Page 24 of 25

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:36 pm
by The Cat
phill01 wrote: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.

Out of them, parting from free-minds, I kept #2 since it better fits the context of the Hudaibiya negociations.

phill01 wrote:Here is an excellent article on the Makkata issue...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quranists/message/9
I’m sure “The Cat” will savour this one

Indeed, thanks phill01. I kept this:
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 fact, what we're slowly discovering is that most Islamic religious terminologies have been twisted out of the Koran
(including Zakat, Ruku, etc), indeed corrupting its real message, to fit the Islamic Pharisees' agenda, to build a religion,
world apart from the true Koranic meanings, much like the twisting of 'bibatni makkata' or 'Ramadan' for that matter!

In short, secular words have been given a religious twist throughout the tafsirs/hadiths...
But it'll be a Herculean task to reverse the traditional blend, right here defended by snb!
And to do so, no doubt, we absolutely NEED the insights from the Koraners 'apostates'.

The Deception of the Koranic 'proper names'
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5978

Or, its revised parent in Resource Center: The Koranic Deceptive 'Proper Names' (still on-going).
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=10230

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:10 pm
by The Cat
phill01 wrote:No there is no evidence (about Salman the Persian/Muhammad Maslama), however it could explain the Persian words in the Koran.

Salman the Persian (Salman al-Farisi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_the_Persian
It is said that he was the first to translate the Koran into Persian, and that he knew the Torah (Dawood 27.3752).

He started as an Iraqi Zoroastrian, to become a Christian through a bishop (remember Bahirah)... then traveling from Iraq to Syria
(as Muhammad). Then he went to wadi al-Qura, where he was sold as a slave (much like the biblical Joseph), bought by another
Jew and brought to Medina, where he supposedly met the prophet (?!?)...
http://www.islamawareness.net/Caliph/sa ... farsi.html
http://www.ezsoftech.com/islamic/salman.asp

With his odd background of Zoroastrian/Jewish/Nestorian knowledge, he would better fit the garment of the 'Meccan' (al-Qura) messenger!
Remembering and never forgetting that 'Muhammad' is but an appellation (the Praise Worthy, Hebrew: Chosen one) and not a proper name.

Salman is highly revered by the Shias and much spiritualized by the Sufis as the true 'spirit of Islam'.
The Alawites consider him within a somehow divine triad made of... Muhammad, Ali and Salman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawi
Alawis believe in a "trinity" or "schema" of `Ain-Mim-Sin, which stands for `Ali, Muhammad, and Salman al-Farsi,
the Persian Companion of Muhammad. Muhammad is known as ism, or "name", Ali as bab, or "door", and Salman
al-Farsi as ma'na, or "meaning", with both Muhammad and Ali considered to be emanations of Salman al-Farsi....

Since the Alawites are often referred to as the Nusayris or Ansaris (NSR),
So my thread on the NSR root (Nasara = Christians) is a worthy reading.
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5225

On the many Salman/Persian influences in the Koran, from Abul Kasem (see also Bahira)
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ab ... 1205p4.htm

phill01 wrote:No I don’t subscribe to Islam going back to the time of Abraham.

It has to go with the root SLM, phill01, way older than the Islam (SLM) chosen as binding by Allah in 5.3...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-L-M
viewtopic.php?p=99434#p99434
The DIN of Islam vs nowadays sectarian Mazhab
viewtopic.php?p=143203#p143203

It's in the AXIAL verse of 42.13 (where the Koranic Sharia is defined and... limited)!
The Laws Within the Koran, part 2 (see Law #2):
viewtopic.php?p=132870#p132870

And what was commanded unto Noah and Abraham, yet inspired in Muhammad, is most obviously the 7 Noahide laws...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:17 pm
by skynightblaze
Phil wrote: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 :drool:


He can't explain which of those meanings suit the verse without referring to sources other than quran and hence his argument needs to be dismissed.

More ever proofs from Sanaa manuscripts are sufficient to clarify that quran was written till 720 AD and hence one can't claim that Uthmanic quran was preserved. If one argues that Sanaa manuscripts belong to some other quranic text(not Uthmanic since we had many quranic versions in place) then it only goes to show that people were unhappy even after Uthman's standard quran. This shows that there was never a consensus within muslims about any quran and hence quran cannot be considered from a reliable source which accurately recorded every single thing that Muhammad said. Now historical proofs debunk authenticity of quran and yet CAT defends and claims that Quran of Uthman was widely accepted and that it was unchanged. Thats de learning and not learning and improving upon's one's previous knowledge.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:53 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:He can't explain which of those meanings suit the verse without referring to sources other than quran and hence his argument needs to be dismissed.

Your old senily again. Already debunked... and unanswered!
viewtopic.php?p=160990#p160990

skynightblaze wrote:More ever proofs from Sanaa manuscripts are sufficient to clarify that quran was written till 720 AD and hence one can't claim that Uthmanic quran was preserved. If one argues that Sanaa manuscripts belong to some other quranic text(not Uthmanic since we had many quranic versions in place) then it only goes to show that people were unhappy even after Uthman's standard quran.

Your senily is at it AGAIN. Already debunked... and unanswered!
viewtopic.php?p=161415#p161415

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:11 pm
by skynightblaze
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:He can't explain which of those meanings suit the verse without referring to sources other than quran and hence his argument needs to be dismissed.

Your old senily again. Already debunked... and unanswered!
viewtopic.php?p=160990#p160990

skynightblaze wrote:More ever proofs from Sanaa manuscripts are sufficient to clarify that quran was written till 720 AD and hence one can't claim that Uthmanic quran was preserved. If one argues that Sanaa manuscripts belong to some other quranic text(not Uthmanic since we had many quranic versions in place) then it only goes to show that people were unhappy even after Uthman's standard quran.

Your senily is at it AGAIN. Already debunked... and unanswered!
viewtopic.php?p=161415#p161415


I dont bother answering same stupid arguments again and again. You may be finding it amusing but not me. You got to understand that scribbling something is not called rebuttal.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:27 pm
by The Cat
skynightblaze wrote:I dont bother answering same stupid arguments again and again.

Thing is that you had no answer to those ever (or prove it) and eluding is not call rebuttal.

And Your Senility has been called over this MANY times before:
viewtopic.php?p=160296#p160296
Now, stop this fallacious argument that you've proven something without giving the proper reference to check.
For you never did 'refute' anything without being answered and then resorting to industrial logical fallacies...


viewtopic.php?p=160429#p160429
Thanks for showing everyone how your dismissive attitude backfire at you, proving how you never refuted anything
without being answered and then, when cornered, resorting to logical fallacies all over again, just like the above...
Thanks for admitting your own debating incompetence in such clear ways...


May I remind Your Senility -this once AGAIN- that I will consider hadiths strictly when dealing about history, and then on their own value.

Now don't forget to inform us whenever you catch the difference between 'authentic' and 'authenticity'.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:52 am
by phill01
Hi SNB

skynightblaze wrote:
Phil wrote: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 :drool:


He can't explain which of those meanings suit the verse without referring to sources other than quran and hence his argument needs to be dismissed.


After reading “The Cat’s” lengthy reply about the possibility that Makkata isn’t possibly an Arabic word deepens the issue further. This is quite possible because it would add to the theory that it was left un-translated because they didn’t’ know what it meant. It is well known that there are a lot of non Arabic words in the Koran, so this is a real possibility in my view.

skynightblaze wrote:More ever proofs from Sanaa manuscripts are sufficient to clarify that quran was written till 720 AD and hence one can't claim that Uthmanic quran was preserved. If one argues that Sanaa manuscripts belong to some other quranic text(not Uthmanic since we had many quranic versions in place) then it only goes to show that people were unhappy even after Uthman's standard quran. This shows that there was never a consensus within muslims about any quran and hence quran cannot be considered from a reliable source which accurately recorded every single thing that Muhammad said. Now historical proofs debunk authenticity of quran and yet CAT defends and claims that Quran of Uthman was widely accepted and that it was unchanged. Thats de learning and not learning and improving upon's one's previous knowledge.


I tend to agree here SNB and feel that the Uthman codex version of events has more than likely been embellished to legitimise the transmission for dogmatic reasons. If it indeed had occurred as stated then the Sanaa script would be the same as we have today since they are dated from the late 7th to early 8th century. But they aren’t. And with around 30,000 pages found of Koranic and non Koranic material found then chances are that there are numerous Korans written from various authors over a period of possibly 30 years. However, It’s an odds on bet that the Yemeni Government will now never let the scripts see the light of day.
I would almost bet that the Yemeni Govt may even destroy them at some stage down the track, if not already. Thankfully Puin probably has enough film and scriptural evidence to make sense of it all. Puin has already noted differing Surah orders and spelling variants which in essence doesn’t change things to much. The only thing it does change is the Uthman version of events because they were written after his death. This in itself though is a major problem for the Islamic version of transmission.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:04 am
by phill01
The Cat wrote:
phill01 wrote:No there is no evidence (about Salman the Persian/Muhammad Maslama), however it could explain the Persian words in the Koran.

Salman the Persian (Salman al-Farisi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_the_Persian
It is said that he was the first to translate the Koran into Persian, and that he knew the Torah (Dawood 27.3752).

He started as an Iraqi Zoroastrian, to become a Christian through a bishop (remember Bahirah)... then traveling from Iraq to Syria
(as Muhammad). Then he went to wadi al-Qura, where he was sold as a slave (much like the biblical Joseph), bought by another
Jew and brought to Medina, where he supposedly met the prophet (?!?)...
http://www.islamawareness.net/Caliph/sa ... farsi.html
http://www.ezsoftech.com/islamic/salman.asp

With his odd background of Zoroastrian/Jewish/Nestorian knowledge, he would better fit the garment of the 'Meccan' (al-Qura) messenger!
Remembering and never forgetting that 'Muhammad' is but an appellation (the Praise Worthy, Hebrew: Chosen one) and not a proper name.

Salman is highly revered by the Shias and much spiritualized by the Sufis as the true 'spirit of Islam'.
The Alawites consider him within a somehow divine triad made of... Muhammad, Ali and Salman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawi
Alawis believe in a "trinity" or "schema" of `Ain-Mim-Sin, which stands for `Ali, Muhammad, and Salman al-Farsi,
the Persian Companion of Muhammad. Muhammad is known as ism, or "name", Ali as bab, or "door", and Salman
al-Farsi as ma'na, or "meaning", with both Muhammad and Ali considered to be emanations of Salman al-Farsi....

Since the Alawites are often referred to as the Nusayris or Ansaris (NSR),
So my thread on the NSR root (Nasara = Christians) is a worthy reading.
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5225

On the many Salman/Persian influences in the Koran, from Abul Kasem (see also Bahira)
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ab ... 1205p4.htm



Now this is interesting as I didn't previously know his movements, i.e, Being in Al-Qura !!!. What I think would be worth investigating and would add value to this thread is "What he looked like". Now if I remember rightly he was lighter skinned than the others and even possibly had a reddish tinge for his hair colour, but I may be wrong on the accounts and will have to re-visit. All I remember is that his features are mentioned here and there and I got an impression he was of a different stock than your every day Arabian ??.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:02 pm
by skynightblaze
@phil

I don't understand arabic. Let me know if the following makes any sense. Ahmed Bahgat is a muslim on this site and he answered CAT.

Ahmed Bahgat wrote:
Spoiler! :
The Cat wrote: one must prove that it differs like by showing the -ism- indicating a proper name. So here we face a conjecture stemming out from the wishful desire of the translators,


Total BS

The two words ‘Batn Makka’, constitute what is called Genitive Construction, genitive means that the last letter in the second word must end with a KASRAH vowel, so let me put a big image of the two words and see if it Makka ends with a KASRAH under the last letter in it:

Source of Image
Image

The image above shows three words:

1- The Preposition Bi: بِ, Bi, i.e. In
2- The first word in the Genitive Construction: بَطْنِ , Batni, i.e. the midst of
3- The second word in the Genitive Construction: مَكَّةَ , Makkata, i.e. Mecca

Now, listen carefully, pal:

Genitive Construction in the Arabic grammar has very restrict rules, one of its rules is this:

- The second word MUST be genitive, hence its name 'Genitive Construction'. This means that the second word in the genitive construction MUST have a KASRAH under the last letter.

- Now, look at the image above from Quran verse 48:24, I highlighted the last letter of the second word of the Genitive Construction in red. However, it does not have a KASRAH under it, i.e. it is not genitive which violates the rule of the Genitive Construction that the last letter in the second word must be genitive. Well, the rest of the rule is as follow:

- The last letter of the second word in the Genitive Construction must be genitive with a KASRAH under it, unless the second word is ممنوع من الصرف , Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf. I don’t know how to translate this exactly to English, but in simple terms: Prohibited for Noonation and must be genitive with a FATHA above the last letter in lieu of a KASRAH under the last letter.

- Now, look at the word Makka again in the Quran photo above, we have that FATHA (Accusative) above the last letter, seen in red. i.e. the word Makka is ممنوع من الصرف , Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf; see below from An Arabic grammar web site:

Source of Image
Image

What they are saying above in simple terms: أن مكة ممنوعة من الصرف , i.e. Because Makka is Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf

- This should take us to the next question, when is a noun will be ممنوع من الصرف , Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf? The answer is as follow from the same grammar web site, :

Source of Image
Image

What they are saying, it happens when it is : العلم المؤنث المختوم بتاء التأنيث , i.e. A proper feminine name that is ending with the feminine Ta.

Guess what, pal, Makka is an Arabic word that is:

1- Proper name
2- Feminine
3- Ending with the feminine Ta, the highlighted letter in red seen in the first Quran image.

In fact they even listed the word مكة circled in blue as an example.

Here you have it, pal, I just showed you that Makka is a proper feminine name. This should shut your ignorant mouth for good along with your deceitful con-teachers Layth and his clown Ayman.


viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8371&start=20

You may also want to check page 1 of the same link wherein Ahmed quotes arabic dictionaries... I am not sure how it makes sense as I said arabic is a alien world to me.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:05 pm
by The Cat
phil01 wrote:And with around 30,000 pages found of Koranic and non Koranic material found then chances are that there are numerous Korans written from various authors over a period of possibly 30 years.... Puin has already noted differing Surah orders and spelling variants which in essence doesn’t change things to much. The only thing it does change is the Uthman version of events because they were written after his death. This in itself though is a major problem for the Islamic version of transmission.

Many Muslims think that it could be something like the Hafsa codex or a hidden Masud's, Kab's or Ali's codex. Only comparative researches
could prove anything. Chances are nothing will happen, as Puin mentioned that both sides will keep silent, ''although for different reasons''.

What we do know is that they are manuscrits of many different korans, I've seen one thousand, some containing
rare Hijazi scripts of between 645-690. No one anymore can state that it's a product no earlier than 8/9th century.

The most scholarly informations I found yet are from Islamic-awareness...
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... /soth.html
Support for an early dating of this manuscript also comes from a radiocarbon study of the Sotheby's 1993, Lot 31 palimpsest folio, which is now in a private collection in Stanford (CA), USA (Stanford '07). Recently, carbon dating was performed on this folio and the analysis was done at the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) Laboratory at the University of Arizona. According to Sadeghi and Bergmann, the results indicate that the parchment has a 68% (1σ) probability of belonging to the period between 614 CE to 656 CE. It has a 95% (2σ) probability of belonging to the period between 578 CE and 669 CE.

The carbon dating is applicable to the scriptio inferior text. The date which the scriptio superior text was written could be the first or second half of the 7th century or even the early 8th century (more generally the 1st century hijra). Sadeghi and Bergmann point out that for historical reasons, however, what is of greater interest is the probability that the parchment is older than a certain date. The probability that the parchment is older than 646 CE is 75.1%, or a three-to-one likelihood. On this basis, therefore, they suggest that it is highly probable that this manuscript was produced no more than 15 years after the death of Muhammad (d. June, 632 CE). They conclude that the scriptio inferior text belonged to the codex of a companion of Prophet Muhammad, whilst the scriptio superior text belongs to the ʿUthmānic tradition, and using stemmatics, it is shown as the prototype to be identified with the Prophet.

What the article infers is that the erased text belonged to someone like Masud, Kab or Ali, rewritten over from the Uthmaic recension.

References are given in the article.
Bye.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:49 pm
by Ibn Rushd
But it doesn't prove that those men existed, just that there was Qur'anic material available that early. This only proves Wansbrough.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 10:36 pm
by The Cat
Ibn Rushd wrote:But it doesn't prove that those men existed, just that there was Qur'anic material available that early. This only proves Wansbrough.

Hi my dear...

Well to do so one must discard the whole Islamic traditions even those concerning history, which is a bridge too far for me.
This theory would also emphasized the 'divine' origin of the Koran, another step I'm certainly not about to take, and by far.

So I opted for a middle ground position: the Koran has a history, which must be related to some persons, authors and editions.
This thread is all about the uncertainty concerning who Muhammad was, yet to state that he never existed is way far stretched.

Bye. :wink:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:01 am
by phill01
The Cat wrote:http://books.google.ca/books?id=7Bg8CoRcI3AC&pg=PA1176&lpg=PA1176&dq=makkah+gedolah&source=bl&ots=qD0vF9mG6S&sig=rLan32dTS1TUUsnoDVHgylEc2ik&hl=en#v=onepage&q=makkah%20gedolah&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)

.

Hi "The Cat"

I would like throw a spanner in the works here. Now if the occurence actually occured in North Western Arabia rather than where Mecca is today then the term Destruction, Destroyed, Vanished could actually apply here, being in the locations of Petra, Dedan etc etc. For these places were indeed destroyed and the inhabitants (previous) had vanished. Indeed the Qura'yan speaks of these places as we all know and that the destroyed places were quite visible to them, as they are visble to us today.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:30 am
by phill01
skynightblaze wrote: @phil

I don't understand arabic. Let me know if the following makes any sense. Ahmed Bahgat is a muslim on this site and he answered CAT.

Ahmed Bahgat wrote:
Spoiler! :
The Cat wrote: one must prove that it differs like by showing the -ism- indicating a proper name. So here we face a conjecture stemming out from the wishful desire of the translators,


Total BS

The two words ‘Batn Makka’, constitute what is called Genitive Construction, genitive means that the last letter in the second word must end with a KASRAH vowel, so let me put a big image of the two words and see if it Makka ends with a KASRAH under the last letter in it:

Source of Image
Image

The image above shows three words:

1- The Preposition Bi: بِ, Bi, i.e. In
2- The first word in the Genitive Construction: بَطْنِ , Batni, i.e. the midst of
3- The second word in the Genitive Construction: مَكَّةَ , Makkata, i.e. Mecca

Now, listen carefully, pal:

Genitive Construction in the Arabic grammar has very restrict rules, one of its rules is this:

- The second word MUST be genitive, hence its name 'Genitive Construction'. This means that the second word in the genitive construction MUST have a KASRAH under the last letter.

- Now, look at the image above from Quran verse 48:24, I highlighted the last letter of the second word of the Genitive Construction in red. However, it does not have a KASRAH under it, i.e. it is not genitive which violates the rule of the Genitive Construction that the last letter in the second word must be genitive. Well, the rest of the rule is as follow:

- The last letter of the second word in the Genitive Construction must be genitive with a KASRAH under it, unless the second word is ممنوع من الصرف , Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf. I don’t know how to translate this exactly to English, but in simple terms: Prohibited for Noonation and must be genitive with a FATHA above the last letter in lieu of a KASRAH under the last letter.

- Now, look at the word Makka again in the Quran photo above, we have that FATHA (Accusative) above the last letter, seen in red. i.e. the word Makka is ممنوع من الصرف , Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf; see below from An Arabic grammar web site:

Source of Image
Image

What they are saying above in simple terms: أن مكة ممنوعة من الصرف , i.e. Because Makka is Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf

- This should take us to the next question, when is a noun will be ممنوع من الصرف , Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf? The answer is as follow from the same grammar web site, :

Source of Image
Image

What they are saying, it happens when it is : العلم المؤنث المختوم بتاء التأنيث , i.e. A proper feminine name that is ending with the feminine Ta.

Guess what, pal, Makka is an Arabic word that is:

1- Proper name
2- Feminine
3- Ending with the feminine Ta, the highlighted letter in red seen in the first Quran image.

In fact they even listed the word مكة circled in blue as an example.

Here you have it, pal, I just showed you that Makka is a proper feminine name. This should shut your ignorant mouth for good along with your deceitful con-teachers Layth and his clown Ayman.


viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8371&start=20

You may also want to check page 1 of the same link wherein Ahmed quotes arabic dictionaries... I am not sure how it makes sense as I said arabic is a alien world to me.


Hi SNB

From reading the thread I would say AB got flogged. One thing is clear though....All Arabic words are derived from a root word as far as I know. So the reality is that Makkata also must have a root...being MKK!. All available words produced from the MKK root have been described here already which don't produce a proper name for a proper place.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:47 pm
by skynightblaze
Phil wrote:Hi SNB

From reading the thread I would say AB got flogged. One thing is clear though....All Arabic words are derived from a root word as far as I know. So the reality is that Makkata also must have a root...being MKK!. All available words produced from the MKK root have been described here already which don't produce a proper name for a proper place.


I suppose he is talking about the meaning of the root and NOT THE WORDS FORMED OUT OF THE ROOT. See below the part in red..

The Cat wrote:We're talking about Classical Arabic, that of the Koran, in which dictionaries state that MKK means sucking.
1.-- Al-Qamus Al-Muheet: Used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him
2.-- Lisan Al-Arab:- تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent
3.-- Al-Ghani: MKK: Sucking; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.
4.-- Al-Waseet: MKK: used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from that opponent.


Now read the following quote from Wiki islam.

In Arabic, each word must be derived from its root. The root usually consists of three letters that can be manipulated, by adding vowels, prefixes and suffixes in order to produce different words with different meanings. For example, "ka-ta-ba" (to write) is the root for many words such as kitab (book), maktaba (library), katib (author), maktoob (written), kitabat (writings) et cetera.


Even though the context here is different but what it says is that we can have multiple words from the root and the words formed have different meanings from the root. See for example the root " Ka-Ta-Ba" which means TO WRITE and the words formed out it can mean library, a book , an author etc which have completely different meaning than the root . Now what CAT is doing here is , he is quoting the meaning of the ROOT MKK but he doesn't tell us what words can be formed out of the root MKK.

Again I could be wrong as I have already told you arabic is simply not my domain. Anyway a native speaker also told me the same that free minders are playing the root game. The words formed from the root dont have the same meaning as the ROOT. This confirms what a native arabic speaker told me.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:06 pm
by The Cat
phill01 wrote:Hi "The Cat"

I would like throw a spanner in the works here. Now if the occurence actually occured in North Western Arabia rather than where Mecca is today then the term Destruction, Destroyed, Vanished could actually apply here, being in the locations of Petra, Dedan etc etc. For these places were indeed destroyed and the inhabitants (previous) had vanished. Indeed the Qura'yan speaks of these places as we all know and that the destroyed places were quite visible to them, as they are visble to us today.

Sound argument to be pondered, phil01. Thanks... Yet the negotiations weren't hold in 'Mecca' but in a nearby place.
The area of al-Qura, as we've seen with Salman the Persian, also has a valley (wadi al-Qura), wherein is Al-Ula/Dedan!

In 6.92 and 42.7 this place is called 'the mother of town'! i.e. The place of Moses (6.91) and of Muhammad (42.7)!

6.92:
And this is a blessed Scripture which We have revealed, confirming that which (was revealed) before it,
that thou mayst warn the Mother of Villages (Umma Al-Qurá) and those around her.

42.7:
And thus We have inspired in thee a Lecture in Arabic, that thou mayst warn the mother-town (Umma Al-Qurá) and those around it...

Clearly the settlement of the Quraysh, nearby the Arabic Badr volcano, the Koranic al-Masjid al-Haram, where laws were revealed!

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 6:38 pm
by brooqdes
Peace be upon him

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 11:42 pm
by Fernando
and peace be on this thread, which you've disturbed from its slumbers.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:45 pm
by Fernando
More peace be upon this thread, which has slumbered long enough. A wakening shot has come all the way from Norway for us, where a professor professed doubts about Mo's very existence. Nothing new, really, from this long lecture (which had police protection, just in case) - although being in Norse there may be more if you could read it, other accounts, or some linked comments. I was, however, interested to see a slide showing that the writing form used in the Koran was peculiar to an area roughly north of the Red Sea and the Gulf, not the desert area of Arabia.
What Were the True Origins of Islam?

by Fjordman

On September 9, 2017, there was a conference in Copenhagen about the origins of Islam. It was a collaboration between the International Free Press Society in Denmark plus the organizations Humans Rights Service and Document from Norway.[1]

The speaker was Professor Robert Martin Kerr. He participates in Inarah, a research network that is engaged in a scientific historical-critical, philological investigation into the Koran, the origins of Islam and its early history.[2]

Around 50 or 60 people attended this lecture. Not much, but still pretty good for a dense, six-hour lecture about ancient stone inscriptions and languages many people have never heard of. Multiple policemen stood guard outside. Even in Scandinavia, you now need armed police to protect you while listening to details about Aramaic grammar. Freedom is slowly slipping away in Western Europe.

Professor Kerr doesn’t seem to believe that Muhammad, the alleged founder of Islam, is a historical figure. Perhaps he never existed at all. As he points out, we have no contemporary evidence for the existence of Muhammad. None. The word “Muhammad” could be a title meaning “the praiseworthy one,” not a personal name.
Image
http://gatesofvienna.net/2017/09/what-were-the-true-origins-of-islam/#more-44057
The professor's organisation "INÂRAH - Institute for Research on Early Islamic History and the Koran" look promising and should be worth watching.
http://inarah.net/mission

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 6:31 pm
by manfred
To a large extent I would concur... Perhaps there was a historical Mohammed, but we cannot put together a detailed biography on him. The Islamic Mohammed is however mostly a character of legend. He may be loosely based on a real Mohammed, or even several people, but much of what we are told about Mohammed and what Muslims believe about him eludes evidence.

But this is not helping a great deal in discussing Islam with Muslims. To them this figure of their faith is as real as any living celebrity today. Their "Mohammed" is a construct from carefully selected hadith and other sources, a man that took about 200 years to be created by a multitude of people. It is this largely fictional character we need to discuss with Muslims, showing them how claims about his do not stand up to scrutiny.