Page 8 of 17

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:40 am
by SAM
Image

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:45 am
by sum
Hello SAM

Please tell me if you are a Koran-only muslim. I have already asked but have not received a reply.

sum

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:07 pm
by BaigZaheer
sum wrote:Hello BaigZaheer

Your quote -
I liked the last para in your post and my comments are as follows:

Christians are not the same all over the world. They have to come down from their high horse. LOL!

Christians in a few civilised Western countries are different from all Christians in the other countries.

For example, Christians in the backward countries in Africa, the Sub-Continent, Egypt (specially the Copts), Philippines and those in the European backyard are all exactly like their uneducated Muslim or other counterparts.

They are not really a refined bunch. So, we cannot place them in the same class of polished Christians.

There are a few incidents once in a while but are not rampant. Hope this helped.


No, it does not help. Your reply is just baseless nonsense and ad hominems. You have tried to dismiss the problem as though it does not exist. With easy access to information over the net it is becoming increasingly obvious to the masses that Islam is creating a cult of savages that are not fit to exist among non-muslims. If any muslim is deemed by the non-muslims to be a good man then one has to ask why is he a muslim?

sum


Hello, sum

There was no ad hominem at all and my post was based on facts, which no one can deny. One can see Christians on ground in the places that I mentioned.

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:15 pm
by BaigZaheer
SAM wrote:
frankie wrote:
SAM
a full open public examination of all things Islamic - Koran, Muhammad and sharia.


This is already happening right across the world today,you are too late with your idle threats,the truth about Islam is gaining momentum as each day passes, and nothing will stop it, not even enraged Muslims.
Muslims will not conquer the world, but the Islamic religion of Allah has already taken place.

You're still sleeping, Islam was absorbed into the West country many years ago with the help of Kafirun in Brussels, (Capital of the European Union,) to welcome Muslims meaning Islam is part of Europe's future. :vhap: :harhar:


Salaams, SAM

There are two factors. One is the Karma that all former colonialists are facing and the other is that there was a shortage of men after the world wars. Workers were invited and lots of them came from former colonies. Now, the locals are not doing dirty jobs, so they still need labourers and workers. One can see it all over the UK< France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and other rich countries, excluding the poor European backyard.

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:20 pm
by BaigZaheer
sum wrote:Hello SAM

You write a lot but avoid answering my question. I will ask again.

Are you a Koran-only muslim?

sum


Hello, sum

The majority of Muslims is Qur'aan and Sunnah only. Every Muslim has a copy of Qur'aan in his/her home but does not have a collection of Hadith tales by the story-tellers. Those who quote Hadith, quote only those which have been scrutinised under Qur'aan. Nobody quotes junk and stuff of Hadith.

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:27 pm
by BaigZaheer
manfred wrote:To try to get this back on track...
Here is a Muslim guy talking about Music, and specifically the use of musical instruments...




I would be interested in Ahmed's comments on that.


Glad you brought that up and I would also like to read Ahmed's comments.

That guy in the video appears to be a nut. Singing and playing music is not haraam in Islam.

Again the Hadithiyoon (those who believe Hadith tales more) have made it up.

The verse of Qur'aan refers to the prayers or worship of idolaters, who whistled, clapped and played music during their worship of idols. Hope this helped.

Edited to add: Qur'aan talks about David singing praises of the LORD. Nothing wrong with singing Nasheed.

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:15 pm
by sum
Hello BaigZaheer

With regard to being Koran-only, your very good friend, AhmedBahgat, said that he is a Koran-only muslim.

You also say that the majority of muslims are Koran and sunnah only.

Is AhmedBahgat - a Koran-only muslim - not following the true path of Islam or is it that the Koran and sunnah muslims are not following the true path of Islam?

I have seen pictures of muslims carrying placards saying that he who does not follow the true path of Islam is to be killed. Who decides what the true path of Islam is? Does it matter more to muslims than to Allah? Is this why different muslim sects kill each other?

sum

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:14 pm
by frankie
BaigZaheer
You have not answered my question which is:

how can you follow the example of your prophet in ALL things Islamic when the Quran does not tell you how?

These so called tale collections are trusted by most Muslims, so what makes them wrong and you right.

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:17 pm
by frankie
BaigZaheer wrote:
manfred wrote:To try to get this back on track...
Here is a Muslim guy talking about Music, and specifically the use of musical instruments...




I would be interested in Ahmed's comments on that.


Glad you brought that up and I would also like to read Ahmed's comments.

That guy in the video appears to be a nut. Singing and playing music is not haraam in Islam.

Again the Hadithiyoon (those who believe Hadith tales more) have made it up.

The verse of Qur'aan refers to the prayers or worship of idolaters, who whistled, clapped and played music during their worship of idols. Hope this helped.

Edited to add: Qur'aan talks about David singing praises of the LORD. Nothing wrong with singing Nasheed.


BaigZaheer


Singing and playing music is not haraam in Islam.


What do you refer to, to know this is true, and the Muslim in the video is wrong?

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:18 pm
by BaigZaheer
frankie wrote:BaigZaheer
You have not answered my question which is:

how can you follow the example of your prophet in ALL things Islamic when the Quran does not tell you how?

These so called tale collections are trusted by most Muslims, so what makes them wrong and you right.


If you read and understand Qur'aan, you can follow the Prophet very easily for Allah the LORD Almighty God said in Qur'aan "We narrate you the best stories", so why would I listen to the junk and stuff of Hadith story-tellers, who had no authority?

Those are not really trusted by Muslims. Ignorant Muslims are told silly stories by Hadith-lovers and some believe.

You must keep in mind that 'Saheeh' means right, correct or authentic. Saheeh Bukhari or Saheeh Muslim does not mean that everything in those books is Saheeh.

Saheeh Bukhari would mean the "Hadith collection, according to Bukhari" and Saheem Muslim would mean "Hadith collection, according to Muslim".

We do not have to take those books seriously as they are only tale-collections based on hearsay. Hadith is not our scripture and it is not obligatory. Qur'aan is the Scripture of Islam and that is obligatory on every Muslim.

The easiest way to understand hadith is to think like this: "Hadith is like the unsubstantiated tales of the New Testament."

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:22 pm
by BaigZaheer
frankie wrote:
BaigZaheer wrote:
manfred wrote:To try to get this back on track...
Here is a Muslim guy talking about Music, and specifically the use of musical instruments...




I would be interested in Ahmed's comments on that.


Glad you brought that up and I would also like to read Ahmed's comments.

That guy in the video appears to be a nut. Singing and playing music is not haraam in Islam.

Again the Hadithiyoon (those who believe Hadith tales more) have made it up.

The verse of Qur'aan refers to the prayers or worship of idolaters, who whistled, clapped and played music during their worship of idols. Hope this helped.

Edited to add: Qur'aan talks about David singing praises of the LORD. Nothing wrong with singing Nasheed.


BaigZaheer


Singing and playing music is not haraam in Islam.


What do you refer to, to know this is true, and the Muslim in the video is wrong?


I have already said that the guy is a nut! There are many 'toobes' where non-Muslim Arabs are dressed up and presented as Muslims. :lol: MEMRI is also notoriously famous for doing this. Have a good day. Will write some other time.

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:38 pm
by frankie
BaigZaheer wrote:
frankie wrote:BaigZaheer
You have not answered my question which is:

how can you follow the example of your prophet in ALL things Islamic when the Quran does not tell you how?

These so called tale collections are trusted by most Muslims, so what makes them wrong and you right.


If you read and understand Qur'aan, you can follow the Prophet very easily for Allah the LORD Almighty God said in Qur'aan "We narrate you the best stories", so why would I listen to the junk and stuff of Hadith story-tellers, who had no authority?

Those are not really trusted by Muslims. Ignorant Muslims are told silly stories by Hadith-lovers and some believe.

You must keep in mind that 'Saheeh' means right, correct or authentic. Saheeh Bukhari or Saheeh Muslim does not mean that everything in those books is Saheeh.

Saheeh Bukhari would mean the "Hadith collection, according to Bukhari" and Saheem Muslim would mean "Hadith collection, according to Muslim".

We do not have to take those books seriously as they are only tale-collections based on hearsay. Hadith is not our scripture and it is not obligatory. Qur'aan is the Scripture of Islam and that is obligatory on every Muslim.

The easiest way to understand hadith is to think like this: "Hadith is like the unsubstantiated tales of the New Testament."


BaigZaheer

If you read and understand Qur'aan, you can follow the Prophet very easily for Allah the LORD Almighty God said in Qur'aan


Words are meaningless without evidence.

Please provide the evidence from Islamic sources to substantiate your claim.


Qur'aan is the Scripture of Islam and that is obligatory on every Muslim.

If you read and understand Qur'aan, you can follow the Prophet very easily for Allah the LORD Almighty God said in Qur'aan "We narrate you the best stories",


The Quran also tells you:

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah"

Ibn Kathir
"The Command to follow the Messenger

This Ayah is an important principle, to follow the Messenger of Allah in all his words, and deeds, etc. Hence Allah commanded the people to take the Prophet as an example on the day of Al-Ahzab, with regard to patience, guarding, striving and waiting for Allah to provide the way out; may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him forever, until the Day of Judgement. Allah says to those who were anxious and impatient and were shaken by feelings of panic on the day of Al-Ahzab:

لَّقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ

(Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow) meaning, `why do you not take him as an example and follow his lead' Allah says:

لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الاٌّخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيراً

(for him who hopes in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah much.)"

Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an
"Allah does not. say that only in this respect His Messenger's life is a model for the Muslims to follow, but has regarded it as a model absolutely. Therefore, the verse demands that the Muslims should take the Holy Prophet's life as a model for themselves in every affair of life and should mold their character and personality according to it."


How can you obey Allah correctly, without first knowing how Mohammed obeyed Allah?

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:41 pm
by BaigZaheer
skynightblaze wrote:
1.How do you know that they are unsubstantiated ? What criteria should they meet so that we can say a story is substantiated?
2.Also just because those stories are ridiculous they must be false? Ridiculous things can also be true.
3. Open any islamic book, we find all of them portraying muhammad in negative light be it ibn sad, ibn ishaq, Tabari, sunan abu dawud, bukhari , sahih muslim,Muwatta Imam Malik. Now if we examine any non islamic accounts they also depict him as a criminal. So all those writers (muslim and non muslim) were relying on hear say? If yes then where are the true stories of muhammad which show him in saintly light? If you cannot show any then its absurd to suggest that all those were merely unsubstantiated stories. Stories can go wrong but overall picture that we get of character Muhammad cannot especially when we have tons of people writing about him in the same way.
When was the last time we saw in history a character so grossly misrepresented to the degree that he was a saint and we see stories describing him raping, looting, enslaving and terrorizing people?


The problem is that you do not know. If you want to discuss with me, be civil and do not act like a Troll. I know you well and i read your note to Chiclet!

Ibne Ishaq, Ibne Hisham, Ibne Sa'ad, Tabari, Waqidi, Ibne Majah and the other story-tellers were no scholars of Islam.

Ibne Ishaq, Ibne Hisham, Ibne Sa'ad and Tabari lumped all ridiculous and absurd tales from Christians, Jews, pagan Arabs and others in their tales, without even giving chain of narrators.

All those men were motor-mouths like Paul, Matthew and John of the NT. Do you see the name pf any narrators within those books, except that the Jews said this, Jesus said that and then the Jews said this and son.

Do you even know that ahaadith are classified in various categories? Such as incorrect, not authentic, broke chain of narrators, not trustworthy, single narrator, weak, defective and so on. So, even a 5th Grader can read and say that it is ridiculous and absurd.

Not a single tale-collector sat in the company of the Prophet or his companions and not even in the company of their great-great grand-children.

One does not need Hadith to understand Qur'aan, Islam and the Prophet.

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:44 pm
by BaigZaheer
frankie wrote:
BaigZaheer wrote:
frankie wrote:BaigZaheer
You have not answered my question which is:

how can you follow the example of your prophet in ALL things Islamic when the Quran does not tell you how?

These so called tale collections are trusted by most Muslims, so what makes them wrong and you right.


If you read and understand Qur'aan, you can follow the Prophet very easily for Allah the LORD Almighty God said in Qur'aan "We narrate you the best stories", so why would I listen to the junk and stuff of Hadith story-tellers, who had no authority?

Those are not really trusted by Muslims. Ignorant Muslims are told silly stories by Hadith-lovers and some believe.

You must keep in mind that 'Saheeh' means right, correct or authentic. Saheeh Bukhari or Saheeh Muslim does not mean that everything in those books is Saheeh.

Saheeh Bukhari would mean the "Hadith collection, according to Bukhari" and Saheem Muslim would mean "Hadith collection, according to Muslim".

We do not have to take those books seriously as they are only tale-collections based on hearsay. Hadith is not our scripture and it is not obligatory. Qur'aan is the Scripture of Islam and that is obligatory on every Muslim.

The easiest way to understand hadith is to think like this: "Hadith is like the unsubstantiated tales of the New Testament."


BaigZaheer

If you read and understand Qur'aan, you can follow the Prophet very easily for Allah the LORD Almighty God said in Qur'aan


Words are meaningless without evidence.

Please provide the evidence from Islamic sources to substantiate your claim.


Qur'aan is the Scripture of Islam and that is obligatory on every Muslim.

If you read and understand Qur'aan, you can follow the Prophet very easily for Allah the LORD Almighty God said in Qur'aan "We narrate you the best stories",


The Quran also tells you:

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah"

Ibn Kathir
"The Command to follow the Messenger

This Ayah is an important principle, to follow the Messenger of Allah in all his words, and deeds, etc. Hence Allah commanded the people to take the Prophet as an example on the day of Al-Ahzab, with regard to patience, guarding, striving and waiting for Allah to provide the way out; may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him forever, until the Day of Judgement. Allah says to those who were anxious and impatient and were shaken by feelings of panic on the day of Al-Ahzab:

لَّقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ

(Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow) meaning, `why do you not take him as an example and follow his lead' Allah says:

لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الاٌّخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيراً

(for him who hopes in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah much.)"

Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an
"Allah does not. say that only in this respect His Messenger's life is a model for the Muslims to follow, but has regarded it as a model absolutely. Therefore, the verse demands that the Muslims should take the Holy Prophet's life as a model for themselves in every affair of life and should mold their character and personality according to it."


How can you obey Allah correctly, without first knowing how Mohammed obeyed Allah?


So easy! Read the entire Qur'aan. Please do not quote me any Tafsir as there is no such thing as an authorised Tafsir of Qur'aan. I am also doing a Tafseer, which I am going to call Tafseer-e-Zaheeri. Tafseer is a commentary by a person. Shias have their Tafsirs, Sunnis have their Tafsirs and others have their.

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:51 pm
by frankie
BaigZaheer

I am asking for evidence that is all, you are the Muslim, and so should be able to answer my questions with ease.

It is a simple enough question,why are you making such hard work of giving a simple answer

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:33 pm
by SAM
BaigZaheer wrote:
sum wrote:Hello SAM

You write a lot but avoid answering my question. I will ask again.

Are you a Koran-only muslim?

sum


Hello, sum

The majority of Muslims is Qur'aan and Sunnah only. Every Muslim has a copy of Qur'aan in his/her home but does not have a collection of Hadith tales by the story-tellers. Those who quote Hadith, quote only those which have been scrutinised under Qur'aan. Nobody quotes junk and stuff of Hadith.


Salaams Bro BaigZaheer

Al-Kafirun only see explicit things, they don't see esotericism in Islam. They think they know Islamic doctrine is better than Muslims.

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:17 pm
by BaigZaheer
SAM wrote:
Salaams Bro BaigZaheer

Al-Kafirun only see explicit things, they don't see esotericism in Islam. They think they know Islamic doctrine is better than Muslims.


Just finished a page of my Tafseer on some important verses of Al-Baqarah and saw your post. Thought I must comment before going to bed.

The problem is that the kafiroon, mushrikoon and munafiqoon do not really read and understand Qur'aan. For example, I have read and studied the Jewish Tanakh and the Christian Bible very well and I can debate with Christians very easily, simply because I know.

With the kafiroon, mushrikoon and munafiqoon, the problem is that they have read only cherry-picked and ridiculous ahaadith and try to force Muslims to accept those absurdities and there are some ahaadith which they cannot even fathom. Another important point is that Hadith junk and stuff is not obligatory at all on Muslims.

They should first read and study Qur'aan and then scrutinise every hadith under Qur'aan. The Hadithiiyoon say that Bukhari took on a few thousand of Abu Hurairah's ahaadith and threw away thousands of them. Abu Hurairah was our biggest motor-mouth!

Then there is another Hadith (something like this) which says that the Prophet said, "Do not write anything about me and follow the Qur'aan!" So, the Arabs did not write but the tale-collectors came after 3 centuries and the men wrote that hadith too. :lotpot: Hilarious! Right? Bukhari and other blokes should have stopped writing straight away after hearing that hadith. Right? Salaams. I have to go to bed now.

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:19 pm
by BaigZaheer
SAM wrote:
Image


LOL!

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:16 pm
by Takeiteasynow
skynightblaze wrote:
Takeiteasynow wrote:
When was the last time we saw in history a character so grossly misrepresented to the degree that he was a saint and we see stories describing him raping, looting, enslaving and terrorizing people?


First of all, that's the core business of early devotees. When establishing a new religion the devotee wants to assert control and creates a dominant framework full of contradictory information. As a consequence the devotee, as scholar or theologian, is ensured he has a central role and authority.


Contradictory information can also exist due to genuine errors or when you are trying to compile honestly from 100's of sources. It does not necessarily have to be someone concocting lies in order to have contradictory information. Also , no one can just accept contradictory information out of the blue. People do accept contradictory information once they have blind faith. But to have blind faith, there has to be some real religious personality already in existence with whom people are familiar and are mesmerized.So , its not like there was nothing and these fabricators started writing contradictory books and people accepted it without any resistance.

Takeiteasynow wrote:Secondly, you want to market your new religion to different audiences. So you need tailor made propaganda and different programs for different audiences. That's how you end up with a prophet with many profiles - it's only propaganda.

It could also be a single prophet marketing his religion (as per tradition) to jews, christians, pagans and so naturally if someone wants to attract followers they would resort to the same strategy. Again it does not have to be fabricators to do this kind of marketing.

Takeiteasynow wrote:Thirdly, not all accounts or chronicles on Muhammad or the early conquests should be taken that seriously as archeology provides a complete different picture. Many theological-historical narratives served solely as propaganda tools against other opinions or convictions. And with a vivid imagination you gain more results.


Whatever findings of archaeology are, they should fit into the whole picture correctly and leave no questions unanswered and fabrication theory should fit perfectly . Now let me explain what i mean by that. We have non muslim writers writing way before any of the islamic literature such as ibn ishaq or hadith existed. They also paint muhammad in bad light e.g John of Damascus talks about muhammad stealing his friend's wife ( I suppose he got this wrong . It was adopted son instead of friend). We also see some records which describe muhammad as bloody criminal raiding cities, looting and enslaving people. So all this was before any islamic literature arrived. Click the spoiler to read more on John of Damascus writing in 730 Ad when hardly any islamic literature existed.
Spoiler! :
[John of Damascus, De haeresibus, C/CI, 63-64 (pp. 486-487):]

They call us associators (hetairiastas) because, they say, we introduce to God an associate by saying Christ is the Son of God and God. To them we say that the prophets and the scripture have transmitted this, and you, as you affirm, accept the prophets. . . . Again we say to them: "How, when you say that Christ is the Word and Spirit of God, do you revile us as associators? For the Word and the Spirit are inseparable. . . . So we call you mutilators (koptas) of God."

They misrepresent us as idolaters because we prostrate ourselves before the cross, which they loathe. And we say to them: "How then do you rub yourselves on a stone at your Ka'ba (Chabatha) and hail the stone with fond kisses?" . . . This, then, which they call "stone," is the head of Aphrodite, whom they used to worship and whom they call Chabar.

[John of Damascus, De haerisibus, C/CI, 67 (p. 487):]

He prescribed that they be circumcised, women as well, and he commanded neither to observe the sabbath nor to be baptised, to eat those things forbidden in the Law and to abstain from the others. Drinking of wine he forbade absolutely.


You can read more from non muslim writings (before 730 Ad) at http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html and many of the things they said matches with what we see in islamic history. How can it be possible that writings of non muslims are exactly in line with what the alleged fabricators wrote centuries later? Are we going to assume that non muslims were also a part of this conspiracy? Note I am not saying what non muslim writers say is 100% in agreement with islamic literature. Many times they are also off track but the fact some part matches is a proof that islamic history is not completely concocted.

Further we have sanaa manuscripts confirming presence of variant writings of quran . All this is mentioned in the hadith of all hadith collectors. If hadith were lies how come we really found the variant writings as mentioned by ahadith? Also lets say I was a fabricator. Would any fabricator talk about variant writings of quran if all they wanted was to promote a fabricated brand of islam? Would it not destroy their credibility? On the other hand if someone was taking honest pains to explain history, it would make sense to put such details.

More ever how come nobody in the entire history pointed out these attempts at fabrication? Now this fabrication was not done locally. Islam was expanding to other countries as well and YET such a conspiracy took place in broad day light without anyone noticing it?

Now still we are left with genuine questions regarding archaeology which cannot be answered. I think (I may be wrong) most of the archaeological findings have good justifications but the reasons may be lost in time for e.g someone such as Robert Spencer claims that a coin with muhammad holding a cross was found somewhere. This means that islam was a christian movement. Well there could be plenty of explanations. Muhammad printed limited number of coins to attract christians or the object representing cross could be something else best known to people of that time or it could be simply that they copied some design. The point I am getting is not everything that happened in the history is recorded . We are seeing through the eyes of 21st century oblivious to the circumstances of the centuries of the past. I therefore do not draw conclusions based on archaeological findings because I don't see answers to the above questions.

Having said that, I would also like to examine the archaeological evidences. I think you posted some stuff in mecca thread. I would participate in that.


That's all perfectly fine with me as I don't want to exclude any methodology. I don't assume that Islamic history is concocted but that it's sources were changed into a narrative that supports the final doctrine. This could have be done by editing the line of transmitters after the hadith were compiled, adding artificial lines or adding contradictions that serves the interest of a newly established clergy.

And we don't really know what Muhammad John of Damascus is writing about. It is the original one? Or perhaps a religious archetype? A modified or perfected one that serves a new clergy or doctrine best? His statements only make sense in the context of the 8th century and one that was supposedly to have disappeared in the depths of history. The accusations of “associators” of “idolators” probably relate to a source of gnostic or Syriac origin. Or a Judeo-Christian source to be more precise. This is a perfect start for building a “bigger picture” as the gnostic creed is the closest to the core Islamic creed. For instance Quranic phrases become perfectly understandable with West-Aramaic roots and link directly to all kind of gnostic concepts from greater Syria. With Petra as the original Mecca the early Muslim accounts on trade becomes easy to understand; Muhammad traveled to Gaza and Bosra, the outlets par excellence for the city of Petra. Its hinterland matches the agricultural profile from the hadith. Petra is strongly related to gnocism and Judeo-Christian and Islamic eschatology etc. etc.


That leaves us with the question if external references to early Islam are crucial for building a bigger picture. It does provide a framework but doesn't explain why these big events occurred. Nevertheless there's a significant amount of eschatological literature from the first decades of the seventh century that provides a motive and hooks up with the major events of its time. This approach is the easiest way to shift the falsified hadiths from its core as it can help explain why the original hadith or chain of transmitters was falsified.

Re: The Polytheists are Visible

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:29 pm
by Takeiteasynow
Having said that, I would also like to examine the archaeological evidences. I think you posted some stuff in mecca thread. I would participate in that.


That's perfect. Now that the original Ka'ba probably has been located critical reviews on new hypothesis are welcome and needed.

About the original Kaba
1) is located on the masjid haram (msg hrem - Nabatean) or temenos of the Qasr-al-Bint in Petra.
2) has same sizes as Kaba in Mecca
3) is beyond Bakkah (Aramaic for narrow gorge - the Siq)
4) is in the lower part of town (Aramaic adjective mkk)
5) matches the descriptions of the hadith in regard to location inside the city and visibility
6) has an inscription dedicated to Roman emperor Severus who gave Petra the honory title "Mother of all cities" (Umm al Qura)
7) has some of the astronomical alignments mentioned by early Muslim accounts.
8) is next to the House of God (Bayt Allah - Qasr-al-Bint) which was supposedly dedicated to Dhu-Shara or Zhe Seir or He from Seir.
9) is close to the tomb of prophet Harun
10) probably was aligned with the northern star which explains the counter clockwise circulation around the Kaba.