The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

[yeezevee]

Robert Hoyland has simply put together the translations of various non muslim texts. The link does not contain personal opinions which we can dispute.

I understood that before I read this post SKB., that is OK but what are the original sources of Robert Hoyland ?? what non-Muslim texts?? where did those non-Muslim get those stories??

So in the year 632 the guy alleged Muhammad died and he was already SICK some months before his death, was very sick guy. That is what I get from Islamic history. So in my view., any Islam and Islamic wars beyond the year 632 is nothing to do with alleged Muhammad and he should not be blamed for all what happened in early Islam after his death..

Muhammad set the platform and his words are followed till date so he is responsible.

Nope .. no...noooo., some fools make stories in the name of a person way after his death and no one question them or no one allowed to question them means "IT IS NOT HIS FAULT" I agree with all his faults when he was alive

Read Manfred's post above mine for details..

I can counter you and I can counter Manfred SKB... hang on... hold your horses...lol..

[skynightblaze]

@manfred

We agree on everything and I wonder what I should write when there is nothing to argue about .

Just for the sake of information, I would add a few things..

Quran of Uthman was not completely accepted for a lot of time so it make sense for John of Damascus to not know the complete details about quran. I remember quoting some muslim historian in response to Eagle. The historian was saying that a person was more fond of Ubay's quran as late as 900 AD. This means that inspite of Uthman;s attempt to destroy conflicting copies, people were still referring to other variant copies for a couple of centuries. I will have to find that quote for exact details..

Secondly, Patricia Crone dismisses John of Damascus as too late. She told me this in the email. I don't understand how he can be said to be late especially when his work was written before the ahadith of Bukhari and sira came into being. Also she does not dismiss John Bar Penkaye who was writing around 690 Ad. So according to her 690 Ad is not late but John of Damascus writing in 730 AD is late? What's the criteria to decide what is late and what is not?

[skynightblaze]

I understood that before I read this post SKB., that is OK but what are the original sources of Robert Hoyland ?? what non-Muslim texts?? where did those non-Muslim get those stories??

I suppose his references are the books written in original language. He has probably translated the quotes from those books into english but I am not sure.

Nope .. no...noooo., some fools make stories in the name of a person way after his death and no one question them or no one allowed to question them means "IT IS NOT HIS FAULT" I agree with all his faults when he was alive

You are assuming that some person attributed lies to muhammad. What if muhammad really said and did those things? Muhammad alone is responsible for the plight of muslims. He is the culprit. IF he was not born then the world would be a different place. Muslims justify their actions by saying prophet said so and so. Muhammad practiced paedophilia and it is because of him countless little girls are abused as he set the sunna for his followers. Is this not enough for you to blame muhammad?

I can counter you and I can counter Manfred SKB... hang on... hold your horses...lol..

Sure..

[yeezevee]

yeezevee, aren't you giving old Mo a rather easy way out of responsibility?

No..Nooo.. I have written as harsh as I can write on his actions during his life time and I have thrown as much dirt as i can throw and more on that guy in this forum itself manfred"., again that is all based upon Islamic sources Not non-Islamic sources..

So the Islamic conquests after the death of Mohammed are not his fault?

well I would certainly argue all that so-called Islamic conquests as NOT his fault.. because he is already dead by that time..

Well, did he teach his followers NOT to carry on with raid and the plunder in any way? Iif anything, he got more and more aggressive in his old age.

Where are the teachings and when, at what year did he teach them? Yes there were tribal warfare So if his followers raid, plunder and kill people DURING HIS LIFE TIME I would certainly blame him.. but after his death ...Noooo..

As far as he became more aggressive in his old age concerned.. may be he did .. So I blame him for what he did..But we got to make sure he really did that..

Julius Streicher was an odious man who published many anti-Jewish books and pamphlets, even children's books, in Nazi Germany. He never actually injured or hurt anyone PERSONALLY, but he provided others with seeming justifications for atrocities, which they eagerly accepted, so they are not blameless. But is he, the man to preached the hate, is he blameless? Well, he was executed after the Nuremberg trials.

manfred let us not compare Julius Streicher with Muhammad

Julius Streicher (12 February 1885 – 16 October 1946) was a prominent Nazi prior to World War II. He was the founder and publisher of Der Stürmer newspaper, which became a central element of the Nazi propaganda machine. His publishing firm also released three anti-Semitic books for children, including the 1938 Der Giftpilz ("The Toadstool" or "The Poison-Mushroom"), one of the most widespread pieces of propaganda, which purported to warn about insidious dangers Jews posed by using the metaphor of an attractive yet deadly mushroom. After the war, he was convicted of crimes against humanity and executed.

we have very little OR NO PROOF On Muhammad's propaganda against Jews and Christians unlike Julius Streicher ., Now we can go through Quran pick up hate verses and blame Muhammad( I am all for that assuming that guy really said those words that are there in Quran)

So first and foremost, sure, Mohammed is responsible for the things he did personally, and that is where it ends.

Yes he is and I agree with you that his responsibility should end on the day he died

But this includes his preaching. His words. The very words that to this day can bring death and destruction. Did he know what long-term effect he may have? Most likely not. But is he culpably negligent in not considering the long-term consequences of his behaviour? My reply would be a firm yes.

No..No.. why? can't people use brain and question that guy?? HE IS DEAD.. The long term consequence of his words way after his death are not because of him, but BECAUSE OF FOOLS LIVING AFTER HIS DEATH OFTEN THEY ARE NON-MUSLIMS to start with. ..

So never mind prancing round in frocks, even the "marriage" with Aisha, which as monstrous as it is, pales into insignificance against those sermons of his. They are his biggest crime. His sword has killed many hundreds, but his word many millions.

what ?? Marrying and sleeping with Aisha is his biggest crime?? No it is not. 1000s of people who were in power must have done that., If she was child then he was a RASCAL and SODOM (sex obsessed dirty old man) that is all what he was.

Let me put this way., if we remove Allah and his messenger job., then all his criminal activities are insignificant and they are as good or as bad as any man.. any warlord, any king, any leader of a country. But before we do all that blame first thing we should know is that we know very little about this guy "Muhammad" . Here I would say we and every Muslim must read Quran and hadith with open mind, open heart ..lol.. openly with NO ONE PERSECUTING ANY ONE OR USING VIOLENCE against those who are discussing the subject to figure out what that guy really did during his life time.

You know, even to day , the problem actually lies with Non-Muslims and their governments ., Not Muslims ..

[yeezevee]

I understood that before I read this post SKB., that is OK but what are the original sources of Robert Hoyland ?? what non-Muslim texts?? where did those non-Muslim get those stories??

I suppose his references are the books written in original language. He has probably translated the quotes from those books into englishbut I am not sure.

I don't think he is an expert of Language analysis ., He is using his studies of old Christian/ Jewish/Islamic tales to tell his story of Islam..

Nope .. no...noooo., some fools make stories in the name of a person way after his death and no one question them or no one allowed to question them means "IT IS NOT HIS FAULT" I agree with all his faults when he was alive

You are assuming that some person attributed lies to muhammad.

Yes I do, if not all of Quran and hadith but most of it. off course we got to read and analyze verse by verse and event that is related to that verse or was it simply some old Christian/Jewish tales floating around..

What if muhammad really said and did those things?

well blame the guy for what he said and did but the buck stops when he is dead..

Muhammad alone is responsible for the plight of muslims. He is the culprit.

Nonsense ., he may be culprit of telling stories, but blame lies SQUARELY ON MUSLIM FOOLS who follow what he said word by word without commonsense..

IF he was not born then the world would be a different place. Muslims justify their actions by saying prophet said so and so.

well blame those IDIOTS .. not the guy who is dead 1400 years ago..

Muhammad practiced paedophilia

If he did it blame the guy, Yes you have the right to blame for his criminal activities

and it is because of him countless little girls are abused as he set the sunna for his followers. Is this not enough for you to blame muhammad?

No..No.. blame the SUNNA WRITERS, BLAME THE FOOLS who follow sunnah.., The guy is dead

I can counter you and I can counter Manfred SKB... hang on... hold your horses...lol..

Sure..

Off course i will counter you SKB

[manfred]

well I would accept the words of the Qur'an as being the words of Mohammed, maybe not all of them, maybe not accurate in every detail, but the theme of hatred of the unbelievers, particularly the Jews is repeated several times and stated very clearly. So I am pretty sure this is something Mohammed did in fact teach. The Qur'an's almost last message is surah 9. This is clear enough...

And those who follow him surely are responsible for their actions, just as Hitler's followers were. But the man who created this death cult is not responsible for his words because people had to choice to listen or not?

He too is bearing his responsibility for his words.

I wonder if you ever read the tale of Eve and the snake in the bible? The snake tricked Eve into doing something forbidden, with some weasel words and empty promises. Eve followed the advise of the snake, ate the "forbidden" apple, and then, having obtained "knowledge of good and evil", offered the apple to Adam.

Then God punishes Adam, Eve and the snake.

The allegory is entirely clear: ALL have done something wrong, one, the snake, merely speaking some words, words with big consequences, one taking bad advice and then knowingly deceiving, and one for uncritically accepting the word of another.

There are those who always say there is no truth in these old stories. Well this one has lots of teaching points.

In a way, the old story has been re-enacted: Mohammed cast as the snake, his first followers as Eve, and the modern ones as Adam.

[skynightblaze]

I don't think he is an expert of Language analysis ., He is using his studies of old Christian/ Jewish/Islamic tales to tell his story of Islam..

He may get the translations wrong on some occasion but how can he get it wrong every time?? If his translations were a complete crap then certainly someone would object to it. Do you have anyone criticizing translations made by Hoyland? Also if his translations are incorrect then where are the correct translations? Can you show them to me?

As far as the blame game is concerned, I see your point. Muhammad or any person for that matter would tell you to commit horrible crimes but you have your own brains and hence the person following muhammad is also liable to be blamed. However it is equally true that muhammad cannot be said to be faultless in any case. Ideally both (muhammad and person following him blindly) can be said to be at fault. We have got to remember that muhammad cleverly devised a cult which aims at brainwashing kids right from their childhood. When you are taught from childhood muhammad is faultless and an excellent example, it is difficult to come out of that brainwashing and think critically to see anything wrong with his actions and statements. SO muhammad gets the blame for this.

To conclude I would have to correct myself slightly and admit your point but I would still maintain that Muhammad cannot be completely put out of the picture.

[yeezevee]

I don't think he is an expert of Language analysis ., He is using his studies of old Christian/ Jewish/Islamic tales to tell his story of Islam..

He may get the translations wrong on some occasion but how can he get it wrong every time?? If his translations were a complete crap then certainly someone would object to it. Do you have anyone criticizing translations made by Hoyland? Also if his translations are incorrect then where are the correct translations? Can you show them to me?

Well I got to hit the sack but what TRANSLATIONS DID HE DO skynightblaze"? Here is all of his books and publication list can you pick of some his works and tell me what he translated and from where

To conclude I would have to correct myself slightly and admit your point but I would still maintain that Muhammad cannot be completely put out of the picture.

Slightly?? I though i was going to correct you all the way in to Islam..

[skynightblaze]

I don't think he is an expert of Language analysis ., He is using his studies of old Christian/ Jewish/Islamic tales to tell his story of Islam..

He may get the translations wrong on some occasion but how can he get it wrong every time?? If his translations were a complete crap then certainly someone would object to it. Do you have anyone criticizing translations made by Hoyland? Also if his translations are incorrect then where are the correct translations? Can you show them to me?

Well I got to hit the sack but what TRANSLATIONS DID HE DO skynightblaze"? Here is all of his books and publication list can you pick of some his works and tell me what he translated and from where

I will have to look into it. What I said was he must have translated the non muslim writings i.e quotes contained in their original language to english. For e.g we find Thomas Presbyter writings in syriac. This fellow must have got access to the book containing that quote in original syriac and then translated only the relevant part into english. I have not seen any other translation of the non muslim writings till date. I don't know why you are making a fuss over the translation. I dont see anyone raising objections over the translation of non muslim quotes.

Finally you accuse him of flawed translations of those non muslim quotes which I quoted. So where are the correct translations of those non muslim quotes? Can you show them and prove that Hoyland has not translated these early non muslim writings on islam correctly?

To conclude I would have to correct myself slightly and admit your point but I would still maintain that Muhammad cannot be completely put out of the picture.

Slightly?? I though i was going to correct you all the way in to Islam..

Allah and muhammad can forget their claims and join atheism but me converting to islam is impossible
Btw even you need to correct yourself. It is not just the blind follower of islam at fault but it is also muhammad at fault for 2 reasons given below:

1) Muhammad invented this shitty commands and said they were for all time
2) muhammad devised a system wherein children are brainwashed early. This affects ability to think clearly and critically. This brain washing process started during muhammad's time itself.

Btw expect the unexpected now! A Mughal post with walls of texts is over due! Just when the topic gets more and more interesting and you expect the next poster to contribute and carry forward the topic you are suddenly faced with a wall of text!!!. Irrespective of the content or nature of topic, it will start with DEAR Friends, we got to understand what quran has in mind for humanity and how mullahs have altered its meaning .. It is so disturbing to the reader and link is completely broken..

[yeezevee]

Allah and muhammad can forget their claims and join atheism but me converting to islam is impossible
Btw even you need to correct yourself. It is not just the blind follower of islam at fault but it is also muhammad at fault for 2 reasons given below:

1) Muhammad invented this shitty commands and said they were for all time
2) muhammad devised a system wherein children are brainwashed early. This affects ability to think clearly and critically. This brain washing process started during muhammad's time itself.

Off course I need to correct on many aspects of my life my understanding of life, i need to learn and i need to improve in many ways.. But that correction is NOT needed with reference to "Muhammad".

Even if Muhammad invented something which I don't think he did., and if they are shitty commands, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE HIS ALLAH/GOD SHITTY COMMANDS OR HIS HYPOTHESIS OF ALLAH GOD that allegedly said by him. As far as Muhammad devised a system wherein children are brainwashed early is concerned, again you can blame him doing that in his life time during his sermons/talks. but after his death, the fault lies with the followers of HIS SHITTY COMMANDS OR HIS HYPOTHESIS OF ALLAH GOD but NOT Muhammad. He was a man of his times and his environment. So SKB in short, i would say you need to correct your opinion on Muhammad.

Btw expect the unexpected now! A Mughal post with walls of texts is over due!

Spoiler! :

Just when the topic gets more and more interesting and you expect the next poster to contribute and carry forward the topic you are suddenly faced with a wall of text!!!. Irrespective of the content or nature of topic, it will start with DEAR Friends, we got to understand what quran has in mind for humanity and how mullahs have altered its meaning .. It is so disturbing to the reader and link is completely broken

..

That is OK., I don't mind Mughal's text and I don't mind any text as long as I have the right to question and as long as no one is forcing me to accept any of his/her texts. Frankly speaking Mughal may be wrong (in fact is wrong in his Quran translations)., but he is still a great guy and a wonderful long time member of this forum ..

So get back to the subject of the thread The significance of "Reliance of the traveler" an stop correcting me on "Muhammad" SKB.....

[yeezevee]

I don't think he is an expert of Language analysis ., He is using his studies of old Christian/ Jewish/Islamic tales to tell his story of Islam..

He may get the translations wrong on some occasion but how can he get it wrong every time?? If his translations were a complete crap then certainly someone would object to it. Do you have anyone criticizing translations made by Hoyland? Also if his translations are incorrect then where are the correct translations? Can you show them to me?

yeezevee: Well I got to hit the sack but what TRANSLATIONS DID HE DO skynightblaze"? Here is all of his books and publication list can you pick of some his works and tell me what he translated and from where

I will have to look into it. What I said was he must have translated the non muslim writings i.e quotes contained in their original language to english. For e.g we find Thomas Presbyter writings in syriac. This fellow must have got access to the book containing that quote in original syriac and then translated only the relevant part into english. I have not seen any other translation of the non muslim writings till date. I don't know why you are making a fuss over the translation. I dont see anyone raising objections over the translation of non muslim quotes.

1). what translations of "Thomas Presbyter writings in syriac texts" did Robert G. Holland do?? could you please give the link or posts you wrote about it?

2). Please list names Non-Muslim folks and the times they lived and their quotes on Muhammad..

Finally you accuse him of flawed translations of those non muslim quotes which I quoted. So where are the correct translations of those non muslim quotes? Can you show them and prove that Hoyland has not translated these early non muslim writings on islam correctly? ..

..
well getting back to that "Reliance of the traveler" or Robert G. Holland., Again SKB. No..Noo..

I did not accuse him of flawed translations., He is a great guy., what all I said was "I don't think he is an expert of Language analysis ., He is using his studies of old Christian/ Jewish/Islamic tales to tell his story of Islam"

any way let us discuss bit more detail on that " writings of NON-MUSLIM WRITERS on Muhammad during his life time"

[skynightblaze]

Off course I need to correct on many aspects of my life my understanding of life, i need to learn and i need to improve in many ways.. But that correction is NOT needed with reference to "Muhammad".

I think otherwise. Let me prove that to you.

Even if Muhammad invented something which I don't think he did., and if they are shitty commands, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE HIS ALLAH/GOD SHITTY COMMANDS OR HIS HYPOTHESIS OF ALLAH GOD that allegedly said by him. As far as Muhammad devised a system wherein children are brainwashed early is concerned, again you can blame him doing that in his life time during his sermons/talks. but after his death, the fault lies with the followers of HIS SHITTY COMMANDS OR HIS HYPOTHESIS OF ALLAH GOD but NOT Muhammad. He was a man of his times and his environment. So SKB in short, i would say you need to correct your opinion on Muhammad.

I will show you your inconsistency in reasoning here. Whether Muhammad is alive or dead does not matter at all here. This is where you make a mistake because you think that he being dead or alive makes a difference. It does not! See below..

Let us take the case where quran prescribes hate for disbelievers especially jews. According to your logic , when muhammad was alive and when he said those words, he should be blamed but we should not blame him for the same today because he is dead. Now the question is what has changed between the time he was alive and today when he is no longer alive? The answer is : Only form of his teachings has changed. When he was alive, it was verbal and when he is dead, it is in form of a text.
So according to you if some nasty content is delivered verbally live, the author is to be blamed but when the same content is delivered in form of a text , the author does not take the blame. Does this make sense? A change in way of representation of a teaching cannot acquit the author for his nasty thoughts.

I also want to ask you a counter question here. Since you do not want to blame muhammad after being dead why would you even want to blame muhammad when he was alive regarding the instruction to hate jews? I mean we can say the same thing i.e. his followers should have used their brains. You will find thousands of guys telling you different things and if you keep following each one of them without thinking you are to be blamed and not the person telling you. What is wrong with that thinking?

That is OK., I don't mind Mughal's text and I don't mind any text as long as I have the right to question and as long as no one is forcing me to accept any of his/her texts. Frankly speaking Mughal may be wrong (in fact is wrong in his Quran translations)., but he is still a great guy and a wonderful long time member of this forum ..

Well I do mind Mughal's long walls of text because they serve no purpose at all. Mughal has already been shown plenty of problems with his reasoning but he keeps repeating the same arguments again and again. Honestly tell me how many people would be reading those lengthy irrelevant posts? I guess apart from you none does that. Even you do not read the entire post. I am sure of it .It is no different than trolling.

Now Mughal is an old member here and he has the right to express himself so I do not raise a complaint against him. Once upon a time, he was a sensible guy but he has turned deaf, dumb and blind just like the disbelievers in quran.

So get back to the subject of the thread The significance of "Reliance of the traveler" an stop correcting me on "Muhammad" SKB.....

I have showed the problem with your reasoning above. Inspite of that , if you wish to stick to your stance then we need to agree to disagree.

[yeezevee]

SKB..SKB..SKB... I am completely lost...

Spoiler! :

Off course I need to correct on many aspects of my life my understanding of life, i need to learn and i need to improve in many ways.. But that correction is NOT needed with reference to "Muhammad".

I think otherwise. Let me prove that to you.

Even if Muhammad invented something which I don't think he invented anything ., and if they are shitty commands, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE HIS ALLAH/GOD SHITTY COMMANDS OR HIS HYPOTHESIS OF ALLAH GOD that allegedly said by him. As far as Muhammad devised a system wherein children are brainwashed early is concerned, again you can blame him doing that in his life time during his sermons/talks. But after his death, the fault lies with the followers following of HIS SHITTY COMMANDS OR HIS HYPOTHESIS OF ALLAH GOD but NOT Muhammad. He was a man of his times and his environment. So SKB in short, i would say you need to correct your opinion on Muhammad.

I will show you your inconsistency in reasoning here. Whether Muhammad is alive or dead does not matter at all here. This is where you make a mistake because you think that he being dead or alive makes a difference. It does not! See below..

Let us take the case where quran prescribes hate for disbelievers especially jews. According to your logic , when muhammad was alive and when he said those words, he should be blamed but we should not blame him for the same today because he is dead. Now the question is what has changed between the time he was alive and today when he is no longer alive? The answer is : Only form of his teachings has changed. When he was alive, it was verbal and when he is dead, it is in form of a text.
So according to you if some nasty content is delivered verbally live, the author is to be blamed but when the same content is delivered in form of a text , the author does not take the blame. Does this make sense? A change in way of representation of a teaching cannot acquit the author for his nasty thoughts.

I also want to ask you a counter question here. Since you do not want to blame muhammad after being dead why would you even want to blame muhammad when he was alive regarding the instruction to hate jews? I mean we can say the same thing i.e. his followers should have used their brains. You will find thousands of guys telling you different things and if you keep following each one of them without thinking you are to be blamed and not the person telling you. What is wrong with that thinking?

That is OK., I don't mind Mughal's text and I don't mind any text as long as I have the right to question and as long as no one is forcing me to accept any of his/her texts. Frankly speaking Mughal may be wrong (in fact is wrong in his Quran translations)., but he is still a great guy and a wonderful long time member of this forum ..

Well I do mind Mughal's long walls of text because they serve no purpose at all. Mughal has already been shown plenty of problems with his reasoning but he keeps repeating the same arguments again and again. Honestly tell me how many people would be reading those lengthy irrelevant posts? I guess apart from you none does that. Even you do not read the entire post. I am sure of it .It is no different than trolling.

Now Mughal is an old member here and he has the right to express himself so I do not raise a complaint against him. Once upon a time, he was a sensible guy but he has turned deaf, dumb and blind just like the disbelievers in quran.

So get back to the subject of the thread "The significance of "Reliance of the traveler" an stop correcting me on "Muhammad" SKB.....

I have showed the problem with your reasoning above. Inspite of that , if you wish to stick to your stance then we need to agree to disagree.

1). Again.. I must have said innumerable times., in fact i said in this thread itself that

"BLAME MUHAMMAD FOR WHAT HE SAID AND WHAT HE DID "..

2). When I used these words "during his life time" it means that is about what he did, not about what he said. You can take Quran, you can take hadith, you can take so-called sunnah and assuming all that is said by him, and some of it appears to be criminal so "YOU CAN BLAME HIM".

3). I do that all the time. you can open any of my post on Muhammad for the past 12 years you will find that in this forum itself. I still blame Muhammad for what he said.. AND I TAKE ALL THAT FROM ISLAMIC SOURCES AND BOOKS NOT FROM NON-MUSLIMS of his time. Because I have nothing or very little on Muhammad from non-Muslims during his life time or even with-in with 50 years of his death.

4). Forget Mughal's posts.. I question him all the time on what he writes.

5th and important thing again.. let me paste here from previous post

1). what translations of "Thomas Presbyter writings in syriac texts" did Robert G. Holland do?? could you please give the link or posts you wrote about it?

2). Please list names Non-Muslim folks and the times they lived and their quotes on Muhammad..

So don't drift away ..focus..focus.. on the subject.. lol..

[yeezevee]

So here I wrote something about the Opening post of enceladus which gives link to that book "Reliance of the traveler" by that Nuh Ha Mim Keller who is a simple guy, great guy and a converted Muslim. Mr. Keller was born in US of A and converted to Islam from Christianity in 1977. There are/were plenty of people like Mr. Keller who born in west and are sincere believers of this supremo super god of religions/religious books but some how gets confused confused by their respective religious texts and move in to Islam without really reading in to what actually is there is Islamic religious texts.

Such unfortunate people get misled by themselves and inflict Misfortunes on other human beings by their stupidity. People like him had a freedom to be stupid and be stupid through out their life. That is fine as an individual they must have freedom to get in to whatever the faith they like but what they do is open Islamic schools and make some Islamic robots who out of these so-called Sufi schools of west can read themselves these Islamic manuals and potentially can end up in the other end of Islam to become brutish characters like Osama bin ladens , Ayman al-Zawahiris, Abubakar Shekau of Nigeria or That American born Anwar al-Awlaki or that Boston Marathon Bombing Chechen brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. That is the problem with Islam.

Any ways some guys who are students of Mr. Nuh Ha Mim Keller do join FFI for e.g viewtopic.php?f=39&t=9719 was one of them. guys like that argued with me by personal messages on "How wonderful Islam is and how wonderful are people like Nuh Ha Mim Keller". So to answer "enceladus" openeing post

Hi all -

I've known of the existence of the Islamic text "Reliance of the traveler" for some time. However, I've never really dug into it and found out about it.

A couple of questions.
Who wrote it and when?
Is it considered "sacred" like the other Islamic texts?
Many thanks in advance. ............

In short to answer those two questions, that book is written by an American Convert Mr. Nuh Ha Mim Keller and NO it is not considered as one of Sacred Islamic texts..

The only so-called Sacred Texts in Islam is 1) Quran, 2) Hadith, and 3) So-called Sunnah.. The life of Prophet of Islam as an example to his followers.. That is it.. Other than that there ARE NO SACRED SCRIPTURES in Islam.

[yeezevee]

Links of Islamic sites that refute & Question And Mr. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, his background before he became Muslim Nuh Ha Mim Keller

Born in 1954 in the farm country of the northwestern United States, I was raised in a religious family as a Roman Catholic. The Church provided a spiritual world that was unquestionable in my childhood, if anything more real than the physical world around me, but as I grew older, and especially after I entered a Catholic university and read more, my relation to the religion became increasingly called into question, in belief and practice.

..........To one another, the clergy spoke about flexibility and liturgical relevance, but to ordinary Catholics they seemed to be groping in the dark. God does not change, nor the needs of the human soul, and there was no new revelation from heaven. Yet we rang in the changes, week after week, year after year; adding, subtracting, changing the language from Latin to English, finally bringing in guitars and folk music. Priests explained and explained as laymen shook their heads. The search for relevance left large numbers convinced that there had not been much in the first place. ..............

........A second reason was a number of doctrinal difficulties, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, which no one in the history of the world, neither priest nor layman, had been able to explain in a convincing way, and which resolved itself, to the common mind at least, in a sort of godhead-by-committee, shared between God the Father, who ruled the world from heaven; His son Jesus Christ, who saved humanity on earth; and the Holy Ghost, who was pictured as a white dove and appeared to have a considerably minor role.............

.....Another point of incredulity was the trading of the Church in stocks and bonds in the hereafter it called indulgences. Do such and such and so-and-so many years will be remitted from your sentence in purgatory that had seemed so false to Martin Luther at the outset of the Reformation. .......

.................I found it so rambling and devoid of a coherent thread that it was difficult to think of a way to base one's life upon it. Only later did I learn how Christians solve the difficulty in practice, Protestants by creating sectarian theologies, each emphasizing the texts of their sect and downplaying the rest; Catholics by downplaying it all, except the snippets mentioned in their liturgy. Something seemed lacking in a sacred book that could not be read as an integral whole.

.........I studied philosophy at the university and it taught me to ask two things of whoever claimed to have the truth: What do you mean, and how do you know? When I asked these questions of my own religious tradition, I found no answers, and realized that Christianity had slipped from my hands. I then embarked on a search that is perhaps not unfamiliar to many young people in the West, a quest for meaning in a meaningless world....

Well he is indeed right on what he writes about Christian doctrine of Church. Now the question is, did Mr . Nuh Ha Mim Keller ask same/similar questions about Islam when he read Quran & hadith and became a Muslim??

Anyways let me add Islamic links that questions Mr. Nuh Ha Mim Keller and his Islam.. If he would have been born/ living anywhere in the lands like Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DEAD BY NOW..

Refuting Nuh Ha Mim Keller

Is Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller running a cult?

Suhaib Webb Opposes Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller & Sunnipath.

Beware of Hamza Yusuf, Nuh Ha mim Keller, and sufis

Islamic scholars continue to declare each other deviant

[manfred]

Ehm... not quite...

The text is much older, late medieval.

'Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper, also commonly known by its shorter title Reliance of the Traveller) is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence. The author of the main text is 14th-century scholar Shihabuddin Abu al-'Abbas Ahmad ibn an-Naqib al-Misri (AH 702-769 / AD 1302–1367). Al-Misri who based his work on the previous Shafi'i works of Imam Nawawi and Imam Abu Ishaq as-Shirazi. Ibn Naqib follows the order of Shirazi's al-Muhadhdhab (The Rarefaction) and the conclusions of Nawawi's Minhaj at-Talibin (The Seeker's Road). This work consists of the soundest positions of the Shafi'i school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_of_the_Traveller

However,

Nuh Ha Mim Keller provided a TRANSLATION into English, which made the book much better known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuh_Ha_Mim_Keller


However, it is true that it is not considered a "sacred" text, but nonetheless it is used like a major source book for shariah.

[yeezevee]

Ehm... not quite...

The text is much older, late medieval.

well we are only talking about opening post of enceladus that links to Mr. Keller's book

'Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper, also commonly known by its shorter title Reliance of the Traveller) is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence. ...........

well as far as Islamic jurisprudence is concerned there are plenty apart from that Shafi'i school

The schools of Thought

The schools of Sunni Islam are each named by students of the classical jurist who taught them. The Sunni schools (and where they are commonly found) are

Hanafi (Turkey, the Balkans, Central Asia, Indian subcontinent, China and Egypt)
Maliki (North Africa, West Africa and several of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf)
Shafi'i (Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, East Africa, Yemen, Somalia and southern parts of India)
Hanbali (Arabia).
Zahiri (minority communities in Morocco and Pakistan)
Qurtubi No longer exists
Laythi No longer exists

These schools share many of their rulings, but differ on the particular hadiths they accept as authentic and the weight they give to analogy or reason (qiyas) in deciding difficulties.

The Shiite schools comprise:

Jafari (Iran, Iraq)
Zaydi
Abathi (Oman)

Famous Classical Muslim Jurists (Usoolis)

Nouman bin Thabit Abu Hanifa
Mohammed Idris al-Shafii
Malik bin Anas
Ahmad bin Hanbal
Amidi
Ghazali
Sarkhasi
Asnawi
Abu Yusuf
Shaybani
Imam Qurtibi
Layth bin Sa'ad
Sufian bin 'Uyayna
Ja'far al-Sadiq

in fact we discussed here and there in ffi
viewtopic.php?p=131013
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8268
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2537

However, it is true that it is not considered a "sacred" text, but nonetheless it is used like a major source book for shariah.

Again all those Imams, Mullahs, schools and their SHARIA sh!t all comes from hadith and they often fight each other .. So sharia laws of Islam in the present days are actually irrelevant and nonsense but Question to Muslim bums here is what Sharia laws are based on Quran and which Sharia laws are based on hadith?

[skynightblaze]

SKB..SKB..SKB... I am completely lost...

Glad that I managed to confuse you but that's just like adding a drop to an almighty ocean. You have already been lost for many many years. We will see live example below...

1). Again.. I must have said innumerable times., in fact i said in this thread itself that

"BLAME MUHAMMAD FOR WHAT HE SAID AND WHAT HE DID "..

2). When I used these words"during his life time" it means that is about what he did, not about what he said. You can take Quran, you can take hadith, you can take so-called sunnah and assuming all that is said by him, and some of it appears to be criminal so "YOU CAN BLAME HIM".

I asked you why you blame muhammad for his words when he was alive/ during his life time if you do not want to blame him for his words when he was dead. Your response was the quote 2. Can you spot the contradictory quotes (quote 1 and 2)? I have marked them in red in the 2 quotes above. You need to decide what you want to say exactly. So tell me clearly without confusing things ..

1)Should muhammad be blamed for his words during his life time?

2) Should muhammad be blamed for his words today i.e. after he is dead.

From what I gathered your answer to question 1 is yes and your answer to question 2 is NO. I am interested to know why you are giving different answers because the same points that you raised for question 2 can be raised for question 1.

3). I do that all the time. you can open any of my post on Muhammad for the past 12 years you will find that in this forum itself. I still blame Muhammad for what he said.. AND I TAKE ALL THAT FROM ISLAMIC SOURCES AND BOOKS NOT FROM NON-MUSLIMS of his time. Because I have nothing or very little on Muhammad from non-Muslims during his life time or even with-in with 50 years of his death.

I don't think you read the link that I gave you. Please read it and you will find a lot of confirmation of islamic history. We can with 100% certainty say that non muslim writers of 7th and 8th century also thought of him as a criminal.

1). what translations of "Thomas Presbyter writings in syriac texts" did Robert G. Holland do?? could you please give the link or posts you wrote about it?

2). Please list names Non-Muslim folks and the times they lived and their quotes on Muhammad..

So don't drift away ..focus..focus.. on the subject.. lol..[/quote]

Yeezevee everything is given in the link itself. You are thoroughly confused here and raising irrelevant questions. Forget about translations... Can you show me what is the wrong with the quotes in the link? The link is documenting all the references to muhammad made by non muslim writers living in 7th and 8th century. If you read the quotes you will easily conclude that muhammad was a criminal. I am not understanding your exact problem with the link and its content.

[yeezevee]

..good.. good.. I am glad to see and read a decent discussion in ffi forum after a long time.. So SKB as usual taking pot shots so let me try to clear his understanding of my posts on "blaming Muhammad".

"yeezevee": .......SKB..SKB..SKB... I am completely lost...

"skynightblaze":Glad that I managed to confuse you but that's just like adding a drop to an almighty ocean. You have already been lost for many many years. We will see live example below...

well that is good I can not question that... So SKB posts quotes of yeezevee

yeezevee: .....

1). Again.. I must have said innumerable times., in fact i said in this thread itself that

" BLAME MUHAMMAD FOR WHAT HE SAID AND WHAT HE DID "

Yeezevee": ......When I used these words"during his life time" it means that is about what he did, not about what he said. You can take Quran, you can take hadith, you can take so-called sunnah and assuming all that is said by him, and some of it appears to be criminal so "YOU CAN BLAME HIM".

OK........ there seems to be some confusion, it often happens if we cut and paste from different posts., let me paste and highlight that again in different color

"BLAME MUHAMMAD FOR WHAT HE SAID AND WHAT HE DID " .... yeezevee

but make sure that is indeed what he said & did for which everyone including me often blames that guy.

I wonder whether that clears SKB's problem of blaming Muhammad. And other point I would like to explain the readers is, Let us not blame Muhammad for "What ISLAMIC IDIOTS do & say'" in his name way after his death 100s and 1000s of years after his death. Blame those Islamic scoundrels from caliphs to Mullahs who do criminal activities in his name.

The 2nd point we should consider here is, assuming Muhammad was a real character, we can also blame him due the criminal activities of his alleged companions of Muhammad during his life time. That is in the sense, the guy could have been a in-life living role Model to rascals like Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman ibn Affan, Ali ibn Abi Talib etc..etc...

But I don't want to blame that guy(if he was real) for what Islamic scoundrels do and did in 15th century 16, 20th or in 21st century. Did I make it clear to you on "How to blame Muhammad" "skynightblaze"??

[yeezevee]

So i still need to go through that Peter Kirby link of Christian origins of Islam and this little 10 lines of Doctrina Jacobi and learning about the guy and learning about what actually he wrote about that Historicity of alleged Muhammad and his character took me more than 3 hrs first let me put here Peter Kirby's words and go around it..

Doctrina Jacobi (July 634)

Jacob, himself a convert, wrote to encourage Christian faith in Jews of Carthage, forcibly converted in 632, in a tract that was completed before "the thirteenth of July in the seventh indiction," i.e. 634, when Jacob left Carthage. In it his cousin Justus appears telling how he heard of the killing of a member of the imperial guard, or candidatus, in a letter from his brother Abraham in Caesarea, in which the following appears.

When the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men's blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible. (Doctrina Jacobi V.16, 209. [p. 57]

)

anyways what does it say about Muhammad?.. IT SAYS VERY LITTLE and it is allegedly written in 634 ~ 2years after the death of Muhammad and that too cousin Justus of this Jacobi appears to be telling " how he heard of the killing of a member of the imperial guard, or candidatus, in a letter from his brother Abraham in Caesarea" that statement from that guy gives no information on Prophet of Islam... any ways let us explore more detail on that Doctrina Jacobi in the next post . Peter Kirby writes that "Jacob, himself a convert, "., I am not sure from which religion to which religion he converted but let us do bit more detailed research on "Jacobi Doctrina " .. Anyways this is worth watching



And she is - Prof. Dame Averil Cameron ., She is also contemporary historian Islamic/middle east Historian similar to Patricia Crone Retired from Oxford.. her works/books

The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity: AD 395-600 (The Routledge History of the Ancient World) by Averil Cameron

Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse (Sather Classical Lectures) by Averil Cameron

Byzantine Matters by Averil Cameron (Apr 6, 2014)

Procopius and the Sixth Century by Averil Cameron

Late Antiquity on the Eve of Islam (The Formation of the Classical Islamic World) by Averil Cameron (

The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East: States, Resources and Armies (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam... by Averil Cameron, Lawrence I. Conrad and G. R. D. King

So she wrote plenty of books on the history around 6th to 10th century