skynightblaze wrote: Regarding Qiblas, enough is said.
You quoted Jacob of Edessa from your Islamic source without noticing how a blunder it was.
The Arabs he wrote turned east to pray from Cairo, while Mecca is fully SOUTH from it. Get it?
You're eluding too that the context of s48 is about the negotiations made at Hudaibiyyah.
Now, it is Mecca? Negotiated in its center, its midst (the real meaning of batni makkata?
skynightblaze wrote:Even if I disregard the shahada on the coins as you suggest, it would still not cause a problem for islamic tradition however it does damage your argument that we should be reading into design on coins to know what kind of religion early islam was.
The Shahada isn't quranic. Tell me what was 'Islam' before the prophetic hadiths became legally binging, that is after 850AD?
skynightblaze wrote:Coming to Sebeos, yes he mentions jews being allied with Saracens but then there are other accounts (earlier than Sebeos) which describe otherwise. see below...
The Jerusalem taking by Umar, its rendering condition, is proving that to be collateral.
But then Thomas the Presbyter is really talking about the tayyayes-of-mhmt !
And I've shown you a map indicating they inhabited far from nowadays Mecca.
No mention of the Quraysh. In fact none from any external sources...
skynightblaze wrote: Ibn ishaq also mentions a person called muhammad before islam. You should have no problem in accepting what he says because you yourself are trusting him atleast on this issue.
The whole story about Abraha is counterfeit. His invasion happened in 552, not in 570.
His inscription mentions no Mecca, no Quraysh, no al-Muttalib and he WON the war.
Since Ibn Ishaq bubbles on this lie to state that Muhammad was born in 570, then when was he born?
Without any solid confirmation for his birthday, no traditions about him is reliable.
And we have NO archeological records about him before 685. Not a hint.
skynightblaze wrote:Quran mentions this event of Abraha attacking Mecca. So quran is also debunked.
Read again sura 105/106. No mentions of Abraha or of Mecca. Ibn Ishaq invented from these...
And how in the world could you think I would hold them to be 'godly'?
skynightblaze wrote:Who said arabs were infallible? Islamic tradition is a mix of false and true things.
All companions are hold to be infaillible in their remembering of Muhammad.
skynightblaze wrote: All the quran says is obey the messenger. It does not expand on how muhammad is to be followed.
All messengers are to be obeyed equally as and when delivering the message and its rulings. The Shahada contradicts this.
No one, as per the Koran, is to be personally followed...
It does not expand on how the messenger is to be obeyed because the Koran, its messages over 23 years, is what's to be followed.
24:54
If ye obey him, ye will go aright. But the messenger hath no other charge than to convey (the message) plainly.
Don't ever follow a human in whatever religious matter...
2.166-67:
--(On the day) when those who were followed disown those who followed (them), and they behold the doom,
and all their aims collapse with them. --And those who were but followers will say: If a return were possible for us,
we would disown them even as they have disowned us. Thus will Allah show them their own deeds as anguish for them.....
skynightblaze wrote:Just because quran contradicts ahadith, it does not mean ahadith are unreliable.
It means they can't be Islamically binding, part of the Shariah as you yourself acknowledged.
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 38#p123938" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
--
We have to accept that hadiths cant be take as a source of guidance so I decided to give up on the part that explains quran--
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 12#p128212" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
--
my stance is the same i.e hadiths cant be taken as source of guidance but as a source on information
At least, please be consequent with yourself !
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.