on the other thread he was arguing for existence of Uthman's quran . There is a striking contradiction between what he has written on page 2 of this thread and what he has written on the other thread that I asked you to refer. I think CAT has changed drastically since July 2010 . Those posts on page 2 were written in February or March 2010. If you examine all his posts after July 2010 then you won't see any criticism of Quran.

He is clearly contradicting what he has said on page 2. I see no decent explanation for such a drastic change unless we reason that he has converted to quran alone islam after july 2010 or some time later immediately. He even has said plenty of times that nowadays islam is not supported by quran which means he believes quran to be a good book.He also never answered the question when asked whether he believes quran is a word of GOd or not when atleast 3-4 people have asked him this question multiple times. He argues exactly like muslims and he also defends quran and Muhammad desperately. What do we make of this?

That the MOGGY is a lying Mohammedan what other explanation can there possibly be.

[phill01]

Anyway here is where I disagree ..

These are universally accepted translations of the quran. Now I am as good as a blind when we talk about arabic. Anyway I will show you another problem with this argument.

They may be universally accepted but not any of them can get the same translation the same ?. From what I saw in the link the translations are miles apart.

BATN in 'bi-batni makkata':
In 48.24 -bibatni makkata-, bi (preposition, in) batn is even wrongly translated as 'valley'
while it rather means: midst, center, belly. These words mix with 'Mecca' don't fit at all...
These negociations were never conducted in the 'center', or 'belly' of Mecca!

More so, in Arabic a valley has always been written WADI and it's not found at all in 48.24.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi

Now the part colored is the crux of his argument. He concludes that these negotiations never took place in the center of Mecca and hence the word MECCA cannot go hand in hand with "Bibitna" which means amidst or center or belly.

Now here are 2 questions to ponder upon..

1) What is CAT's source from which he came to a conclusion that negotiations never took place in center of Mecca?
2) What is CAT's source for knowing that this verse is talking about negotiations between 2 parties? If you read the verse from quran alone you don't get this information at all.

TO answer both the questions one requires sources other than quran which otherwise are considered unreliable by CAT. This is the first problem. Secondly IF CAT is referring to sources other than quran to understand the context here he should also take a note of what place they refer to . Sources other than quran clearly make a mention of MECCA so CAT cant selectively pick up the context of that verse from sources other than quran and at the same time ignore about the location that they speak. .

Now what I think your getting at here is that “The Cat” has referred to Hadith as being the other sources to get this knowledge or other Islamic sources which aren’t in the Koran. If I am right then it is at the Spring of Hudabiya where it took place. It’s close to Mecca but not in it or in the same valley, but approx 10 km away. That distance may not seem like much to you and me nowdays but back then it’s a fair way away. Saying that, when the treaty was finalized Mohammed turned heal and went back to Medina and didn't venture into Mecca. So I think there are 2 explanations here in that either the Koran is wrong or the external sources have wrongly attributed the storey to that verse and it meant something else. It is possibly a similar scenario to the story of Abraha where it is likely that a false story has been attributed to a Koranic verse.

Finally you asked me to refer to first 2 pages in this thread. I just saw that CAT says that there was no quran before 710 AD but yet on the other thread he was arguing for existence of Uthman's quran . There is a striking contradiction between what he has written on page 2 of this thread and what he has written on the other thread that I asked you to refer. I think CAT has changed drastically since July 2010 . Those posts on page 2 were written in February or March 2010. If you examine all his posts after July 2010 then you won't see any criticism of Quran.

He is clearly contradicting what he has said on page 2. I see no decent explanation for such a drastic change unless we reason that he has converted to quran alone islam after july 2010 or some time later immediately. He even has said plenty of times that nowadays islam is not supported by quran which means he believes quran to be a good book.He also never answered the question when asked whether he believes quran is a word of GOd or not when atleast 3-4 people have asked him this question multiple times. He argues exactly like muslims and he also defends quran and Muhammad desperately. What do we make of this?

I haven’t yet read where “The Cat” may have changed his view on the collection of the Koran, but I am aware that he has changed a few certain views on things since he first started this posts. One example is that he was keen as mustard on Mecca being just North Of Jerusalem at a place called Maacha or (something like that) but is now claiming Al – Ula. I have no problem with this twist in belief as it appears this thread is more of a “learning journey” for “The Cat” as well as myself, and as one gains more knowledge on Islamic history then those beliefs are bound to change, just like mine have.

I’m not sure if Cat is a Koran only Muslim or not, but he has mentioned that Mohammad is quite possibly two people being Salman the Persian and Mohammad Maslama who were companions of Mohammad…Now we have two Mo’s . Salman was the thinker and Maslama was the murderous barbarian. Sounds like the same difference between the Meecan and Medinan verses with these two doesn’t it.

[Ibn Rushd]

Phil and anyone who's interested:

Gorgias Press, who now owns the copyright to Meccan Trade by Crone, has a constant sale of 10% for those who register. Registration is free. Also, they have several sales during the year, such as during a conference, or Christmas, where the sale is 40%. I did that last year and got 5 books. Also going on right now is their 60% overstock clearance sale. There are 10 books there.

http://gorgiaspress.com

[phill01]

Phil and anyone who's interested:

Gorgias Press, who now owns the copyright to Meccan Trade by Crone, has a constant sale of 10% for those who register. Registration is free. Also, they have several sales during the year, such as during a conference, or Christmas, where the sale is 40%. I did that last year and got 5 books. Also going on right now is their 60% overstock clearance sale. There are 10 books there.

http://gorgiaspress.com

Hi Ibn Rushd

Thanks for that. I read an online version, albiet heavily edited. There was a gentleman by the name of Ammal Muhammad Al-Roubi who is a lecturer at at a Jeddah Universty who wrote a refutation to her book. He aimed it refuting her on several points being Macoraba being Mecca (which most knowledgable know is false) and that the trade in Arabia was far more extensive than Crone suggests. I think Crone has back tracked a bit on the trade of Arabia and agrees that she had underestimated certain parts of it as a whole. But the rest of it is pretty sound. Here is a link to his refutation. Although I dont agree with a lot he says, especially about the location of Mecca, It helps to know what the other team is thinking in my view.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32958465/Amaa ... e-of-Islam

[skynightblaze]

Anyway here is where I disagree ..

These are universally accepted translations of the quran. Now I am as good as a blind when we talk about arabic. Anyway I will show you another problem with this argument.

They may be universally accepted but not any of them can get the same translation the same ?. From what I saw in the link the translations are miles apart.

If agreeing with each other is the key then they agree with the inclusion of word Mecca. Not a single translator skipped the word Mecca in the verse.

Now what I think your getting at here is that “The Cat” has referred to Hadith as being the other sources to get this knowledge or other Islamic sources which aren’t in the Koran. If I am right then it is at the Spring of Hudabiya where it took place. It’s close to Mecca but not in it or in the same valley, but approx 10 km away. That distance may not seem like much to you and me nowdays but back then it’s a fair way away. Saying that, when the treaty was finalized Mohammed turned heal and went back to Medina and didn't venture into Mecca. So I think there are 2 explanations here in that either the Koran is wrong or the external sources have wrongly attributed the storey to that verse and it meant something else. It is possibly a similar scenario to the story of Abraha where it is likely that a false story has been attributed to a Koranic verse.

I agree that this can have 2 explanations but we need to evaluate the aftermath of each case.

Let us assume that ahadith have attributed this story falsely to this verse then in that case quranist have no leg to stand on . They cannot claim that this treaty never took place in the center of Mecca and that inclusion of word "Mecca" doesn't go hand in hand with "Bibatni" (center, amidst etc) therefore their whole argument crumbles down .

Let's consider the other case . If Quran wrongly said that the incident happened in the center of MECCA then it would only mean that quran got the details of the treaty wrong.This is possible because of quran today is the least reliable(Read below to know what I mean by least reliable). In this case also CAT' s argument regarding BIBATNI not going hand in hand with MECCA cannot be used because its quran's mistake and not the mistake of translators.

I haven’t yet read where “The Cat” may have changed his view on the collection of the Koran, but I am aware that he has changed a few certain views on things since he first started this posts. One example is that he was keen as mustard on Mecca being just North Of Jerusalem at a place called Maacha or (something like that) but is now claiming Al – Ula. I have no problem with this twist in belief as it appears this thread is more of a “learning journey” for “The Cat” as well as myself, and as one gains more knowledge on Islamic history then those beliefs are bound to change, just like mine have.

Well I agree with you here and I can say the same about myself that I have learned a lot from these debates with CAT. This has been a journey for me wherein with each passing day I learned new things and however unlike us( you and me) CAT has degraded or downgraded his learning . How can anyone claim that Uthmanic Quran's origin is indisputably from Muhammad after looking at historic proofs? Don't you think that is a downgrading/degrading journey?

In my last debate with him about compilation of quran I have showed him that there were plenty of quranic versions in place after Muhammad's death. Each of the following following authors had their own versions of quran.

1)Ali
2)Ibn abbas
3) Umar & Thabit/Hafsa
4) Ibn Masud
5) Ubai
6) Abu Musa
7)Aisha
8)Revision to Umar + Thabit's quran= Uthman's quran

This is just a sample. In total from what I read there were 28 odd versions(15 major + 13 minor) of quran in place with each quran differing from the other. When you learn such a thing how in the world can anyone claim that Uthman's quran was the ultimate of all? Uthman relied heavily on Thabit who wasn't even considered reliable by Muhammad. In one of the hadith muhammad asked people to learn quran from 4 people namely MAsud, Ubai, Abu Musa and Salim(who died in battle of Yammana). The best teachers of quran disagreed significantly with Uthman's final version or the quran of today(assuming that story regarding governor of AL hajjaj changing quran is not true). Quran was collected by Uthman by asking people to bring verses they knew to him with 2 witnesses for their inclusion in the quran. In the light of evidence how can anyone claim that Uthman's quran came indisputably from Muhammad??

I’m not sure if Cat is a Koran only Muslim or not, but he has mentioned that Mohammad is quite possibly two people being Salman the Persian and Mohammad Maslama who were companions of Mohammad…Now we have two Mo’s . Salman was the thinker and Maslama was the murderous barbarian. Sounds like the same difference between the Meecan and Medinan verses with these two doesn’t it.

Is there any evidence to claim that these 2 people wrote the quran?? Anyway this would also contradict your claim that Abbasids wrote the medinan verses.

[skynightblaze]

There is one minor correction in one of my previous post. Quran was standardized by Uthman in 653 AD and not 652 AD as I claimed erroneously. Not that it makes much of a difference to reliability of quran but for information sake I thought it was necessary to point that out.

[phill01]

If agreeing with each other is the key then they agree with the inclusion of word Mecca. Not a single translator skipped the word Mecca in the verse.

But from my understanding from “The Cat” is that it hasn’t been translated at all ?. Cat posted several meanings from Arabic sources which gave a few meanings being:
1: Worn down.
2: To insist on something from an adversary.
3: Destruction.
Here is an excellent article on the Makkata issue http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quranists/message/9, However I don’t really understand what it all means and like you am walking blind when it comes to Arabic

A short excerpt below, "typos were included": I’m sure “The Cat” will savour this one

3:96, 2:185 and 48:24

The phrases under scrutiny are:

shahru-ramadaana
bibatni makkata
lalladhee bibakkata

Understanding that Arabic is based on how something is said,
understanding the rules of tajweez and understanding that the kasrah
and the ya for 'first person 'me' ' can be teh same, can help us
look at these phrases differently without breaking Classical Arabic
rules or having to claim that the grammarians are wrong.

So with the following I detract the opinon that I have held for over
a year here that the grammarians forgot an important aspect of
grammar. It was never the grammarians that kept us from being able
to discover it, it was the common, traditional understanding of
these verses, the standardization of Arabic spelling and its affect
on the way we view texts that were before this standardization. (For
those of us who have scrutinized the Arabic)

According to tajweez and the the phenomeon of idghaam
(assimilation), Shahru-ramadaana can equal shahrun + ramadaanan This
validates the understanding of 'a month during a time of constant or
intense heat' And a shaddah could be inserted over the the ra to
show this understanding. The traditional understanding is also still
valid, although it may not be more logical, and is certainly not
more universal.

bi-batni makkata following the same rule shown above can equal bi +
batnin + makkatan This validates the claim of makkah being used here
mainly to indicate destruction, being more liek 'Being in deep or
being surrounded(in the middle), by desctruction' The traditional
understanding however is also still valid, and its logic depends on
whether one would like to accept the histories to be found in the
hadeeth or not. However, I wouldn't encourage conspiracy theories.

lalladhee bibakkata through the rule shown through 2:126, and 2:40-
41 can be 'lalladhee + bee + bakkatan' being "The one that is for
Me, being cut above the rest!" The previous passage can start its
quote at 'sadaqa allahu fa'. . . that is 'God told truth in
saying . . .'

With all that said, I officially retract my statement or implication
of forgotten grammar. Understanding grammar, tawjeez, that spelling
wasn't standardized in Arabic texts until the past 100 years, and
that the Quran doesn't fall into the category of books that use
conventional standardized spelling, which can be seen from one
Quranic text to another, gives support to the ideas that Mecca was
never made a place of importance in the Quran, and where the word is
mentioned it has other meaning. It also give support to the idea
that bakkah is not the other name for Mecca and has meaning in
Arabic that grammatically fits towards understanding it as 'a cut
above the rest' or 'in distinction' and that Ramadan has alternative
Arabic meaning and can grammatically mean 'season of constant or
intense heat'. All these understandings can all be justified using
valid grammatical principles and are therefore sound understandings.

In my last debate with him about compilation of quran I have showed him that there were plenty of quranic versions in place after Muhammad's death. Each of the following following authors had their own versions of quran.

1)Ali
2)Ibn abbas
3) Umar & Thabit/Hafsa
4) Ibn Masud
5) Ubai
6) Abu Musa
7)Aisha
8)Revision to Umar + Thabit's quran= Uthman's quran

This is just a sample. In total from what I read there were 28 odd versions(15 major + 13 minor) of quran in place with each quran differing from the other. When you learn such a thing how in the world can anyone claim that Uthman's quran was the ultimate of all? Uthman relied heavily on Thabit who wasn't even considered reliable by Muhammad. In one of the hadith muhammad asked people to learn quran from 4 people namely MAsud, Ubai, Abu Musa and Salim(who died in battle of Yammana). The best teachers of quran disagreed significantly with Uthman's final version or the quran of today(assuming that story regarding governor of AL hajjaj changing quran is not true). Quran was collected by Uthman by asking people to bring verses they knew to him with 2 witnesses for their inclusion in the quran. In the light of evidence how can anyone claim that Uthman's quran came indisputably from Muhammad??.

I’m not really learned enough on this topic as yet. All I know is that the oldest Korans we have are from the first 2 decades of the 8th century being the Sanna scripts which don’t have diacritics or vowel markings which is what Hajjaj standardised. What the brushed off text says may make them older ?.

I’m not sure if Cat is a Koran only Muslim or not, but he has mentioned that Mohammad is quite possibly two people being Salman the Persian and Mohammad Maslama who were companions of Mohammad…Now we have two Mo’s . Salman was the thinker and Maslama was the murderous barbarian. Sounds like the same difference between the Meecan and Medinan verses with these two doesn’t it.

Is there any evidence to claim that these 2 people wrote the quran??

No there is no evidence, however it could explain the Persian words in the Koran

[The Cat]

he was keen as mustard on Mecca being just North Of Jerusalem at a place called Maacha or (something like that) but is now claiming Al – Ula. I have no problem with this twist in belief as it appears this thread is more of a “learning journey” for “The Cat” as well as myself, and as one gains more knowledge on Islamic history then those beliefs are bound to change, just like mine have.

Indeed my friend and therein I mentioned that it was ''a work under construction. I prepared myself quite a lot
for the opening of this thread, still new informations keep on coming on as I deepen and sharpen my studies.''

Same went with the meaning of 'Quraysh' which I've first explored through etymology, just to realize later that they were the inhabitants
of the old area of al-Qura (6.92; 42.7), grosso modo nowadays the Arabic province of Tabuk, encompassing many Koranic/Islamic events
like the battles of Badr, Khaybar, Tabuk with places like Hala-l' Badr (a volcano) and nearby al-Haram/Al-Ula or Al-Hijr/Hegra (sura 15),
not to mention 37.137-138: ''ye verily pass by (the ruin of) them in the morning And at night-time...'' The Koranic al-Masjid al-Haram!

Now, we should also examine if Makkah is Arabic at all, or rather stemming from Phoenician/Hebrew! Ibn Rushd will like that...

Makkah (the Phoenician/Hebrew root of the word)
http://books.google.ca/books?id=MXFAAAA ... &q&f=false

The Arabian philologers give us, indeed, six different attempts at such derivation - all equally droll. The root Makkah denotes, (a) 'suck out entirely', (b) 'diminish', (c) 'level with the ground'.... It would be idle to discuss more closely the above. Only this is plain that the word Makkah cannot be derived from Arabic, that it is no Arabic word. But we have only to write Makkah in Hebrew and we have gone very far to explain its meaning, viz. 'slaughter'.....

At Makkah there was nobody. Hisam says on the authority of al-Kelbi, ''All the men had performed the pilgrimage, they had dispersed; Makkah remained then forsaken, there was nobody there'. Here there can be no mention of a town, for there was no town as yet; but the name 'Makkah' is employed nevertheless. We have only now to write it in Hebrew letters and we have at once Makkah-rabbah = Ptolemy's Makoraba, meaning great slaughter, exactly the expression which we find in N.11.33 or 2Ch.13.17, 1S.14.30. The synonym makkah-gedolah occurs frequently in Jo.10.20, Ju11.33, etc. It is not surprising that the Arabians, not knowing Hebrew could not give the right explanation of the name.

Definitions
http://books.google.ca/books?id=7Bg8CoR ... ah&f=false
Makkah gedolah: With a great blow (slaughter, wound, plague).
Makkah rabbah: Great slaughter, many stripes, plague.
Makkot: Plagues, strokes, scars, blows.
Makkat bilti: Continual stroke.
Makom (like Maqam Ibrahim): a place of rest, any place of dwelling, home.

Note: the Hebrew word rather came from the Phoenician MKK, meaning -ruins, desolate, destroyed, vanished-, not likely 'slaughter'.
Slaughter doesn't match at all the context of 48.24 (in the midst of slaughter simply CAN'T fit). But let us go on furthermore...

Something I've also found: A cognate for Makkah is written 'Makkedah' in (-and only in-) the Book of Joshua:
10.10: And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and
chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.

We also find it in Jos.10.16-17; 10.21; 10.28-29; 12.16; 15.41! But it's not found anywhere else in the Bible...
Incidentally, the chapter 10 is where God made the sun stood still (10.13), a much debated verse...
10.13: And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies.

Joshua 10.20 (where the Hebrew 'makkah-gedolah' is found)...
10.20-21: And it came to pass, when Joshua and the children of Israel had made an end of slaying them with a very great slaughter
(makkah-gedolah), till they were consumed, that the rest which remained of them entered into fenced cities. And all the people
returned to the camp to Joshua at Makkedah in peace: none moved his tongue against any of the children of Israel.

Makkedah, in the Jewish Encyclopedia
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 3&letter=M

Apparently Makkedah was a stronghold of some importance, being deemed worthy of especial mention side by side with Libnah,
Lachish, and Hebron (x. 28-37). Near the city was a large cave in which the five allies sought refuge.... The site of Makkedah is
much in doubt. Warren was the first to identify it with the modern Al-Mughar ("the cave"), several miles southwest from Ekron,
and about eight miles from the sea and twenty-five miles from Gibeon.

10.28: And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed them,
and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain: and he did to the king of Makkedah as he did unto the king of Jericho.

Thus, in the Book of Joshua, 'Makkah' is used both to mean a city/place and its utter destruction, thus becoming somehow entangled.
It should be noted that its location wasn't that far from 'Bethel' (House of God, in Arabic Bayt-Allah, or Beyt-ULA), if not Macaah!
viewtopic.php?p=92737#p92737

Since al-Ula/Dedan was also utterly destroyed we can think that the meaning has been extended to any place destroyed by God.
Maqam Ibrahim (the root for Mecca) being ANY place where Abraham: 1) set an altar (like Bethel); 2) resided as his home.
In the light of Ishmael, it only can go as South as Al-Hijr/Hegra/Mada'in Saleh, certainly not where is nowadays Mecca...

I may have to edit the Resource's link (recently edited to include -bibatni- makkata)!
viewtopic.php?p=137029#p137029

MECCA -Myth vs Reality: In Search of Mt Sinai!
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8527

____________________________
For the newcomers and all, I've made a summary of this whole thread for research & convenience...
viewtopic.php?p=152903#p152903
viewtopic.php?p=158868#p158868