A question for BaigZaheer.

[sum]

Hello BaigZaheer

You say that you are a Koran-only muslim and that you do not accept the ahadith.

Will you please tell me what sources that you claim to be reliable that you use to inform yourself about Muhammad?

sum

[sum]

Hello BaigZaheer

Will you be answering my question?

sum

[BaigZaheer]

Hello BaigZaheer

Will you be answering my question?

sum

About to go to bed. The Tafseer that I am doing takes a lot of time.

I want to reply to Manfred's post quickly and will address yours in a day or two as I will be very busy tomorrow.

[BaigZaheer]

Hello BaigZaheer

Will you be answering my question?

sum

Of course, I will answer when I have time and also when I am in the mood to answer. You can't expect me to respond immediately after you have asked. Right?

There are various sources to know about the life of the Prophet but keep in mind that back in time after the prophet had passed away, nobody really wrote biographies about the Prophet. Ibne Ishaq's so-called Seeratun Nabi is not really a biography in the true sense. He lumped up various stories about him, the battles and other matters based on hearsay. Then came in Ibne Hisham, who deleted a lot of his material which was junk and stuff.

The main source is of course, Qur'aan.

Then there were writings by his companions, scribes and their children. Even Hadith story-tellers hot a lot from the early writings. These can only be found in collections in Al-Azahar of Egypt, in Iraq and Iran, the libraries in Mecca and Medina, Lucknow in India and private collections, all of which are not available to the polemicists.

Those are the sources for Muslims and Seerah was extracted from them. Basing on those, Muslim scholars like Haikal, Shibli Nomani and others have written Seeratun Nabi.

That is why you find hardcore anti-Islam Christian polemicists like William Muir, Sprenger and others quoting mostly and only from Ibne Hisham's recension, Waqidi and Tabaqaat which are not reliable and trustworthy. Ibne Ishaq's book does not exist any more and has been lost.

If you read Willaim Muir's Life of Mahomet, you will see him quoting only Ibne Hisham, Ibne Ishaq and Waqaidi, because that is all he had access to. And of course one cannot trust an anti-Islam Christian polemicist and apologist to be honest.

Some Western scholars like Karen Armstrong have a good job. I believe they have read some of the Muslim sources.

You can do a Google search on the early writers who wrote on Prophet's life but did not write huge volumes. It falls under Shamail and Dalail. It is a huge subject which I can't do here and neither will you be able to understand everything.

[sum]

Hello BaigZaheer

Thank you for your reply but I am none the wiser as far as knowing which sources you believe are giving reliable information about Muhammad.

Would you kindly give a list that you believe gives true and acceptable information about Muhammad?

sum

[sum]

Hello BaigZaheer

I hope that you are going to answer my question.

sum

[sum]

Hello BaigZaheer

You still have not told me which sources you regard as reliable as far as giving information about Muhammad is concerned.

Are there any sources apart from the Koran that you regard as reliable?

sum

[sum]

Hello BaigZaheer

I will ask you yet again. What source(s) do you regard as reliable for information regarding Muhammad apart from the Koran?

If you do not answer I can only conclude that you have no reliable source. Is this true?

How do you obtain context for your understanding of the Koran`s "revelations"?

sum

[BaigZaheer]

Hello BaigZaheer

I will ask you yet again. What source(s) do you regard as reliable for information regarding Muhammad apart from the Koran?

If you do not answer I can only conclude that you have no reliable source. Is this true?

How do you obtain context for your understanding of the Koran`s "revelations"?

sum

I have already told you. You need to go to libraries in Mecca, Medinah, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, India and Pakistan. You will not find them online.

If you read Qur'aan, the message is quite clear and you really do not need any other source to understand Qur'aan.

The term Qu'raan only is really ridiculous and absurd. It was coined by Ahlal-Hadith for those Muslims who reject and discard Hadith. Before the arrival of the tale-collectors from Central Asia, all Muslims were "Qur'aan only" Muslims and followed no books.

[sum]

Hello BaigZaheer

Your quote -
I have already told you. You need to go to libraries in Mecca, Medinah, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, India and Pakistan. You will not find them online.

Which of these libraries have you been to?

Your quote -
The term Qu'raan only is really ridiculous and absurd. It was coined by Ahlal-Hadith for those Muslims who reject and discard Hadith. Before the arrival of the tale-collectors from Central Asia, all Muslims were "Qur'aan only" Muslims and followed no books.

All this time you have lead us all to believe that you are a Koran-only muslim as you say that you do not accept the ahadith but I presume that you accept the Sira and what is left of the Sunna plus what you have read in the libraries that you outlined. Is this so?

You claim that muslims followed no books before the tale-tellers arrived from Central Asia - they would be following oral traditions emanating from the time of Muhammad and which later were put into book form just like the Koran.

Have any non-muslims been to these libraries that you outline? Are the contents of these libraries kept for viewing by muslims only and non-muslims denied access?

Do you ever quote, with references, from the sources in these libraries regarding Muhammad?

sum

[BaigZaheer]

Hello BaigZaheer

Your quote -
I have already told you. You need to go to libraries in Mecca, Medinah, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, India and Pakistan. You will not find them online.

Which of these libraries have you been to?

Your quote -
The term Qu'raan only is really ridiculous and absurd. It was coined by Ahlal-Hadith for those Muslims who reject and discard Hadith. Before the arrival of the tale-collectors from Central Asia, all Muslims were "Qur'aan only" Muslims and followed no books.

All this time you have lead us all to believe that you are a Koran-only muslim as you say that you do not accept the ahadith but I presume that you accept the Sira and what is left of the Sunna plus what you have read in the libraries that you outlined. Is this so?

You claim that muslims followed no books before the tale-tellers arrived from Central Asia - they would be following oral traditions emanating from the time of Muhammad and which later were put into book form just like the Koran.

Have any non-muslims been to these libraries that you outline? Are the contents of these libraries kept for viewing by muslims only and non-muslims denied access?

Do you ever quote, with references, from the sources in these libraries regarding Muhammad?

sum

You must keep in mind that all Muslims are Qur'aan only Muslims because Qur'aan is their Scripture. Other books and tale collections carry no weight as those are not scriptures. Scripture is given by God, not by men.

The so-called Seerahs by Ibne Ishaq, Ibne Hisham and other Muslims written during the 8th-10th centuries were actually not biographies of the Prophet. I don't know who gave the title Seeratun Nabi foolishly to Ibne Ishaq's rescension by Ibne Hisham. Ibne Ishaq's book does not exist anymore.

Those books were called Maghazi, giving some unsubstantiated tales heard about his life but mostly written about the battles which Muslims had to fight with the belligerent Kafirs, disbelievers and other infidels.

Biographies were written later in modern times by Muslims and non-Muslims, who went to some of the libraries which I mentioned but most of the non-Muslims had no access to the collections in Mecca, Medina, Al-Azhar, Koofa, Qom and India (Lucknow has a lot of information). I have not been to Al-Azhar.

If you read books by William Muir, Gillaume and other non-Muslim polemicists, you will find them parroting out tales only from Ibne Ishaq, Ibne Hisham, Waqidi, Ibne Sa'ad, Tabari, Bukhari and others , who were no scholars of Islam at all.

Martin Lings had a lot of access to various books in various cities and wrote the biography of the Prophet. Karen Armstrong also managed to read a lot of Muslim writings and she wrote a good one too.

I don't give references. I want you to do research like I do with the Christian and Jewish scriptures.

[sum]

Hello BaigZaheer

You still have not told me what references to Muhammad you regard as reliable apart from the Koran. Why is that?

Your list of the various libraries is inapplicable because you have said that all references to Muhammad were made decades/centuries after his death.

Do you still regard what these "libraries" hold about Muhammad to be accurate and reliable about Muhammad and, if so, why?

sum

[Centaur]

why are Muslims so embarrassed of their own prophet , his doings and Islamic history? At least, this would have made some sense if Quran it self was a book of context and had some context within it , but unfortunately it is not.You have to look somewhere else(mainly hadith) to know the context of the verse that seems to appear from nowhere and quite random. if there is one word to describe Quran that would be the word Random as quran jump from one topic to other abruptly.

speaking of Quran it self, which is the oldest manuscript of Quran if there any or the existing ones that match each other? The simple answer is none.
Muslims are basically asking the world to take the words of of 7th century Arab with dubious moral standards, that lacks any context or whatsoever as the whole mighty Gods word without asking any questions ? This is beyond stupidity to say the least, and therefore no sane man would buy that position.

[BaigZaheer]

Hello BaigZaheer

You still have not told me what references to Muhammad you regard as reliable apart from the Koran. Why is that?

Your list of the various libraries is inapplicable because you have said that all references to Muhammad were made decades/centuries after his death.

Do you still regard what these "libraries" hold about Muhammad to be accurate and reliable about Muhammad and, if so, why?

sum

You must keep in mind that the so-called biographies by Ibne Ishaq, the recension of his book by Ibne Hisham, stories by Waqidi, Ibne Sa'ad, Tabari and some others were not really biographies. Those were tale collections under Maghazi.

The biographies came only in the modern times and were written by researchers who had access to the libraries I mentioned. For example Martin Lings did a good one. Karen Armstrong also did well. There are more from Muslim authors. Just google it instead of asking me. Spoon feeding isn't any good. Right? You have to do research like I did on Judaism and Christianity.

But if you look at polemicists and Christian apologists like William Muir, Gillaume and others, they quoted only from the stuff of Ibne Ishaq, Ibne Hisham, Waqidi, Ibne Sa'ad, Tabari and a few others. Even they could not get any real Islamic sources.

Oh, yeah! Those libraries hold a lot of trustworthy and accurate information.

[BaigZaheer]

why are Muslims so embarrassed of their own prophet , his doings and Islamic history? At least, this would have made some sense if Quran it self was a book of context and had some context within it , but unfortunately it is not.You have to look somewhere else(mainly hadith) to know the context of the verse that seems to appear from nowhere and quite random. if there is one word to describe Quran that would be the word Random as quran jump from one topic to other abruptly.

speaking of Quran it self, which is the oldest manuscript of Quran if there any or the existing ones that match each other? The simple answer is none.
Muslims are basically asking the world to take the words of of 7th century Arab with dubious moral standards, that lacks any context or whatsoever as the whole mighty Gods word without asking any questions ? This is beyond stupidity to say the least, and therefore no sane man would buy that position.

Hilarious!

Muslims are extremely proud of the Prophet. Who told you that? Must be some ignorant pompous fool!

It is quite obvious that you have not even fully read a simple translation of Qur'aan in English. It is superior to the backward 1st-5th Century and 2-5 BC scriptures.

Qur'aan simply dismisses the man-made tales of the past scriptures and maintains only what was revealed to Moses.

[sum]

Hello BaigZaheer

Your quote -
Oh, yeah! Those libraries hold a lot of trustworthy and accurate information.

Please tell me when the information in these libraries was written. Was it contemporaneous with Muhammad`s time or written decades/centuries later?

Who were the authors that were responsible for the texts?

If what you are claiming is 100% true about these sources of information about Muhammad being reliable then why have muslims not produced books that give convincing proof that Muhammad existed and corrected any false ahadith? Surely muslims should have jumped at the chance to consolidate belief that Muhammad was a true prophet of a god. What you claim is far from convincing.

It is not knowledge that I am seeking but your beliefs and I am also trying to understand why you are able to dismiss logic and humanity.

sum

[sum]

Hello BaigZaheer

You reply to my questions but do not answer them. All you do is present matter that is not relevant. Is this because you can not answer my questions without damning Islam?

Please tell me which sources you regard as reliable with regard to information about Muhammad, quote the authors and the time when this information was laid down.

sum

[sum]

Hello BaigZaheer

Why are you persisting in avoiding answering my question? You find time to post elsewhere but avoid my questions like the plague.

You may respond but your posts DO NOT ANSWER my question, do they?

Here is what I want an honest and straightforward answer to -

BaigZaheer -
Oh, yeah! Those libraries hold a lot of trustworthy and accurate information.

Please tell me when the information in these libraries was written. Was it contemporaneous with Muhammad`s time or written decades/centuries later?

Who were the authors that were responsible for the texts?

If what you are claiming is 100% true about these sources of information about Muhammad being reliable then why have muslims not produced books that give convincing proof that Muhammad existed and corrected any false ahadith? Surely muslims should have jumped at the chance to consolidate belief that Muhammad was a true prophet of a god. What you claim is far from convincing.

It is not knowledge that I am seeking but your beliefs and I am also trying to understand why you are able to dismiss logic and humanity.

sum