The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
Post Reply
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by yeezevee »

Full Text of the Madina Charter
1). This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation -- Ummah.

2). The Quraysh Mohajireen will continue to pay blood money, according to their present custom.

3). In case of war with any body they will redeem their prisoners with kindness and justice common among Believers. (Not according to pre-Islamic nations where the rich and the poor were treated differently).

4). The Bani Awf will decide the blood money, within themselves, according to their existing custom.

5). In case of war with anybody all parties other than Muslims will redeem their prisoners with kindness and justice according to practice among Believers and not in accordance with pre-Islamic notions.

The Bani Saeeda, the Bani Harith, the Bani Jusham and the Bani Najjar will be governed on the lines of the above (principles)

The Bani Amr, Bani Awf, Bani Al-Nabeet, and Bani Al-Aws will be governed in the same manner.

Believers will not fail to redeem their prisoners they will pay blood money on their behalf. It will be a common responsibility of the Ummat and not of the family of the prisoners to pay blood money.

In case of war with anybody all parties other than Muslims will redeem their prisoners with kindness and justice according to practice among Believers and not in accordance with pre-Islamic notions.

The Bani Saeeda, the Bani Harith, the Bani Jusham and the Bani Najjar will be governed on the lines of the above (principles)

The Bani Amr, Bani Awf, Bani Al-Nabeet, and Bani Al-Aws will be governed in the same manner.

Believers will not fail to redeem their prisoners they will pay blood money on their behalf. It will be a common responsibility of the Ummat and not of the family of the prisoners to pay blood money.

A Believer will not make the freedman of another Believer as his ally against the wishes of the other Believers.

The Believers, who fear Allah, will oppose the rebellious elements and those that encourage injustice or sin, or enmity or corruption among Believers.

If anyone is guilty of any such act all the Believers will oppose him even if he be the son of any one of them.

A Believer will not kill another Believer, for the sake of an un-Believer. (i.e. even though the un-Believer is his close relative).

No Believer will help an un-Believer against a Believer.

Protection (when given) in the Name of Allah will be common. The weakest among Believers may give protection (In the Name of Allah) and it will be binding on all Believers.

Believers are all friends to each other to the exclusion of all others.

Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality. (Social, legal and economic equality is promised to all loyal citizens of the State).

No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.

The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped.

The peace of the Believers (of the State of Madinah) cannot be divided. (it is either peace or war for all. It cannot be that a part of the population is at war with the outsiders and a part is at peace).

No separate peace will be made by anyone in Madinah when Believers are fighting in the Path of Allah.

Conditions of peace and war and the accompanying ease or hardships must be fair and equitable to all citizens alike.

When going out on expeditions a rider must take his fellow member of the Army-share his ride.

The Believers must avenge the blood of one another when fighting in the Path of Allah (This clause was to remind those in front of whom there may be less severe fighting that the cause was common to all. This also meant that although each battle appeared a separate entity it was in fact a part of the War, which affected all Muslims equally).

The Believers (because they fear Allah) are better in showing steadfastness and as a result receive guidance from Allah in this respect. Others must also aspire to come up to the same standard of steadfastness.

No un-Believer will be permitted to take the property of the Quraysh (the enemy) under his protection. Enemy property must be surrendered to the State.

No un-Believer will intervene in favour of a Quraysh, (because the Quraysh having declared war are the enemy).

If any un-believer kills a Believer, without good cause, he shall be killed in return, unless the next of kin are satisfied (as it creates law and order problems and weakens the defence of the State). All Believers shall be against such a wrong-doer. No Believer will be allowed to shelter such a man.

When you differ on anything (regarding this Document) the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

The Jews will contribute towards the war when fighting alongside the Believers.

The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully. By so doing they wrong themselves and their families.

The same applies to Jews of Bani Al-Najjar, Bani Al Harith, Bani Saeeda, Bani Jusham, Bani Al Aws, Thaalba, and the Jaffna, (a clan of the Bani Thaalba) and the Bani Al Shutayba.

Loyalty gives protection against treachery. (loyal people are protected by their friends against treachery. As long as a person remains loyal to the State he is not likely to succumb to the ideas of being treacherous. He protects himself against weakness).

The freedmen of Thaalba will be afforded the same status as Thaalba themselves. This status is for fair dealings and full justice as a right and equal responsibility for military service.

Those in alliance with the Jews will be given the same treatment as the Jews.

No one (no tribe which is party to the Pact) shall go to war except with the permission of Muhammed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). If any wrong has been done to any person or party it may be avenged.

Any one who kills another without warning (there being no just cause for it) amounts to his slaying himself and his household, unless the killing was done due to a wrong being done to him.

The Jews must bear their own expenses (in War) and the Muslims bear their expenses.

If anyone attacks anyone who is a party to this Pact the other must come to his help.

They (parties to this Pact) must seek mutual advice and consultation.

Loyalty gives protection against treachery. Those who avoid mutual consultation do so because of lack of sincerity and loyalty.

A man will not be made liable for misdeeds of his ally.

Anyone (any individual or party) who is wronged must be helped.

The Jews must pay (for war) with the Muslims. (this clause appears to be for occasions when Jews are not taking part in the war. Clause 37 deals with occasions when they are taking part in war).

Yathrib will be Sanctuary for the people of this Pact.

A stranger (individual) who has been given protection (by anyone party to this Pact) will be treated as his host (who has given him protection) while (he is) doing no harm and is not committing any crime. Those given protection but indulging in anti-state activities will be liable to punishment.

A woman will be given protection only with the consent of her family (Guardian). (a good precaution to avoid inter-tribal conflicts).

In case of any dispute or controversy, which may result in trouble the matter must be referred to Allah and Muhammed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) of Allah will accept anything in this document, which is for (bringing about) piety and goodness.

Quraysh and their allies will not be given protection.

The parties to this Pact are bound to help each other in the event of an attack on Yathrib.

If they (the parties to the Pact other than the Muslims) are called upon to make and maintain peace (within the State) they must do so. If a similar demand (of making and maintaining peace) is made on the Muslims, it must be carried out, except when the Muslims are already engaged in a war in the Path of Allah. (so that no secret ally of the enemy can aid the enemy by calling upon Muslims to end hostilities under this clause).

Everyone (individual) will have his share (of treatment) in accordance with what party he belongs to. Individuals must benefit or suffer for the good or bad deed of the group they belong to. Without such a rule party affiliations and discipline cannot be maintained.

The Jews of al-Aws, including their freedmen, have the same standing, as other parties to the Pact, as long as they are loyal to the Pact. Loyalty is a protection against treachery.

Anyone who acts loyally or otherwise does it for his own good (or loss).

Allah approves this Document.

This document will not (be employed to) protect one who is unjust or commits a crime (against other parties of the Pact).

Whether an individual goes out to fight (in accordance with the terms of this Pact) or remains in his home, he will be safe unless he has committed a crime or is a sinner. (i.e. No one will be punished in his individual capacity for not having gone out to fight in accordance with the terms of this Pact).

Allah is the Protector of the good people and those who fear Allah, and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the Messenger of Allah (He guarantees protection for those who are good and fear Allah).
Ridiculous nonsense and totalitarian manual for dictatorships .. Any fool or any govt who agree with such document must be a slave.. That STUPID STUFF MUST BE WRITTEN BY BRAINLESS MUSLIM OF 19th or 20th century..

well we need to get an authentic document of that alleged Madina Charter
User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by Fernando »

Thanks Yeezeevee. I'd probably best follow your link before I do much more on my Kindle - it's easier to search than with an ordinary index, but you can't put your fingers in several places at once to keep different pages open.
Both authors probably agree that Jacobi refers to someone resembling Mohammed but Holland doesn't say a lot more and Spencer argues that it was written seemingly describing events after Mohammed's supposed death and so causing problems for the tradition. I don't know enough about writing in those days to say whether apparent present-tense writing - especially in what is a semi-fictional account? - excludes it referring to past events.
As for John of Damascus, Spencer lists him as writing about a century after the events so may be I've picked on the wrong person?
Anyway, I'll leave those two for now and follow your link. Then I suppose I might look at Ibn Warraq if I have the right one of his books.
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11602
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by manfred »

The text I found is somewhat different:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/con_medina.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is found in A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad — A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1955; pp. 231-233.

If Ibn Ishaq has it then it makes no sense to suggest it was 20th century invention. It was first recorded some 200 years after Mohammed.
THE MEDINA CHARTER

622 C.E.

In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful.

(1) This is a document from Muhammad the prophet (governing the relations) between the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and labored with them.

(2) They are one community (umma) to the exclusion of all men.

(3) The Quraysh emigrants according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit within their number and shall redeem their prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers.

(4-8) The B. ‘Auf according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit they paid in heatheism; every section shall redeem its prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers. The B. Sa ida, the B. ‘l-Harith, and the B. Jusham, and the B. al-Najjar likewise.

(9-11) The B. ‘Amr b. ‘Auf, the B. al-Nabit and the B. al-‘Aus likewise.

(12)(a) Believers shall not leave anyone destitute among them by not paying his redemption money or bloodwit in kindness.

(12)(b) A believer shall not take as an ally the freedman of another Muslim against him.

(13) The God-fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or him who seeks to spread injustice, or sin or animosity, or corruption between believers; the hand of every man shall be against him even if he be a son of one of them.

(14) A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.

(15) God’s protection is one, the least of them may give protection to a stranger on their behalf. Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders.

(16) To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided.

(17) The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate peace shall be made when believers are fighting in the way of God. Conditions must be fair and equitable to all.

(18) In every foray a rider must take another behind him.

(19) The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God.

(20)(a) The God-fearing believers enjoy the best and most upright guidance.

(20)(b) No polytheist shall take the property of person of Quraysh under his protection nor shall he intervene against a believer.

(21) Whoever is convicted of killing a believer without good reason shall be subject to retaliation unless the next of kin is satisfied (with blood-money), and the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.

(22) It shall not be lawful to a believer who holds by what is in this document and believes in God and the last day to help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse of God and His anger on the day of resurrection will be upon him if he does, and neither repentance nor ransom will be received from him.

(23) Whenever you differ about a matter it must be referred to God and to Muhammad.

(24) The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.

(25) The Jews of the B. ‘Auf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families.

(26-35) The same applies to the Jews of the B. al-Najjar, B. al-Harith, B. Sai ida, B. Jusham, B. al-Aus, B. Tha'laba, and the Jafna, a clan of the Tha‘laba and the B. al-Shutayba. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The freedmen of Tha ‘laba are as themselves. The close friends of the Jews are as themselves.

(36) None of them shall go out to war save the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that.

(37) The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.

(38) The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts.

(39) Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document.

(40) A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime.

(41) A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family.

(42) If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and goodness in this document.

(43) Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.

(44) The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib.

(45)(a) If they are called to make peace and maintain it they must do so; and if they make a similar demand on the Muslims it must be carried out except in the case of a holy war.

(45)(b) Every one shall have his portion from the side to which he belongs.

(46) The Jews of al-Aus, their freedmen and themselves have the same standing with the people of this document in purely loyalty from the people of this document. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. He who acquires ought acquires it for himself. God approves of this document.

(47) This deed will not protect the unjust and the sinner. The man who goes forth to fight and the man who stays at home in the city is safe unless he has been unjust and sinned. God is the protector of the good and God-fearing man and Muhammad is the apostle of God.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by yeezevee »

manfred wrote:The text I found is somewhat different:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/con_medina.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is found in A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad — A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1955; pp. 231-233. If Ibn Ishaq has it then it makes no sense to suggest it was 20th century invention. It was first recorded some 200 years after Mohammed............
That is wonderful Thank you "manfred".,

No no I am not saying that manual for Islamic dictatorial rules of Muhammad was completely INVENTED IN 20th century. The question was, how much of that invented in 20th century and how much of it was invented in the time of Ibn Ishaq?

Well that constitution.org link gives all sorts of constitutions around the globe a made by different folks at different times. So let me add this Madinan Constitution from that link It is written at that web site by By: Kassim Ahmad and I will put some nuggets from it here..
A SHORT NOTE ON THE MEDINA CHARTER By: Kassim Ahmad

The Medina Charter, written and promulgated by Prophet Muhammad for the multi-religious ten thousand-strong citizens of the city-state of Medina in 622 A.D is truly a remarkable political-constitutional document.

The claim made by Professor M. Hamidullah that it was the first written constitution (FN1) in the world is not without basis. Aristotle's Constitution of Athens (FN2), written on papyrus, discovered by an American missionary in Egypt in 1890 and published in 1891, was not a constitution. It was an account of the constitution of the city-state of Athens. Other legal writings on the conduct of ancient societies have been found, but none can be described as a constitution.

The Medina Charter is the first, and in this it preceded the American Constitution of 1787, considered by Western authorities as "a landmark document of the Western world … the oldest written national constitution in operation" (FN3) by more than a thousand years! It also preceded the English feudal bill of rights, the Magna Carter of 1215, by almost six centuries!

Not only is the Madina Charter important in the sense that it is the first written constitution; it is also modern in the sense that it was promulgated for a plural society, giving equal rights to every citizen as well as giving them a say in governmental matters, as we shall see. Considering all these, it is amazing that those Muslim leaders and writers who talk and write about the Islamic state seldom refer to this important seminal political document of Islam.

It is to be remembered that Muhammad had become a prophet, reciting God's revelations to his fellow-Meccans, for twelve years before he and his followers migrated to Yathrib, two hundred and ten miles to the north of Mecca. There was going to be another ten years to his mission before he completed the delivery of the Divine message to the Arabs and to mankind in God's final scripture, the Quran.

So this Medina Charter was provisional in the sense that it could not contain all the provisions of statecraft contained in the Quran. Yathrib was later to known as "The City of the Prophet " or simply Medina. The reason for the migration was the growing opposition of the Quraisy aristocracy to his teachings and the receptive attitude shown by some Yathrib pilgrims to Mecca at this time.

The whole text of the Charter has been reproduced, word for word, by Ibn Ishaq and Abu Ubaid in their respective books from the original preserved by Ibn Abi Khithamah. (FN4)
that is what he writes about its origins and here are the refernce from that article..
FOOTNOTES:

(1) The First Written Constitution in the World, Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, 1968. First published in England, 1941.

(2) Translated by Frederic G. Kenyon, Internet. !996 The Avalon Project.

(3) The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, 1991.

(4) The First Written Constitution in the World, p. 9. The translation of the whole text for A. Guillaume's Life of Muhammad is appended at the end.

(5) Ibid., pp. 19-20.

(6) The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, 1991.

(7) The First Written Constitution, p. 18.

(8) Quran, 49:13.

(9) Ibid., pp. 12-13.

(10) "There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinguished from the wrong way." (2:256) Note that this statement of complete religious freedom comes immediately after the grandest statement of God's power to be found in any scripture. It is indeed significant!

(11) This text is taken from A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad -- A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1955; pp. 231-233. Numbering added.
So basically all that Madina manual comes out of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah as manfred already pointed in the previous post..
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by skynightblaze »

yeezevee wrote: Well there are billions of gullible believing in silly stuff, that is not a big deal. But I am not certain that you understand meaning of "gullible" or you didn't use the right word SKB. You seem not to understand that I am not believing in what Quran says, what Muslims says or what Cat say or what any one says. I question and try to understand early history of Islam and other silly faiths.
What is your argument seriously? As far as my understanding goes, you are repeating what CAT is saying regarding the absence of words islam/muslims. He said those words are absent from non muslim scriptures and hence the non muslims are talking about a christian prophet that was later hijacked to fit the islamic tradtion. You are saying the same thing i.e. muhammad could have been a christian prophet except with the difference that you fail to see the same words i.e islam and muslims in first 86 surahs of quran instead of non muslim writings. That is why I thought you are following CAT's line of reasoning. Here is what you wrote...
Yeezevee wrote:which Muhammad? the guy who allegedly preached first 86 surahs of Quran in the first 10-12 years of Islam in an alleged town called Mecca ? May be there was none., may be it was some Christian guy Preacher singing around Pagan towns telling his own/his understanding of Bible parables and fables. And it is possible that someone else collected them put it as a book at a later time. I say that because there is hardly any word called "Islam" or Muhammad" in those 86 surahs of alleged allah words.].
So according to you, the real muhammad (not the one we know from islamic tradition) was a christian preacher and the reason given is that words like islam or muslims are absent from first 86 surahs. The words islam and muslim are present in quran if not in first 86 surahs (I will have to check). So this argument is invalid. Also It does not have to be in first 86 surahs.
Yeezevee wrote:
Coming to your point i.e. first 86 surahs do not mention muhammad/islam /muslim, it is also flawed. Consider an example. You do not post in every thread of this forum. Should I say character called Yeezevee character does not exist? One thread containing your post is sufficient to prove that you are a member of this forum. YOu don't need to post in every single thread to make a point.
you are silly and irrelevant comparison .
What is silly is your argument. It has no relevance at all. You are saying muhammad was not the traditional muhammad that we know because first 86 surahs do not utter his name or the words muslims or islam. Even if we assume that these words are not mentioned in first 86 surahs (which I doubt), they are surely mentioned in the quran( i have read the quran). So they must be occuring in the surahs after 86th. This is same as saying Yeezevee does not exist as we know because he does not post in all the threads. One thread containing one post of yours is sufficient to make a case. Similarly mention of muhammad/islam or muslims in any chapter of quran would suffice. There is no need to come up with this arbitrary number.
Yeezevee wrote:
I guess you are blindly trusting CAT and that is why you are ending up committing serious mistakes. That guy has no thinking and think he should change his name to garbage bin laden
Silly kiddish stuff.,
Anyway who is trusting The Cat? Me? I don't care what name you or The Cat have or what name you guys change into., But which post of mine gives you that idea of "I am trusting The cat'?
I have already quoted your post above or I am confusing between you and CAT..
Yeezevee wrote:
If someone described to you that there is a heavy predator CAT who lives in the jungle having an orange body with black stripes on it, you know it is talking about a Tiger. So if someone describes the above characteristics and mistakenly says " Figer" instead of Tiger, we can be sure that he is talking about a Tiger and not something called as FIGER. Similarly in our case, John of Damascus describes a lot of what the traditional muhammad did and taught. SO the obvious conclusion is that he misspelled the surname and not that he was talking about some other person.
Irrelevant examples
How is it irrelevant? YOu are ignoring bulk of what John of Damascus says regarding teachings of islam. After reading his quote no sane person in the world can claim that he is talking about some christian preacher who had nothing to do with traditional muhammad that we know. When we can clearly see that he is talking about traditional muhammad, the fact that he gets the name of Muhammad as wrong must be misunderstanding on his part.
Yeezevee wrote:
Now what I am saying John of Damascus and Jacobi describe the man's characteristics that uniquely identify and match with Muhammad. For e.g do you find kissing of black stone kaba mentioned in the bible? Ofcourse not! This is unique to islam.
Do you see a statement in Quran in the first 86 chapters (alleged revelation order) that says to Muhammad followers "GO KISS BLACK STONE"?? again irrelevant example SKB...
I see that statement in the ahadith. They are also relevant to this discussion. They help us in constructing the traditional muhammad so again this is a relevant example.
Yeezevee wrote:
Now coming to your point of mecca not being mentioned anywhere, I would say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The first non muslim source to mention mecca was approximately around 724 AD to 743 Ad. Mecca could have existed 100-200 years before it was first mentioned somewhere in between 724 Ad to 743 AD. Well this is not unique about Mecca. We know about Jesus from the writings in the second century. There are examples of people first being mentioned 500 years later after they died.
So what?? And do you believe in OT and NT .. and do you believe what people say/said in early Christianity as an historical fact about Jesus?? Yes people have written lots of junk in the name of religions .. Just mentioning name by some one doesn't make it as true history of his/her times.. Don't you have such silly stories/names/books such as Adam & Eve monkeys or god/s of other religions such as Hinduism, Stories of Buddhism?? for that in every so-called religion, followers write stories and brain wash people. People write all sorts of nonsense when they are brain washed and believe in some character of some story .. You don't consider such stuff as real true history...
You perhaps did not get me. I am not saying these teachings are authentic word to word. I am asking you to see a common pattern i.e. each religion evolved gradually. It became known to people of other faiths after quite a long time. This has nothing to do with the truthfulness of their claims. The point is whatever claims these religions or people made (true or false), they became famous after a long time. So if someone (non muslim source) did not mention mecca for a period of 100-120 years after muhammad's death, we should not be very surprised and act as if this is something totally unacceptable.

Yeezevee wrote:
Any cult, business or a person takes time to become famous and it consumes even more time especially when there are no sources of media like newspapers, TVs,internet etc. Spreading of information was bound to be slow. Even today, you just have to look at the established businesses in your town to understand what I say. Note the time they started their business and the time when you first came to know about them. Most of the time , the gap will be in years but this is inspite of having the advertising media. You can just imagine how slow information would spread back then.
Irrelevant to the early history of Islam..
SO I see you understood nothing of what I said... Why is there so much of confusion regarding islamic history in non muslim writings? Why do we see absence of information regarding traditional muhammad in the non muslim sources? The above quote explains that.
Yeezevee wrote:
Secondly ,a lot of Indians settle abroad in USA and they form colonies. Now if some historians writes that he saw Indians say in LA, do we cease to label them as Indians ? Ofcourse not! They are still Indians but living abroad.So what if it was the same case with Muhammad's ancestors i.e. they were Saracens but settled in Mecca or Medina? They would still be called Saracens.
Stop giving irrelevant examples when you are trying to inquire the true history of 1000 year old so called religion/faith. Off course you can have gillion such assumptions. So what do we do with these Saracens of Mecca? Arabia of that time was full of Christians and Jews along with Arabian Pagans... And what is that has to do with Quran? Yes Muhammad could be any guy., In fact I say Muhammad of hadith could be multiple guys and No Muhammad from Quran
Probably I answered CAT's argument in response to you. :lol: because I thought you supported him on the same. CAT said that Saracens are the people who do not live in Mecca or Medina. This means Doctrina Jacobi was not referring to traditional muhammad but someone else because she says that a prophet had appeared among Saracens. .. Now if you accept that Saracens could have lived in Mecca or Medina, you cannot say with 100% guarantee that Doctrina Jacobi was not referring to traditional muhammad.

I don't know what is happening to me. Its a combination of THE CAT and THE YEEZEVEE effect. CAT infuriates me and you confuse me and as a result I end up responding to CAT when addressing you. :lol:
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11602
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by manfred »

yeezevee you seem to imply that because a book was published in Karachi, it could not possibly be trusted. In fact, Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq was first published in London, where it found little interest, but later reprinted in Pakistan.

Alfred Guillaume was an Oxford educated theology professor, teaching in London, the US as well as the Middle East. He was not a Muslim, but he had studied Islam for a great many years and knew Arabic very well. He taught that too.
Guillaume took up Arabic after studying Theology and Oriental Languages at the University of Oxford. In the First World War he served in France and then in the Arab Bureau in Cairo. Guillaume was a Christian.

He became Professor of Arabic and the Head of the Department of the Near and Middle East in the School of Oriental and African Studies, in the University of London. He was later Visiting Professor of Arabic at Princeton University, New Jersey.

During the Second World War the British Council invited him to accept a visiting professorship at the American University of Beirut where he greatly enlarged his circle of Muslim friends. The Arab Academy of Damascus and the Royal Academy of Baghdad honored him by electing him to their number, and the University of Istanbul chose him as their first foreign lecturer on Christian and Islamic theology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Guillaume" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So I would be surprised if you are trying to say that somehow his book, still widely used in academic courses, should be dismissed as a fabrication or something.

As to the rather hilarious comments some Pakistanis had to made on that text, they do not reflect his actual work.

To call that text a "constitution" is rather laughable in itself. However, it fits in very well with many other things we are told about Mohammed, and some of the exhortations are reminiscent of the Qur'an, e.g. Muslims must be friends to one another, at the exclusion to "outsiders". Many if not most of the things the text orders cannot be legislated for... "you may not be friend with..." is unenforceable, as any parent will tell you.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by yeezevee »

manfred wrote:yeezevee you seem to imply that because a book was published in Karachi, it could not possibly be trusted. In fact, Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq was first published in London, where it found little interest, but later reprinted in Pakistan. ...
no .no I was Not saying that ., It was just underlined for me as reference that some one from Pakistan wrote that. And I have not read it .

But why go to secondary sources when we can go to original source itself ? https://archive.org/details/IbnIshaq-Si ... .Guillaume." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by The Cat »

yeezevee wrote:1. it appears that you do not want to share your ideas of early Islam in the forum.
2. would you consider all the historical information that is put around from Islamic sources on "Muhammad the Prophet of Islam" such as this is wrong??
1. I did publish a lot of my researches in Resource Center.

There also: Muhammad: Myth vs Reality (75,653 entries), published in Indonesia.
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... =20&t=5518" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I personally think that the historical Mo was Salman the Persian. See the link...

2. 'Mhmd', its Semitic root doesn't mean 'the praise one' but 'the chosen one'. Its probably from Messianic Judaism.

The oldest 'Islamic' coinages pictured a Christian Muhammad with crosses.
Image
Image
Image

There are by now too many evidences that the Quran has been written in the Northwest of Arabia.
Mentions of him from the Saracens or Tayyayes (Thomas the Presbyter) just reaffirm this location.

All scholars agree that something fundamental happened in 621, to constitute the beginning of the Arabic calendar.
They agree that this must be the Medina's Charter (or Constitution). It goes against the Islamic so-called 'traditions'.

As for my relations with SNB, all he ever do is to defend his 'authentic' Islamic traditions. Pure nonsense.
Yet he has done so in almost full impunity, except from me, for years now. But it's I who took the blows.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by yeezevee »

The Cat wrote:
yeezevee wrote:1. it appears that you do not want to share your ideas of early Islam in the forum.
2. would you consider all the historical information that is put around from Islamic sources on "Muhammad the Prophet of Islam" such as this is wrong??
1. I did publish a lot of my researches in Resource Center.

There also: Muhammad: Myth vs Reality (75,653 entries), published in Indonesia.
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... =20&t=5518" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I personally think that the historical Mo was Salman the Persian. See the link...

2. 'Mhmd', its Semitic root doesn't mean 'the praise one' but 'the chosen one'. Its probably from Messianic Judaism.

The oldest 'Islamic' coinages pictured a Christian Muhammad with crosses.
Image
Image
Image

There are by now too many evidences that the Quran has been written in the Northwest of Arabia.
Mentions of him from the Saracens or Tayyayes (Thomas the Presbyter) just reaffirm this location.

All scholars agree that something fundamental happened in 621, to constitute the beginning of the Arabic calendar.
They agree that this must be the Medina's Charter (or Constitution). It goes against the Islamic so-called 'traditions'.

As for my relations with SNB, all he ever do is to defend his 'authentic' Islamic traditions. Pure nonsense.
Yet he has done so in almost full impunity, except from me, for years now. But it's I who took the blows.
thank you for the post The Cat., The forum is up and down and is hard to post.. but i will read your posts and ask more questions..

with best regards
yeezevee
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:There are by now too many evidences that the Quran has been written in the Northwest of Arabia.
I am of the opinion that this argument is an attempt at deception practiced by quran alone muslims. Anyone can notice how carefully the quran has been separated from the mecca and medina environment. It seems that this fellow now claims that muhammad was a christian prophet and that quran was formed in north west arabia which has nothing to do with traditional islam. This is also a poor argument but I guess if someone is chronically accustomed to making such arguments, none can help it. The typical style with which we he writes his arguments makes people think that they are scholarly. As I found putting something new on the forum which people have never heard before with lots of pictures does not necessarily mean it is a genuine argument. Most people make a mistake here . Anyway let us see why the argument does not make sense.

1) If Muhammad was a christian prophet and quran as we have today was formed in North west arabia then why do we find anti christianity stuff in the quran? It should be fully pro christian or else it means the fabricators changed the quran to include such teachings.

2) The quran itself makes a mention of Mecca and it is talking about a battle of muhammad which took place in mecca. Now this fellow has borrowed the faulty translations of the following verse from Free minders who are quran alone muslims. Ask any arabic speaker if you find the word mecca in the following verse, he will tell you that this verse contains the word and there is no denying it.

. 48:24-25
"And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do. These it was who disbelieved and debarred you from the Inviolable Place of Worship, and debarred the offering from reaching its goal. And if it had not been for believing men and believing women, whom ye know not - lest ye should tread them under foot and thus incur guilt for them unknowingly; that Allah might bring into His mercy whom He will - If (the believers and the disbelievers) had been clearly separated We verily had punished those of them who disbelieved with painful punishment."

3)

Nikephoros makes a mention of Saracens appearing in Yathrib (Medina) however he does not make a mention of quran, islam or muslims. Theophanes writing around the same period i.e 810 Ad clearly says that Muhammad and his band of thugs came from Yathrib. By this time, the sira did exist however Theophanes was not referring to muslim sources for his information. He got it from another non muslim named George Synkellos. Here is what answering islam writes about Nikephoros...
The Short History (Breviarium) is a concise history of the years 602-769 based on earlier sources that Nikephoros abbreviates substantially. It was probably composed when Nikephoros was a young man, sometime between 775-797.[33] It appears that there were two drafts, the first concluding in 713.[34]
Nikephoros usually refers to the Arabs as Saracens and in only one place does he refer to their religion specifically. Nikephoros knows that Yathrib (later named Medina) is a place in Arabia and the location where the Saracens ‘… began to appear’ (Breviarium 18)
http://www.answering-islam.org/history/ ... onses.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the light of the above arguments, if one is desperate to go with the fabrication theory, he/she would certainly include quran and not just the islamic tradition .

As far as coins are concerned, CAT does not show people the following :

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Histor ... chm13.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Histor ... chm31.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Histor ... achm1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The above links contain coins from the late 7th century around 685 Ad,689 AD and 691 Ad which is around the same time this coin of muhammad containing a cross was made. The content of these coins is "In the name of God, Muḥammad is the Messenger of God". In short, in the light of the above coins, we must say there is a good amount of evidence about muhammad being an islamic prophet.

So now we have a confusion. Some coins depict muhammad holding a cross while someone clearly spell out an islamic prophet. In short can this evidence be reliable enough to draw a conclusion? I don't think so.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:I am of the opinion that this argument is an attempt at deception practiced by quran alone muslims.
Your opinion doesn't count. Bring counter evidences...
skynightblaze wrote:why do we find anti christianity stuff in the quran?
Enlighten us. Tell us how many different forms of Christianity there was back then? One, really?
skynightblaze wrote:48.24-25
Already debated in ''Muhammad, myth vs reality''. You're only trolling back old debunked arguments.
skynightblaze wrote:Nikephoros
Why do you think he got things right? Did he knows anything about the Quraysh, the Hajj, Mecca?
skynightblaze wrote:The above links contain coins from the late 7th century around 685 Ad,689 AD and 691 Ad which is around the same time this coin of muhammad containing a cross was made.
Yep but that sentence was abandoned for another 150 years. The coins I've shown are earlier.
Now, the coins you've shown depicted a Zoroastrian fire-altar. So where are you going with this ?
skynightblaze wrote:there is a good amount of evidence about muhammad being an islamic prophet.
Nothing before 685. So again tell us when was the 'Year of the Elephant'? When was he born?
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by skynightblaze »

Another point that I would like to make is that people rely on one or two evidences to conclude about a period of 100's of years. Not everything that happened behind the scenes is documented. There can be an alternate explanation. Now it is easy to prove that muhammad was not a christian prophet. If we examine writings of Sebeos writing around 660 AD i.e. before these coins were invented, we find that he describes some of the teachings that are unique to islam. How is this possible if muhammad was a christian prophet? So does it make sense to conclude from those coins that muhammad was a christian prophet? Ofcourse not but to CAT it has to be yes! otherwise his faith is in crisis.

Anyway let us get back to those what I call beautiful questions..
The Cat wrote: His pathetic thread has been deleted. Didn't you notice? 1) According to the Quran, the word of God is Isa
You have been asked if quran is the word of God. I have not asked what quran thinks or says. I know your strategy is to answer it vaguely when presented with this question or talk something irrelevant but guess what? I have found a solution to add to your woes.. This time I am going to give you options to select from and not give a scope to answer vaguely.. Following are your options..

a) Yes. quran is the word of God
b) No. Quran is not the word of God
c) Cant say

Please select a, b or c and don't type anything else. You don't have to type your answer. As far as Sum's thread was concerned, it wasn't deleted because his question was useless. His question was perfect. You avoided answering it at all costs so the thread finally served no purpose and If I am not wrong, it was deleted after you responded to insult from Peterpin (directed at you sometime a year back) recently. This may be to avoid further quarrel over an year old issue.
The Cat wrote: 2) Yawn. Already answered... See Presentism.
I accuse muhammad of being a rapist. Muhammad taking concubines and raping them has been mentioned in every source( muslim as well as a non muslim). Rape has always been condemned by majority of humans at all times. I am not aware of any time in history where rape was normal or a sanctioned practice approved by everyone. It was never a discontinued practice. Please explain how I am engaged in presentism fallacy with respect to rape accusation.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:There are by now too many evidences that the Quran has been written in the Northwest of Arabia.
I am of the opinion that this argument is an attempt at deception practiced by quran alone muslims.
Is that true? you mean to say The Cat is Quran alone Muslim SKB? I am under the impression The Cat is not even a Muslim forget Quran alone Muslim. Well The Cat can clear that,..
skynightblaze wrote:

1) If Muhammad was a christian prophet and quran as we have today was formed in North west arabia then why do we find anti christianity stuff in the quran? It should be fully pro christian or else it means the fabricators changed the quran to include such teachings.
Well in a way Quran is Pro-Christian all the way until first 86 surahs., It is NOT completely pro-christian because it questions this "Christ son of god " concept. And indeed fabricators changed the quran there is little doubt in it., In fact that may also be true to NT...
2) The quran itself makes a mention of Mecca and it is talking about a battle of muhammad which took place in mecca. Now this fellow has borrowed the faulty translations of the following verse from Free minders who are quran alone muslims. Ask any arabic speaker if you find the word mecca in the following verse, he will tell you that this verse contains the word and there is no denying it.

. 48:24-25
"And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do. These it was who disbelieved and debarred you from the Inviolable Place of Worship, and debarred the offering from reaching its goal. And if it had not been for believing men and believing women, whom ye know not - lest ye should tread them under foot and thus incur guilt for them unknowingly; that Allah might bring into His mercy whom He will - If (the believers and the disbelievers) had been clearly separated We verily had punished those of them who disbelieved with painful punishment."
well that could as well be Valley of Bakkah., that became valley of Makkah.. in 3:96, Bakkah is used and Mecca is used in 48:24.. Who knows what these fools who put together that book did with the book.., Baka of bible might have turned int o Bakkah/Makkah in Quran.. read bible SKB.. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/84-6.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by skynightblaze »

yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:There are by now too many evidences that the Quran has been written in the Northwest of Arabia.
I am of the opinion that this argument is an attempt at deception practiced by quran alone muslims.
Is that true? you mean to say The Cat is Quran alone Muslim SKB? I am under the impression The Cat is not even a Muslim forget Quran alone Muslim. Well The Cat can clear that,..
I suspect he is a quran alone muslim. I do not find any other reason for not answering such a simple question. If I ask any non muslim here if quran is a word of God, he/she would respond with a negative the very first time I ask this question. I have rephrased the question and given him alternatives to select so that he cannot dance around the question and avoid answering it. If he is a quran alone muslim, he should admit it. No one is going to hang him but denying that and at the same time deceptively putting his version across is what I oppose.
yeezevee wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:

1) If Muhammad was a christian prophet and quran as we have today was formed in North west arabia then why do we find anti christianity stuff in the quran? It should be fully pro christian or else it means the fabricators changed the quran to include such teachings.
Well in a way Quran is Pro-Christian all the way until first 86 surahs., It is NOT completely pro-christian because it questions this "Christ son of god " concept. And indeed fabricators changed the quran there is little doubt in it., In fact that may also be true to NT...
We agree on the point of corruption of quran.

Now even if some stuff of quran is pro christian, don't you think disagreeing with concept of God is a huge deviant? That is the heart of matter. It might disagree on minor issues but this issue is a major one. Not even in wild dreams can quran be a continuation of christianity when it disagrees with christian version of God. That is actually opposing christianity all together.

Next, the quran also denies that Christ was crucified and it also becomes evident that the author of quran confuses with teachings of previous scriptures. Finally we have verses like 3:185 which totally deny any religion other than islam. It clearly says that any religion other than islam is not accepted and people are going to hell for following other religions. According to the doctrine of abrogation, 3:185 abrogates other verses which speak of tolerating other religions. This is same as condemning christianity or any other religion for that matter.
yeezevee wrote: well that could as well be Valley of Bakkah., that became valley of Makkah.. in 3:96, Bakkah is used and Mecca is used in 48:24.. Who knows what these fools who put together that book did with the book.., Baka of bible might have turned int o Bakkah/Makkah in Quran.. read bible SKB.. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/84-6.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is true that Mecca may have been added later in the quran. In any case, it leaves no room for quran being authentic. You and me would agree with this but CAT has some different intention here. He is somehow trying to save quran from the mecca and medina mess.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by yeezevee »

well let me walk backward on SKB post...
skynightblaze wrote:
yeezevee wrote:well that could as well be Valley of Bakkah., that became valley of Makkah.. in 3:96, Bakkah is used and Mecca is used in 48:24.. Who knows what these fools who put together that book did with the book.., Baka of bible might have turned int o Bakkah/Makkah in Quran.. read bible SKB.. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/84-6.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is true that Mecca may have been added later in the quran. In any case, it leaves no room for quran being authentic. You and me would agree with this but CAT has some different intention here. He is somehow trying to save quran from the mecca and medina mess
1). So what is wrong If The Cat is trying to save Quran from the Mecca and Medina ? Well The Cat may have different intentions.,

And what is wrong with having different intention, ideas about a book or so-called religion? On top of this you don't know his intentions, do you??

When you say "it leaves no room for quran being authentic" ., what actually do you mean by that? I mean

Do you mean Quran has come out of Muhammad's Mouth Or Quran is word of allah/god whatever? It is an authentic published document... Who first wrote that? where did those words come from? all such questions are open to question SKB...
skynightblaze wrote:.............
I am of the opinion that this argument is an attempt at deception practiced by quran alone muslims............


I suspect he is a quran alone muslim.
Well you have the right to suspect., I don't think so.,

but suppose he is and if some Muslims who believe in some super god allah., like billions of folks in other religions... and if they are trying to clean up their religion/their religious scriptures / filter junk from it., would that be wrong??
I do not find any other reason for not answering such a simple question. If I ask any non muslim here if quran is a word of God, he/she would respond with a negative the very first time I ask this question.
Not necessarily .. Suppose He is good guy., he doesn't want to insult ordinary Muslim folks who don't use the literal nonsense of their scripture, and he doesn't want to insult Muslim folks the way you do or I do., And and he may be using different approach to educate folks. On top of that he seems to be very interested in the History of early Islam
I have rephrased the question and given him alternatives to select so that he cannot dance around the question and avoid answering it. If he is a quran alone muslim, he should admit it. No one is going to hang him but denying that and at the same time deceptively putting his version across is what I oppose.
Why he need to admit to you? lol.., he has the right not to admit anything

Any way read this KRONIK: Koranen begyndte som en kristen bog

It says "The Koran began as a Christian book"... and says
Morten Rydal | 31st March 2011

The early beginning of the Koran is not to be found among Muslims in the Arabian peninsula, but among East Syrian Christian Arabs. This is the startling conclusion of research into the Muslim holy book.

In all recent reference works on Islam, we read that the modern Koran, known as the Cairo edition of 1923 is almost similar to the revelation the Prophet Muhammad allegedly received in Mecca and Medina more than 1300 years ago. It is admitted that the process may have been slightly longer, but the idea that the Koran has remained largely the same since the 7th century, is not disputed.

New Koranic research, which is currently taking place, mainly in Germany, now shows entirely new ways of understanding the Qur'an genesis.

The new understanding of the Koran took a decisive leap with the discovery of a large quantity of ancient Koranic manuscripts in a cavity in the mosque in Sana. These manuscripts have proved to preesent different text versions compared to the Cairo Koran. Several are in fact so called palimpsests, i.e. manuscripts from which the original text or part of it has been scraped off and a new text written on top of the old one.
At some point in history an old Koranic text has been deleted and rewritten. When you write with ink on thin skin, the ink sinks deep into the leather, and even if one scratches the skin carefully, there will still be a shadow left. Scientists could "recall" the scraped away text and thus in several cases were presented with yet another deviant text in relation to the Cairo Koran. The ancient manuscripts made it obvious that the Quran has not been preserved unchanged from the 7th century. It has through the centuries been subject to countless amendments............
that and more...
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:I am of the opinion that this argument is an attempt at deception practiced by quran alone muslims.
Your opinion doesn't count. Bring counter evidences...
skynightblaze wrote:why do we find anti christianity stuff in the quran?
Enlighten us. Tell us how many different forms of Christianity there was back then? One, really?
I already brought the evidence. Nikephoros and Theophanes document saracens rising from Yathrib and not north west arabia. Even though Sira was written down during this time, both these people did not use islamic literature as their sources. Nikephoros documents his sources clearly and there is no islamic sira as his source. Theophanes was refering to George Synkellos who approximately died around 810 AD. So I went a step further to check sources of George Synkellos . I did not find a single statement saying that he had references to islamic literature. WIki pedia mentions his sources but not a hint of Sira as being his source. If they had then please bring it to the table.
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:48.24-25
Already debated in ''Muhammad, myth vs reality''. You're only trolling back old debunked arguments.
Your mentors have zero credibility. The word Mecca does exist in the translation of the verse. No matter how much you and your mentors play games with arabic, no arabic speaker is going to back you. If you claim quran was a work written during muhammad's time then you have the evidence in the quran itself speaking about Mecca. If you claim Mecca was a later invention then also you have a problem for quran because it would mean quran was corrupted. However Mecca is mentioned as early as 724 AD to 743 AD in a non muslim source. This is before any sira or ahadith of bukhari were written down.
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:Nikephoros
Why do you think he got things right? Did he knows anything about the Quraysh, the Hajj, Mecca?
He did not mention these names however he does make a mention of Yathrib and Saracen connection.
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:The above links contain coins from the late 7th century around 685 Ad,689 AD and 691 Ad which is around the same time this coin of muhammad containing a cross was made.
Yep but that sentence was abandoned for another 150 years. The coins I've shown are earlier.
Now, the coins you've shown depicted a Zoroastrian fire-altar. So where are you going with this ?
I am saying that these coins tie muhammad to being an islamic prophet and not a christian prophet. You find "Bismillah" term on these coins which is used consistently across quran. If I am not wrong then the coins you showed belong to late 7th century. I guess you copied from Spencer. Anyway David Wood was confronted by some spencer fan that he could not address this argument.. Here is his post on one of the blogs..
Now, if I am confronted with (a) early evidence that Muhammad appeared on coins with a cross, and (b) late evidence that Muslims despised the symbol of the cross, am I somehow obligated, given my position, to assume that the early Muslims despised the symbol of the cross? Not at all. Indeed, given my method, I could conclude all kinds of reasons that would account for (a) and (b). For instance, as Muslims were trying to win converts in the early years, they appealed to the image of the cross, but later, when they dominated the Christians, they came to despise the image of the cross, and they wrote this into their history, as they so often did. How does this not fit the evidence? (I could also conclude, consistently with the evidence, that the late traditions were identical with the early traditions, and that Muslims always despised the cross, but that for several decades of the first century, Muslims used the image of the cross in order to deceive their enemies into believing that Islam is friendly towards Christianity--i.e. Taqiyya).
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.
User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by skynightblaze »

yeezevee wrote:1). So what is wrong If The Cat is trying to save Quran from the Mecca and Medina ? Well The Cat may have different intentions.,
And what is wrong with having different intention, ideas about a book or so-called religion? On top of this you don't know his intentions, do you??
Have you heard about dishonesty? His idea is to somehow fool people into believing that islam is a good religion even when it is not. I am not clear about his intentions but one thing is for sure that he is trying to present quran in good light. Convince me that quran is really good or else that is deception in my opinion. If the intention is deception then I guess I need to call his BS. Instead of questioning me, you should be asking him to clarify.
yeezevee wrote: When you say "it leaves no room for quran being authentic" ., what actually do you mean by that? I mean
Do you mean Quran has come out of Muhammad's Mouth Or Quran is word of allah/god whatever? It is an authentic published document... Who first wrote that? where did those words come from? all such questions are open to question SKB...
I am open to questioning. By "authentic" I mean both of what you stated. If quran is corrupted by people then it is not authentic i.e. it means many things did not come from Muhammad and it is not a word of God.
Yeezevee wrote: Well you have the right to suspect., I don't think so., but suppose he is and if some Muslims who believe in some super god allah., like billions of folks in other religions... and if they are trying to clean up their religion/their religious scriptures / filter junk from it., would that be wrong??
If you are cleaning junk from your religion say that precisely. Say that "you agree islam contains bs and therefore we want to reform our religion". That is a perfectly justified argument. However that is never the case when muslims debate us. They mostly want us to entertain their version which is riddled with holes. Don't come to a forum lecturing people that you are on the right path or with the intention of a debate. If you are debating then your BS would be shot down. A debate is exchange of ideas and it is aimed at arrive at the right answers.

This is a typical hopeless response I see from many people. Whenever their arguments are shot down they resort to " I can believe whatever I want.Who are you to tell me? " . This argument is actually intended to stop criticism of their beliefs when all attempts at justifying their beliefs fail. Ofcourse I am no one to tell you what to believe but when you come to a debate floor and claim that you have the right version then people have got rights to call your arguments BS. For e.g one might interpret " I will kill you" as "I want to make peace". Sure he has the right to do whatever he wants but that does not mean its the truth. It is BS. I am not buying it and I am calling your argument a piece of trash. An argument which does not deny logic is the only valid argument while rest is wishful thinking.
Yeezevee wrote: Not necessarily .. Suppose He is good guy., he doesn't want to insult ordinary Muslim folks who don't use the literal nonsense of their scripture, and he doesn't want to insult Muslim folks the way you do or I do., And and he may be using different approach to educate folks. On top of that he seems to be very interested in the History of early Islam
Presenting a false image of islam is a good thing according to you? Is it going to solve the problems that the world faces? You are thinking is short sighted . Ok let us say CAT and many muslims who do not interpret islam as it is are not a problem for us. Can you guarantee me that all the muslims are going to interpret the same way? Can you guarantee me that the future generations of these liberal peace loving muslims are going to practice the same way? Why I insult islam and do not entertain stupid interpretations? The reason is because if we entertain that so called interpretations of islam as genuine you indirectly sanction the violent teachings because there will be people who are wise enough to see what islam says in reality. You cant stop them. A handful of people interpreting 9:29 correctly is surely a cause for the world to worry. We don't need all the muslims to interpret islam correctly. That is why my approach is to make people see what islam really is . That is why I call BS on CAT. If an interpretation satisfies logic, it is only then I would admit that an interpretation is valid or else it is wishful thinking. I will teach people to face the truth rather than sugar coating falsehood and deceive themselves. Most of the muslim arguments do not satisfy logic and therefore I do not entertain such useless interpretations.

Yeezevee wrote: Why he need to admit to you? lol.., he has the right not to admit anything
Then don't bother to complain if you take blows. He has said that he has taken a lot of blows for his opinions.
Yeezevee wrote: Any way read this KRONIK: Koranen begyndte som en kristen bog

It says "The Koran began as a Christian book"... and says
Morten Rydal | 31st March 2011

The early beginning of the Koran is not to be found among Muslims in the Arabian peninsula, but among East Syrian Christian Arabs. This is the startling conclusion of research into the Muslim holy book.

In all recent reference works on Islam, we read that the modern Koran, known as the Cairo edition of 1923 is almost similar to the revelation the Prophet Muhammad allegedly received in Mecca and Medina more than 1300 years ago. It is admitted that the process may have been slightly longer, but the idea that the Koran has remained largely the same since the 7th century, is not disputed.

New Koranic research, which is currently taking place, mainly in Germany, now shows entirely new ways of understanding the Qur'an genesis.

The new understanding of the Koran took a decisive leap with the discovery of a large quantity of ancient Koranic manuscripts in a cavity in the mosque in Sana. These manuscripts have proved to preesent different text versions compared to the Cairo Koran. Several are in fact so called palimpsests, i.e. manuscripts from which the original text or part of it has been scraped off and a new text written on top of the old one.
At some point in history an old Koranic text has been deleted and rewritten. When you write with ink on thin skin, the ink sinks deep into the leather, and even if one scratches the skin carefully, there will still be a shadow left. Scientists could "recall" the scraped away text and thus in several cases were presented with yet another deviant text in relation to the Cairo Koran. The ancient manuscripts made it obvious that the Quran has not been preserved unchanged from the 7th century. It has through the centuries been subject to countless amendments............
that and more...
Yeezevee- wipe out your glasses or else slap yourself if you are sleeping. Your quote mostly talks about corruption of quran and I think I have spent a lot of time arguing about corruption of quran. The quote just says that Quran started out amongst Christian arabs. I have already given reasons as to why quran is not a christian book.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.
Mughal
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:45 am
Location: i/g
Contact:

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by Mughal »

In my view, people must look at scriptures on their own and not learn what they mean from priesthood or mullaiyat because they mislead people through make beliefs and useless rituals. In other words religions are make beliefs and useless rituals invented by mullahs to move people away from actual scriptural teachings.

The whole quran is based upon the idea of deen versus mazhab. Deen means a way of life for mankind that is advised by Allah for fulfilling all their needs whereas mazhab means make beliefs and useless rituals invented by mullahs to replace deen so that people could rule each other and thereby dictate to each other how they should live and fulfil their needs ie a recipe for use and abuse of each other for personal advantages and gains at the expense of each other.

The question is, why mullahs were so desperate to replace deen with mazhab? It is because rulers, money lenders and mullahs work together to use and abuse masses by making them adopt a way of life based upon personal gains at the expense of each other.


As for existence of God, this is not a normal case of claim and evidence so it should not be looked at in that context. Here case is very different because we are looking for a cause outside natural causes. Our first hurdle is we are born ignorant and it takes a few decades at least to become self aware and aware of real world realities and to understand existence of ultimate reality is yet more difficult thing to do even for those interested in finding out things therefore they carry out researches and explore things the best they can under the circumstances.

Since we are not all aware at any stage of our lives therefore we can never be in a position to claim there is no God. Why not? Because each time we learn something new it does not lead us to knowledge that there is no God. Even being reasonable we are not in a position to claim there is no God because reason does not lead to that conclusion either.

No matter what atheists claim there is no God because they assume without actually studying the scriptures in their original texts that they are wrong because they contain so many mistakes in them. Almost all there claims about scriptures are false because they use interpretations by mullahs=priests. The day people who have sense study the scriptures in their original texts they will come to realise that scriptures do support each other to a great extent and what priests attribute to the scriptures is almost all false and creation of their own baseless imaginations.


To disprove existence of God reasonably we need to show that anything that does not exist already can come into existence all by itself, can we?

We need to show that anything that exists can activate itself, can we?

We need to show that anything that exists and can activate itself can also design itself into numberless patterns or forms, can we?

Therefore all this needs something already existing and that thing has to be an intelligent being well capable of doing things that we see happening all around us.


The other thing is existence of a book like the quran, we need to come up with arguments solid enough that could prove that the quran is a human work.

Let us now come to another point which is, some of us human beings claim that God does not exist because we can explain how each and everything works. This is a false claim because if we go into detail of things then we will find that there are a lot of things about which we are not yet sure how they came about or happened even in the natural world. I accept that one day we will be able to explain things a lot better but will that lead to proof that there is no God? No, not at all. It is because as we will study things, with time more and more things will be found falling in line with the explanation already given in the quran.

Let me try and explain the point I am trying to make. My point is that a person invents or builds something and does not tell others how he did it. Now other people start looking into it and start figuring out how that thing has been build and one day they discover all the secrets as to how someone built that thing, does knowing how thing was built eliminate its creator? Likewise even if we become aware of all we can yet the question will remain, did this whole thing pop into existence and working all by itself?


Then we have a book that explains its origin and purpose as well as working, in fact the whole plan, all these like points tell us that we have yet a lot to learn before we could even try to justify the idea of no God.


What people need to understand is the fact that what we call education is not truly education but a process of brain washing of mankind by ruling elite, priestly class and money lenders through their touts and supporters. It is a process of massive scale misinformation to cause chaos and confusion so that these people could continue their rule so that deen of Allah may not become a reality for as long as they can keep things that way. Mullahs always led this campaign because this is first line of attack on deen of Allah and his scripture. Once deen is eliminated by putting mazhab in place then all the rest follows.

People are not growing up to try and see overall picture or context of things.

It is therefore of vital importance to ask the question what is deen? It is based upon goals set by Allah for humanity to accomplish according to provided guidelines. The goals set by Allah are in line with his purpose for creating all that exists.

The whole idea is to spread the message of brotherhood and organise humanity into a united human community using the quran as a program for accomplishing the set goals as a community based upon the quran as its constitution and law to regulate it. The idea is to bring humanity together as a single family in order to manage human population and resources for production and distribution of goods and services for unity, peace, progress and prosperity of mankind.

This is why the quran challenges mankind to bring a better way of life than the one told about in the quran, if you can then you have disproved the quran and you are free to do as you please. However it tells us in advance that we can never do that even if we all joined together.

Can one therefore see why the quran claims that it has solutions for all the problems humanity will ever face? It is because it puts mankind on a track that leads to unity, peace, progress and prosperity of mankind. This is why once you are on that track you will come to know problems and be able to solve them also.

Get to know the quran and other scriptures in light of real world realities and see what you get.

It is therefore very important that people study the quranic text from the quran in context and not use mullah based translations because mullahs had only and only one purpose and that was to derail the message of Allah through their deliberate misinterpretations of scriptures and their misrepresentations of scriptures to masses with backing of rulers and money lenders to give them the needed advantage.

This is why almost all mullah based translations are exactly the same in their essence because they are based on make beliefs and because they have similar make beliefs therefore they interpret not the very same scripture the very same way but almost all of the scriptures are translated the same way to justify the similar make beliefs. A clear proof that scriptures have been translated by the very same lot with similar objectives in mind.

For example, the quran is full of verses that claim muhammad is just another human being like other people nothing supernatural about him. Why will a person who wants to deceive people tell them look guys I am just like you there is nothing supernatural about me?

Despite these clear verses mullahs have shown that some of the verses in the quran talk about miracles when they can be interpreted just in normal context of daily life. It shows mullahs were trying to deliberately turn the quran into a book with stories about miracles. The question is, why will they do that? Is it for the reason so that they could make others believe in them that way? Or was it so that they could keep people away from accepting their message by telling them, people from God have to be supernatural people with supernatural powers otherwise they cannot be from God? What will they get if they made people accept their message or not accept their messengers?

Had scriptures been translated by independently thinking people then they ought to have very different translations because the languages in which those scriptures were written were neither far too simple unable to convey the complex message nor far too sophisticated to convey message precisely. What has this to do with scriptures?

Let me try and explain. Let us take a look at a baby and how he develops his language. In the beginning a baby uses minimum words to try and express maximum number of thoughts in his mind . As time goes on and baby keeps growing he starts gathering more and more words to express more and more thoughts but his ratio between number of words and number of thoughts changes. In other word if he was using three words to express 30 thoughts in the beginning, with time he learns to use 11 words to express 44 thoughts ie his expressions become more and more precise with time and learning.

Likewise when languages were developing in the beginning people used minimum number of words to express maximum number of thoughts but as they developed more and more words, the languages became more and more precise.

God had to choose a time and place, a people and a language to convey his message that suited his objective the best. Had God chose to convey his message in a language that was far too much under developed then people will have had a very big trouble in trying to make sense of it because there will be same sentence conveying many different things. It will have been like decoding the words of a baby. The advantage will have been that message will have been a very short one from God and that will have needed more work and thinking by people for its decoding, which will have turned it into a huge disadvantage.

On the contrary had God waited to send his message till the language became much more precise then it will have needed much more text to convey the very same message in many more number of words. If we look at changes that have occurred in languages in the last 60 years we can see what will have been the size of the quranic text. In science alone we have developed so much due to discoveries that we have invented many many words to talk about those new things.

So if the quran was many volume book then what use could it be? How many of us read encyclopaedias of many volumes? Even those who did how much of the information could they actually retain and make use of?

So one can see God or man both had to make compromises in different ways. God has limitations as a God and man has limitations as a man. Teachers and students have to compromise because there are limitations for teachers as to how much they can teach and limitations for students as to how much they learn.

So the idea that God could do this or that because he is a God is not the right way to look at being of God. God is limited as soon as we say God because he is no longer anything else. This is why it is not sensible to argue over what God is and what God is not beyond what is made known by God in his scriptures.

God is able to do what he has planned to do and his plan limits him as well because if he has a plan to do something then it is not possible that God does not carry it through. This is why praying to God is not the right concept because it will mean that God will have to change his plan if people asked for things of him which go against his plan. Also there are around 6 billion people on this planet and they are all fighting each other trying to dominate each other by trying to undermine each other and they are all looking for help of God to win against each other, so how many should get their wish and how many should not and why or why not?

The quran therefore tells us to rely on scripture for fulfilment of our needs because the scripture explains how God has set-up the universal systems and the laws to work and by knowing the way the universe is set -up to work we can come to know how should we do things to get what we need or wish for.

This is why I am asking people to read the quran and not listen to mullahs because the quran tells us very different things from what mullahs tell us. I have discovered that islam is a DEEN not a religion. Anyone who is not reading the quran as a book of deen is wasting his time.

These explanations should make one realise why the quranic verses have different meanings, some contradictory others complementary and how to read the quran in context. The context is deen not religion. It is deen that tells us what is purpose of creation and why God set us goals to fulfil and the guidelines to achieve set goals according to so that purpose and plan of God fulfils. if we read the quran in context of deen then contradictions are removed but if we read the quran as a book of religion then contradictions keep increasing the more we discuss make beliefs and try to explain them.


Islam is a deen and not a mazhab.

Word deen is from root daal, yaa and noon and is used in the quran in various ways. However, one use of it is, a way of life.

Although any way of life people adopt for living their lives is a way of life but the quran based way of life is very different. It is different because according to the quran Allah has created this world for a set purpose so if all things and people are created for a set purpose then that purpose cannot be fulfilled unless a way of life is adopted by all things including people which is told by Allah because only and only that way of life can help things including people fulfil the purpose they have been created for.

Since all created things have been preprogrammed to a greater extent except mankind therefore people are given the message through revelation as well to guide themselves. It is because people have been created with maximum ability to choose as compared to other animals. Other things are created for use of mankind to help them achieve the purpose they have been created for but people are created for a purpose told in the quran in detail.

Mankind are created with brains and senses for self learning and doing things to become self aware and become aware of their universe and finally their creator and sustainer with help of his revealed message.

Therefore a way of life that can help them do that is told in the quran so the quran is a book that serves various purposes for people to help them achieve their God set goals according to his given guidelines.

The very basic thing for any thing is its existence because if something does not exist then it cannot serve any purpose at all. Likewise some things that exist serve one purpose and others another purpose eg some exist to help others to serve their purpose. If there were no means for bringing about life or its sustenance then life could not exist let alone anything could serve any purpose. Just as some non-living things helped living things to come into existence and survive so some living things helped other living things survive and likewise some people help others come into existence and survive. This means not just existence but survival of human race is of fundamental importance because unless mankind survive the set out purpose of Allah for mankind cannot be fulfilled.


Since human existence and survival is of fundamental importance therefore the basic goal the quran sets for mankind is to achieve unity, peace, progress and prosperity for themselves because that is the only way mankind can survive blissfully with dignity and be ready for serving their ultimate purpose or goal, which is God consciousness.

In other words none can become God aware unless one has become aware of his revelation and creation. This is not possible unless one has become self aware. All this needs a lot of proper use of human brain and senses and provided things. This is why people who promote needed information and its proper understanding and actions based upon that knowledge for fulfilment of this purpose are doing the right thing ie this is what deen of Allah is all about and what its practice is all about.

All other ideologies and practices people invent and follow are their own therefore they cannot lead them to right end goal. The main thing in that case is inconsistencies within ideologies and practices.

The quran serves purpose of a proof for mankind. How does it do that? It puts forth an irrefutable consistent explanation of the whole thing from start to finish. No other scripture has done that unless it was from Allah before the quran. However people are born ignorant and take time to learn and do things to reach as far as they can along the way as individuals and groups and interaction keeps moving people in the proper direction as time marches on. Time will come when whole humanity will be on the very same platform. How soon this will happen depends on how many people are working along the proper way and how hard they are working to help mankind see sense and do sensible things to get where they need to be.

Just as the quran guides to the way of life that is proper for humanity for fulfilling their God set purpose, so the quran condemns any other way of life that people adopt and confuse themselves and each other and create hardships and troubles for themselves.

This is why islamic way of life is basically that which leads mankind to formation of a proper human community based upon the quranic model that ensures for them blissful, dignified and secure existence. It gives people basis for coming together and working together to accomplish the goals set out for them as a proper human community.

This is why islam is all about living for each other and not at the expense of each other. A community based upon true brotherhood of humanity wherein there is no place for any way of life that is based upon use and abuse of each other for personal gains at the expense of each other.


This is the real reason why stupid elements from among human beings reject and oppose islam in various ways from among both the parties ie those who claim to be muslims as well as nonmuslims. It is because they attribute falsehood and all sorts of nonsense to Allah, his scriptures and his messengers.

The battle for proper version of islam and its faithful followers and the opponents will continue till mankind come to their senses and learn to see the truth for what it really is and then follow it so that they could accomplish the ultimate set out goal as a proper human community.

Since islam is a deen therefore it cannot have but only one program, constitution and law. It is because it has fixed goals and guidelines and world also works in a particular way. So ummah should have no problem in deciding its deen and its thoughts and actions as a proper human community based upon the quran in light of real world realities. Islam is not a dogmatic creed based upon invented beliefs and useless rituals this is why it is not a religion or mazhab. Islam is not about blind faith in make beliefs nor about useless practices that lead nowhere. Islam is all about making this world beautiful for mankind so that people have even better hereafter as an award from Allah for doing their job well. The truth is the quran provides humanity with unique insight about certain points because it explains them in a unique way.

For example, Equality is not about two things being exactly identical because that is not possible when things have differences that are based on nature. How can a tall person become short to be equal to a short person and vice versa? How can a thin person become fat to be equal to a fat person or vice versa. How can two different things be exactly the same as each other? In short the differences that are God created cannot be eliminated no matter how hard we try. Therefore our question has to be why God created these differences between things? For example, almost all people are very different from each other. People are very different from all other things as well etc etc.

These are functionality based differences. For example, imagine if all of us people were identical. Now think about it and ask yourselves could we function? No. Even parents fail to recognise their own identical twins. The problem will have been even more if all things were identical. The natural differences were created so that things work like a clock ie different components inside a clock play their specific parts to make the whole clock what it is and make it work the way it does or is supposed to do unless something goes wrong and the clock does not function properly or goes dead completely.

Coming to mankind Allah has given people sense and guidance so that by working out things people could complement each other's efforts and thereby make human community complete. This is why it is necessary that people treat each and every person in such a way that ensures well being of each and every individual and thereby human community or society. This is why the quran shows a beautiful way of life for mankind but only if we could be bothered to learn things properly and do them faithfully. That is why the quran is a roadmap to a beautiful world for mankind but only if they work on that roadmap. It has beautiful explanations about things which need to be discovered by people but for that they need to educate themselves and discover them for themselves.

So people should read the quran for proper understanding of its message. After all why anyone sends any message to anyone? So that the recipient of the message gets to know the message and acts upon it to fulfil purpose for which the message is sent. No message is sent so that people keep reciting it without finding out what it means and why it is sent etc etc. The quran is sent for people to live their lives as it says because that way of life leads mankind as a proper human community to a blissful, dignified and secure existence.

It is because ummah has ignored message of the quran for its purpose so the whole ummah is suffering the consequences. This will remain the situation till people come back to the quran and read it for the purpose it is sent for and go for fulfilling that purpose. Mullahs have deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented the message of the quran and ummah has blindly followed them into a dead end.

Why not look at words like hasanaat, ihsaan, muhsineen etc and see what they really mean. They are derivatives from root HAA, SEEN and NOON which is all about balance and beauty. What does that mean? Muslims should know that the quran tells people to seek hasanaatan fidduniyaa for fil aakhirah. What does it mean? It means seek a beautiful world and even more beautiful hereafter. The question is, how do you seek beautiful world? By doing HASANAAT. What does that mean? It means doing works that make world beautiful so that one receives award in hereafter for playing his part in making this world a beautiful place for mankind.

Then look at words AAMILOOSSAALIHAAT. Doing works that are called SAALIHAAT. Word saalihaat is from root SWAAD, LAAM and HAA and it means mending the broken thing in such a way that it is as if it was never broken. What is quran telling us by using these words? It is telling us human community is fractured in various ways so go out there and work at mending it so that it becomes a proper human community. If people become united and work hard together then what isit that humanity cannot achieve or accomplish? This is how the quran shows people the way to live their lives sensibly.

Things can only be beautiful if they are properly balanced in every respect. So if people want a beautiful world for themselves then they need to work hard first to know what makes world beautiful and then by working out plans of actions and executing them faithfully as an organised and regulated proper human community. That is the clear message of the quran.

No man is allowed to be master of another man therefore there is no slavery in islam but all people are bound in a brotherhood on basis of divine constitution and law which are based upon goals and guidelines provided in the quran, so the quran puts forth a program for humanity according to plan of Allah for mankind. This is why when people will educate themselves to the level required for implementation of quranic program, the world will become a very different place.

Mullahs' islam is not islam at all because it is based upon make beliefs and useless rituals ie it is religion that has divided even those who claim to be muslims into many sects. There is no division possible in deen of islam. Why not? Because deen can only be interpreted by knowledgeable, literate and educated people who are self aware and are aware of real world realities and therefore know how to interpret the divine scripture and they work together to arrive at the conclusion as a proper human community. Since deen is decided by community through mutual consultations therefore differences are impossible in deen. Deen is not a private matter for individuals to decide but a matter related to whole community. If goals and guidelines are clear and if the way the world works is clear and people as a community know what they need or want and how to get it then where is opportunity for people to fight over anything at all?

After all there is a need to question what amali saalihah means? It does not mean acts of ritualistic piety. It means removing rifts from between mankind to help them unite as a proper human community so that they are free to develop and progress ie it is about repairing human relationships so that social fractures are eliminated for consistency within human society so that through cooperation and help of each other they could make their world a beautiful place.

This is why interpretation of mullahs has to be rejected because it is there to cause rifts between people because that is what suits rulers, their mullahs and money lenders ie to try each and every trick and mechanism they can come up with to divide humanity and then use and abuse it for their own agendas.

http://www.jangforum.net/index.php?PHPS ... pic=5206.0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Last edited by Mughal on Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:48 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by Fernando »

Ah yes, David Wood. I'd forgotten him. Is there a main place to find his writings? Also, I recall mentioning a debate video with him and someone asked me for a link but I never rediscovered it. I'll try to have another search.
ETA: it wasback in August 2012 regarding two or more debates between Wood and Spencer, I saw the first one and there was going to be more information in the second.
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 88#p187687" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Some possible videos are linked here:
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 88#p187687
I'll try to have a look and see if any of them relate to the present topic but it might take a while.
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

Post by yeezevee »

skynightblaze wrote:
1). Have you heard about dishonesty? .............

2). I am open to questioning. By "authentic" I mean both of what you stated. If quran is corrupted by people then it is not authentic i.e. it means many things did not come from Muhammad and it is not a word of God.

3).If you are cleaning junk from your religion say that precisely. Say that "you agree islam contains bs and therefore we want to reform our religion". That is a perfectly justified argument. However that is never the case when muslims debate us........

4). Presenting a false image of islam is a good thing according to you? Is it going to solve the problems that the world faces? You are thinking is short sighted .


1). dishonesty is everywhere in every faith.. it is built in to biological machinery SKB., As long as you & I have freedom to question that with no one harassing that is not a big deal.

2). Good that is exactly what is needed.. "Open to Question" I said that already Quran didn't come from Muhammad, didn't come from allah and it is not word of god., That not only goes to Islam but to every faith and to every faith head...

3). Show me an educated Muslim who writes in to this forum who says Islam and Islamic scriptures HAVE NO baloney.. I will answer him/her..

4). No I didn't say that., You seem not understand the difference between "CLEANING THE JUNK" and PRESENTING FALSE IMAGE., can you read your point three?
Then don't bother to complain if you take blows. He has said that he has taken a lot of blows for his opinions
well you are heckling/boxing him and he is boxing you...
Yeezevee- wipe out your glasses or else slap yourself if you are sleeping. Your quote mostly talks about corruption of quran and I think I have spent a lot of time arguing about corruption of quran. The quote just says that Quran started out amongst Christian arabs. I have already given reasons as to why quran is not a christian book.
Don't worry about that ., I write not only for you but to other readers SKB., So let me read Mughal
Last edited by yeezevee on Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply