The significance of "Reliance of the traveler"

[skynightblaze]

..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".

Well Yeezevee I am stating the truth. You always appear confused to me.. Here is another example..

Hmm I didn't know there is folder on this subject .. let us make it up to date...

viewtopic.php?p=209984#p209984

Now did you check who the author of that thread was ? As far as taking potshots is concerned, I take them at my enemies but I don't see you as enemy.

Also the more I try to understand you, the more confused I get... Initially you say that I can blame muhammad but then at the end you again say what fools do in 15th or 20th century should not be blamed upon muhammad. Should we not blame muhammad even if it's a teaching from muhammad? Ofcourse those fools need to be blamed for what they do but muhammad also has his share provided he taught the same.

Finally I realize none is getting the blame ! If I debate more on who gets the blame then probably I have to take the entire blame for what muhammad, yeezevee or caliphs or islamic baboons do So forget the blame game..

Lets talk about Doctrina Jacobi.. Read the colored words in the quote. They speak about muhammad being a criminal...

(Doctrina Jacobi V.16, 209. [p. 57]
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.

[The Cat]

Lets talk about Doctrina Jacobi.. Read the colored words in the quote. They speak about muhammad being a criminal...

Let us read it hilighted differently

(Doctrina Jacobi V.16, 209. [p. 57]
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. (1) 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. (2)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?" (3) 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." (4) 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 (5).

1. Jews were overjoyed.
--Jews were allied with the Saracens. That's contradicting the Islamic tradition...

2. 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.
--The Saracens were a well-known specific federation living in the biblical Edom area. That's far from any Quraysh 'Meccans'. He's a Christian prophet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracen

3-4. "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?"
--This prophet, between 634-636, is still unknown. Having recently appeared. Nothing to do with the Arabic potentate traditionally shown

5. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.
--Here only do we have a very weak link with the 'Islamic' prophet we call Muhammad.


Points about John of Damascus.
-He doesn't talk about 'Muslims' but of the ''Ishmaelites Heresy'', thus of a Christian heresy.
-He didn't write 'named Muhammad', but ''surnamed Mamed''. That's disinformation...

[manfred]

Points about John of Damascus.
-He doesn't talk about 'Muslims' but of the ''Ishmaelites Heresy'', thus of a Christian heresy.
-He didn't write 'named Muhammad', but ''surnamed Mamed''. That's disinformation...

Both is quite correct. In fact, Islam, by many theologians right up to to the 18th century was often described as a Christian heresy, because they concentrated only on the teachings of Islam around Jesus, and did not really look at the whole picture. In a sense you could say it is a Christian heresy, or a Jewish one if you like, but is also rather more than that.

And as to how he named Mohammed, that to me is a minor issue, because the name was pronounced in various ways, it still is. So he spelled it wrong, maybe he did not hear it pronounced clearly or see it written down.

Nobody is suggesting he got every detail about Islam correct, but he is a good independent source for the existence of early Muslims and the fact that they base their beliefs on this man Mohammed. Because of the date of his writing he is an important witness to the historicity of the man Mohammed.

Interestingly he also refers to the second surah as a "Book" (in fact he calls it "a book mots dire") written by Mohammed, so this suggests he wrote at a time when the current Qur'an was not at least universally used.

Sure, is understanding of Islam was not perfect (is anyone's?) and he wrote from a certain vantage point and for a specific purpose, to warn Christians against Islam.

[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".

Well Yeezevee I am stating the truth. You always appear confused to me.. Here is another example..

that is all right SKB but "who opened a thread and when" is not an example of confusion . I don't think you read between the lines of what I write SKB..

Hmm I didn't know there is folder on this subject .. let us make it up to date...

viewtopic.php?p=209984#p209984

Now did you check who the author of that thread was ? As far as taking potshots is concerned,I take them at my enemies but I don't see you as enemy.

what enemy and why are you considering in a debate of understanding of Muhammad and his character as enemy verses you? or why are you considering Muslims or Muhammad as your enemy? Any ways that is irrelevant..

Also the more I try to understand you, the more confused I get... Initially you say that I can blame muhammad but then at the end you again say what fools do in 15th or 20th century should not be blamed upon muhammad.

So you are getting confused?? goooood.. I do that all the time. I confuse Muslims as well as Non-Muslims.

Should we not blame muhammad even if it's a teaching from muhammad? Ofcourse those fools need to be blamed for what they do but muhammad also has his share provided he taught the same.

Oohufff.. I thought I clarified that blaming bussiness.,

1) Yessss., you have the right to blame Muhammad for his alleged teachings and his alleged doings

BUT NOoooooooooo., after 100s and 1000s of years of his death, some other fool is teaching his criminal doctrine (IF IT IS CRIMINAL) and some other fools follow, the leaders and politicians of these fools do not say or can not say anything means BLAME THE FOOLS., not the guy "Muhammad" who may be real or a created character of early Islam. Why blame Muhammad for the actions of 20th/21st century Muslim fools unless you have an ulterior motive of INSULTING MUSLIMS BY INSULTING THEIR PROPHET because of their actions that may or may not be due to his alleged teachings?? Your motive appears to be (often I also do taking that hadith) if we insult Muhammad hence we insult the Muslims so they may leave Islam..

Finally I realize none is getting the blame ! If I debate more on who gets the blame then probably I have to take the entire blame for what muhammad, yeezevee or caliphs or islamic baboons do So forget the blame game..

No..No... nooooo.. I take my blame, you & your Muslims friends (lol) should take your/their share of blame for NOT reading Quran properly as a possible source of HISTORY of its time(not as word of voodoo doll) . And..and If Muhammad was real.. he should take his blame. The caliph bums or Islamic baboons should take their blame SKB. no one escapes from me.

Lets talk about Doctrina Jacobi.. Read the colored words in the quote. They speak about muhammad being a criminal...

(Doctrina Jacobi V.16, 209. [p. 57]
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.

O.K. That is important.. Now do you have only thosw few lines or do you have anything else from that CONVERTED Jacobi on Muhammad and his Conduct? Well My opinion on that little story from alleged jacobi's cousin (??) is as I said before..

yeezevee: 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

But let us go little deeper on that Jacobi and others from that Peter Kirby link..

Doctrina Jacobi nuper Baptizati, in G. Dagron and V. Déroche, "Juifs et chrétiens dans l'Orient du VIIe siècle", Travaux et Mémoires 11 (1991) 17-248. -- Edition of the Greek text with French translation.

Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. ISBN 0-521-21133-6

Doctrina Jacobi, a Christian text written in or about 640 CE. The text has a very strong Anti-semitic character. It describes a Jewish discussion set in 634, in which a letter by a Palestinian Jew with the name Abraham is read.

We Jews are full of joy. They say that a prophet has appeared among the Saracens, and that he proclaims the advent of the anointed one, the Messiah who is to come. When I, Abraham, had gone to Sykamina, I consulted an old man well-versed in the Scriptures on this matter, asking: 'What is your opinion, my master and teacher, on this prophet who has appeared among the Saracens?'

With a mighty sigh, he replied: 'He is an impostor. Prophets don't come with sword and chariot. Truly the events of today are the works of disorder. I fear that the Messiah that came first, the one that is worshipped by the Christians, was indeed sent by God, and that we will be found by the Devil. Didn't Isaiah say that we, Jews, 'are to have a heart of stone full of errors until the end of the world'? But go now, master Abraham, and find out for yourself about this prophet.
Searching and toiling, I, Abraham, was learned from people who had met him: 'You won't find any truth in this prophet, only bloodshed; for he says he possesses the keys of paradise, which is incredible.' (Doctrina Jacobi 5.16)

It is impossible to establish the historical truth of this story. Maybe Muhammad considered himself the Messiah, or just presented himself as the Messiah in order to be accepted by the Jews, or was thought to have claimed to be the Messiah by the author of this text.

..

well The Cat did good Job..

[The Cat]

n a sense you could say it is a Christian heresy, or a Jewish one if you like, but is also rather more than that.

And as to how he named Mohammed, that to me is a minor issue, because the name was pronounced in various ways, it still is. So he spelled it wrong, maybe he did not hear it pronounced clearly or see it written down.

The important thing to remember here is that he's ignorant of a brand new religion called Islam.

For someone as informed as he was, knowing it was a surname, to write 'Mamed' isn't a minor issue to me.
Sebeos I think wrote Mahmet, etc. It means that the 'Islamic' tradition wasn't that much established at all.

Then we can't build on over such disinformations. That's the difference between history and historicity.

[yeezevee]

Points about John of Damascus.
-He doesn't talk about 'Muslims' but of the ''Ishmaelites Heresy'', thus of a Christian heresy.
-He didn't write 'named Muhammad', but ''surnamed Mamed''. That's disinformation...

Both is quite correct. In fact, Islam, by many theologians right up to to the 18th century was often described as a Christian heresy, because they concentrated only on the teachings of Islam around Jesus, and did not really look at the whole picture. In a sense you could say it is a Christian heresy, or a Jewish one if you like, but is also rather more than that. ...........

18th century?? who are those theologians manfred are they Christian Religious Intellectuals? Muslim or Jewish??

....
The important thing to remember here is that he's ignorant of a brand new religion called Islam. ...

Hello The Cat, I guess you are talking about "John of Damascus"? More important than "whether John of Damascus was ignorant of this new religion or not " is., whether this new religion and its books is from allah/god?? Who was this Muhammad? and was he real??

Also I wonder whether you could read through this link viewtopic.php?p=210037#p210037 that has text from "Islamic intellectuals" on existence of Muhammad whose character / conduct that is described in hadith and some in Quran..


well on the way let me add what Peter Kirby's christian origins.com of Islam says

John of Damascus (wr. 730s)

[John of Damascus, De haeresibus C/CI, 60-61 (pp. 485-486):]

There is also the people-deceiving cult (threskeia) of the Ishmaelites, the forerunner of the Antichrist, which prevails until now. It derives from Ishmael, who was born to Abraham from Hagar, wherefore they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites. And they call them Saracens, inasmuch as they were [sent away] empty-handed by Sarah (ek tes Sarras kenous); for it was said to the angel by Hagar: "Sarah has sent me away empty-handed" (cf. Genesis xxi. 10, 14).

These, then, were idolators and worshippers of the morning star and Aphrodite whom in fact they called Chabar in their own language, which means "great." So until the times of Heraclius they were plain idolators. From that time till now a false prophet appeared among them, surnamed Muhammad (Mamed), who, having happened upon the Old and the New Testament and apparently having conversed, in like manner, with an Arian monk, put together his own heresy. And after ingratiating himself with the people by a pretence of piety, he spread rumours of a scripture (graphe) brought down to him from heaven. So, having drafted some ludicrous doctrines in his book, he handed over to them this form of worship (to sebas).

And I don't think that blue colored text of "John of Damascus " says anything about Prophet of Islam and his conduct....

Saint John of Damascus (Greek: Ἰωάννης ὁ Δαμασκηνός / Iōannēs ho Damaskēnos; Latin: Iohannes Damascenus; Arabic: يوحنا الدمشقي / ALA-LC: Yūḥannā ad-Dimashqī; also known as John Damascene, and as Χρυσορρόας / Chrysorrhoas, literally "streaming with gold"—i.e., "the golden speaker"; c. 675 or 676 – 4 December 749) was a Syrian monk and priest. Born and raised in Damascus, he died at his monastery, Mar Saba, near Jerusalem.

John was born into a prominent family known as Mansour (Arabic: المنصور‎ / al-Manṣūr, "the victorious one") in Damascus in the 7th century AD. His full name was Yuhanna (or Yanah) ibn Mansur ibn Sarjun (Arabic: منصور بن سرجون‎), named for his grandfather Mansur, who had been responsible for the taxes of the region under the Emperor Heraclius

[manfred]

Well your quote is from a time BEFORE ANY hadith were collected and written down. Some of the "companions" were still alive, and a great many Muslims would have known a "companion".

Nobody says that John of Damascus is not "biased". He simply writes down what he thinks about Islam.

He mentions in you quote Mohammed by name (but he misspelled it...) He says that he took texts from the Old and NEW Testament and "made his own heresy". Well, we have a texts called the Qur'an that uses the Old and New testament as sources (amongst others) and we are told in many sources that a guy called Mohammed had something to do with that book. John also mentions a particular surah of the Qur'an which he calls "the heifer". He also mentions that this Mohammed claimed to have had "revelations".

So my point simply is this: in his texts we have a very early unmistakeable reference to Mohammed, from a time that the man was still a living memory.

My point was not so much about any points that he raised, but that he therefore is a good historical source for the existence of a of real Mohammed.

I am not sure how you can highlight a section that clearly is about Mohammed and Islam, and then say it says nothing about the "prophet". The "prophet" is a fictitious character. John talks about a man, a real one, someone who made the CLAIM to be a prophet, something he deplores.


And Islam was NEVER really properly studied by Christian theologians in great detail, until relatively recent times. This sound surprising, but, unlike Muslims, Christians do not have a obsession with the beliefs of other people. In fact, for many centuries, it was believed that Islam is a sort of Christian heresy, which it is in way, but that is only half the story. Ignorance about Islam is even today widespread even among many highly educated Christian clergy.

[skynightblaze]

1. Jews were overjoyed.
--Jews were allied with the Saracens. That's contradicting the Islamic tradition...

That's an exaggerated conclusion. All it says is Jews were overjoyed. It does not say jews were allies of saracens. Consider three persons A, B and C. B and C are enemies of A. If B kills C then A is happy. This does not mean A and B are friends. Same is the case here.

2. 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.
--The Saracens were a well-known specific federation living in the biblical Edom area. That's far from any Quraysh 'Meccans'. He's a Christian prophet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracen

Islam claimed initially to be a continuation of previous religions. As Manfred said, it is still considered somewhat an offshoot of christianity and judaism because it merely copied many ideas from them. This does not prove islamic history or even Doctrina Jacobi as incorrect.

As far as location is concerned, here is what you wiki pedia article says..

In the early centuries CE in Greek and Latin it referred to a people who lived in desert areas in and near the Roman province of Arabia, and who were specifically distinguished from Arabs

So what makes the roman province of arabia? I am not so familiar with geography but here is what one of the links says about Roman province of arabia...

The Roman province of Arabia occupied a crucial corner of the Mediterranean world, encompassing most of what is now Jordan, southern Syria, northwest Saudi Arabia,

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php? ... 0674777569

So the origin of Saracens traces to Saudi arabia and hence the quote is not off track. It is just that it is not specific but certainly on track.

3-4. "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?"
--This prophet, between 634-636, is still unknown. Having recently appeared. Nothing to do with the Arabic potentate traditionally shown

We can tell a few things. The most important thing is that he was no saint but a hardcore criminal who engaged in warfare and shedding meaningless blood. The same thing is confirmed by islamic history. The disagreement here seems to be that the quote believes muhammad was alive by 634 AD.

5. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible.
--Here only do we have a very weak link with the 'Islamic' prophet we call Muhammad.

We have islamic scriptures saying the exact thing i.e. muhammad talks about keys to paradise. If you want I can quote it.
Now ofcourse none is saying these non muslim scriptures are 100% in agreement with islamic scriptures. Non muslim writings do not exactly match with islamic history but that has an explanation. Islam was at its nascent stage (before the sira was written) and there was no media (newspapers, books, TV's, radios etc) so we can expect them to get some information correct and some incorrect.

If islamic history was completely fabricated then we would find a total mismatch between the work of non muslim writers and islamic history. Like for e.g non muslims might have described Muhammad as a saint while islamic scriptures describe him as a devil. Non muslims writers would also clearly document this fabrication process if there was any. There is not a single non muslim writing that suggests the idea of fabrication. Mind you fabrication on such a large scale (internationally) cannot be done secretly. It would sooner or later be exposed and make its way into non muslim writings.

Points about John of Damascus.
-He doesn't talk about 'Muslims' but of the ''Ishmaelites Heresy'', thus of a Christian heresy.
-He didn't write 'named Muhammad', but ''surnamed Mamed''. That's disinformation...

Christian heresy argument is already debunked above. The surname argument is poor. Even today we find a lot of people spelling muhammad as mahmad. It is not such a big issue no matter how desperately you try to prove otherwise.

[skynightblaze]

@Manfred

Yeezevee did not quote the full text of John of Damascus. I have highlighted a few of his points. John of Damascus does not just talk about muhammad but he goes a step beyond that. He is detailing the teachings of islam.. This is before any bukhari hadith or sira were written down...

@Yeezevee
Please check the following quote. You simply have no point and it is clear that you have not read john of Damascus otherwise you would not say that he is not talking about muhammad and his teachings.. Please read the following quote..

Spoiler! :

[John of Damascus, De haeresibus, C/CI, 63-64 (pp. 486-487):]

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

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

[John of Damascus, De haerisibus, C/CI, 64-67 (p. 487):]

This Muhammad, as it has been mentioned, compoased many frivolous tales, to each of which he assigned a name, like the text (graphe) of the Woman, in which he clearly prescribes the taking of four wives and one thousand concubines, as if it is possible (story of Zayd is told; cf. Qur'an xxxiii.37). . . . Another is the text of the Camel of God, about which he says that there was a camel from God (story of Salih's camel; cf. Qur'an xci. 11-14, vii. 77). . . . You say that in paradise you will have three rivers fowing with water, wine and milk (cf. Qur'an ii. 25, xviii. 31, xxii. 23). . . . Again, Muhammad mentions the text of the Table. He says that Christ requested from God a table and it was given to him, for God, he says, told him: "I have given to you and those with you an incorruptible table." Again, he mentions the text of the Cow and several other foolish and ludicrous things which, because of their number, I think I should pass over.

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

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

[John of Damascus, De haerisibus, C/CI, 61 (pp. 488-489):]

He says Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit (cf. Qur'an iv. 171), created (iii. 59) and a servant (iv. 172, xix. 30, xliii. 59), and that he was born from Mary (iii. 45, and cf. 'Isa ibn Maryam), the sister of Moses and Aaron (xix. 28), without seed (iii. 47, xix. 20, xxi. 91, lxvi. 12). For, he says, the Word of God and the Spirit entered Mary (xix. 17, xxi. 91, lxvi. 12), and she gave birth to Jesus, a prophet (ix. 30, xxxiii. 7) and a servant of God. And [he says] that the Jews, acting unlawfully, wanted to crucify him, but, on seizing [him], they crucified [only] his shadow; Christ himself was not crucified, he says, nor did he die (iv. 157). For God took him up to heaven to Himself . . . and God questioned him saying: "Jesus, did you say that 'I am son of God and God?'" And he says, Jesus answered, "Mercy me, Lord, you know that I did not say so (v. 116). .

[yeezevee]

@Manfred

Yeezevee did not quote the full text of John of Damascus. I.........................
@Yeezevee
Please check the following quote. You simply have no point and it is clear that you have not read john of Damascus otherwise you would not say that he is not talking about muhammad and his teachings.. Please read the following quote..

[John of Damascus, De haeresibus, C/CI, 63-64 (pp. 486-487):]

Spoiler! :

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

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

[John of Damascus, De haerisibus, C/CI, 64-67 (p. 487):]

This Muhammad, as it has been mentioned, compoased many frivolous tales, to each of which he assigned a name, like the text (graphe) of the Woman, in which he clearly prescribes the taking of four wives and one thousand concubines, as if it is possible (story of Zayd is told; cf. Qur'an xxxiii.37). . . . Another is the text of the Camel of God, about which he says that there was a camel from God (story of Salih's camel; cf. Qur'an xci. 11-14, vii. 77). . . . You say that in paradise you will have three rivers fowing with water, wine and milk (cf. Qur'an ii. 25, xviii. 31, xxii. 23). . . . Again, Muhammad mentions the text of the Table. He says that Christ requested from God a table and it was given to him, for God, he says, told him: "I have given to you and those with you an incorruptible table." Again, he mentions the text of the Cow and several other foolish and ludicrous things which, because of their number, I think I should pass over.

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

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

[John of Damascus, De haerisibus, C/CI, 61 (pp. 488-489):]

He says Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit (cf. Qur'an iv. 171), created (iii. 59) and a servant (iv. 172, xix. 30, xliii. 59), and that he was born from Mary (iii. 45, and cf. 'Isa ibn Maryam), the sister of Moses and Aaron (xix. 28), without seed (iii. 47, xix. 20, xxi. 91, lxvi. 12). For, he says, the Word of God and the Spirit entered Mary (xix. 17, xxi. 91, lxvi. 12), and she gave birth to Jesus, a prophet (ix. 30, xxxiii. 7) and a servant of God. And [he says] that the Jews, acting unlawfully, wanted to crucify him, but, on seizing [him], they crucified [only] his shadow; Christ himself was not crucified, he says, nor did he die (iv. 157). For God took him up to heaven to Himself . . . and God questioned him saying: "Jesus, did you say that 'I am son of God and God?'" And he says, Jesus answered, "Mercy me, Lord, you know that I did not say so (v. 116). .

i know .. I know SKB... I am trying to get that book of Daniel J. Sahas 1977 .. from which all these guys including Robert Hoyland, Peter Kirby even Patricia Crone digs there views on early Islam and Muhammad.

[The Cat]

All it says is Jews were overjoyed. It does not say jews were allies of saracens.

Then explain why they were overjoyed from their bloody incursion... Welcoming it !

So the origin of Saracens traces to Saudi arabia and hence the quote is not off track. It is just that it is not specific but certainly on track.

Read gain: The Roman province of Arabia occupied a crucial corner of the Mediterranean world
encompassing most of what is now Jordan, southern Syria, northwest Saudi Arabia.

I was right: --The Saracens were a well-known specific federation living in the biblical Edom area.
That's far from any Quraysh 'Meccans'. He's a Christian prophet (of a 2nd coming of Christ).

Then you jump to say it means Saudi Arabia, intending the whole peninsula (!!!!). What's wrong with you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracen
Ptolemy also mentions a people called the "Sarakenoi" living in north-western Arabia (near neighbor to the Sinai).
--Edom was alright. If you read furthermore you'll see that the 'Tayy' lived around the Khaybar oasis, in fact up to Kedar.
We're well within the Quranic context. Again, far from the traditional 'Meccan 'Quraysh', never mentioned in external sources.

The disagreement here seems to be that the quote believes muhammad was alive by 634 AD.

Which raises other questions like: When was he born ? When was the year of the Elephant?
When did he died since the Doctrina talks about a newcomer, NOT of a dying Arabic potentate?

All this forcefully shaken the very base of the Islamic tradition. Remember:
viewtopic.php?p=207820#p207820

The surname argument is poor. Even today we find a lot of people spelling muhammad as mahmad.

The text you've quoted isn't what John wrote. That's a wrong premise on which you often base your so-called 'logic'.

To manfred I wrote
--For someone as informed as he was, knowing it was a surname, to write 'Mamed' isn't a minor issue to me.
Sebeos I think wrote Mahmet, etc. It means that the 'Islamic' tradition wasn't that much established at all.
Then we can't build on over such disinformations. That's the difference between history and historicity.

Straighten yourself up! That is if you're not a desperate case of amateurism as I came to conclude...

[yeezevee]

Hello The Cat.. it is ok to heckle a bit or take post shots at those who do not agree with us.. but ,, but words like these

.......... What's wrong with you?.............

......Straighten yourself up! That is if you're not a desperate case of amateurism as I came to conclude.....

do not really help the discussion..

[manfred]

@the cat:

yes, it is also true that you would not call John of a Damascus an EXPERT on Islam. He talks about it in a way a medieval monk would, from his Christian viewpoint, and he has not studied a lot of details. To be fair, hadith were not written yet, and copies of the Qur'an if they where even complete by then, were few and far between. From the part that he HAD learnt, he deduced correctly, at least partially, that Islam was in fact a deviant version of Christianity and Judaism.

And he got the name wrong. Mamet. Well, Mehmet is also sometimes used to refer to Mohammed, so he was not that far wrong, and it is still quite obvious from all he says that he is talking about Mohammed...The details he is listing could not really be about anyone else.

And the only reason I brought him up was not to suggest that he was an expert on Islam, but that his writings, and their timing, suggest strongly a historical man Mohammed. If there had been no such man, John could not have referred to him so early in the history in Islam. If Mohammed was merely a later conflation of two or more characters, then at that point he would have known. As you said yourself.he wrote at a time when the Islamic traditions were not yet fully established. So he is NOT simply quoting things from other writers. And that precisely is why he makes a very good source, not for the teachings of Islam at the time, but for the person Mohammed.

[skynightblaze]

All it says is Jews were overjoyed. It does not say jews were allies of saracens.

Then explain why they were overjoyed from their bloody incursion... Welcoming it !

Time and again you have proven that you do not understand even the simplest of logic. A is an enemy of B and C . B kills C and therefore A is happy because his job is done. This does not mean A and B are friends. A and B can still be enemies. They don't have to be friends. Similary the person Candidatus was killed by Saracens and therefore jews were happy. How does that translate to jews being friend of Saracens? I cant even ask the question "are you stupid" because I already know the answer..

So the origin of Saracens traces to Saudi arabia and hence the quote is not off track. It is just that it is not specific but certainly on track.

Read gain: The Roman province of Arabia occupied a crucial corner of the Mediterranean world
encompassing most of what is now Jordan, southern Syria, northwest Saudi Arabia.

I was right: --The Saracens were a well-known specific federation living in the biblical Edom area.
That's far from any Quraysh 'Meccans'. He's a Christian prophet (of a 2nd coming of Christ).

Then you jump to say it means Saudi Arabia, intending the whole peninsula (!!!!). What's wrong with you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracen
Ptolemy also mentions a people called the "Sarakenoi" living in north-western Arabia (near neighbor to the Sinai).
--Edom was alright. If you read furthermore you'll see that the 'Tayy' lived around the Khaybar oasis, in fact up to Kedar.
We're well within the Quranic context. Again, far from the traditional 'Meccan 'Quraysh', never mentioned in external sources.

Many things are not clear to me.. This may be as I am not aware of geography of Saudi Arabia.

What constitutes North West Saudi Arabia? Does it exclude Mecca and Medina?

Also what if I show you other non muslim quotes that speak about connection between Medina and muhammad? I know for a fact that you are stupid but I am giving you another chance to prove that because I know you will keep blabbering about Muhammad having no connection to Medina or mecca. If there are other sources that connect Muhammad to Medina then it means either Doctrina Jacobi or the non muslim writer I quote are wrong. Both of them cannot be correct simultaneously and hence non muslim writings need to be carefully examined but since intelligence is not your domain, you may as well skip what I said. It would be stupid of us to merely rely on the quote of Doctrina Jacobi alone.

Lastly you claim that the quote is talking about a christian prophet. This could be because muhammad repeated a lot of stuff from christianity into islam. Since islam was not wide spread Doctrina jacobi's source could have deemed muhammad as coming of 2nd christ. I am not simply speculating here because rest of the description gives a clue as to who that unnamed person is. It clearly refers to muhammad because muhammad is the one who said keys of paradise are with him. So this can only mean one thing i.e. Doctrina Jacobi's source misinterpreted message of islam and thought that muhammad was claiming to be 2nd christ. This is possible considering the fact that not even the quran was in shape. It must be all word of mouth information.

The disagreement here seems to be that the quote believes muhammad was alive by 634 AD.

Which raises other questions like: When was he born ? When was the year of the Elephant?
When did he died since the Doctrina talks about a newcomer, NOT of a dying Arabic potentate?

All this forcefully shaken the very base of the Islamic tradition. Remember:
viewtopic.php?p=207820#p207820

We have already been through that. I have disproved this using the same non muslim sources... You didn't even bother to address what I said. Check the following link..

viewtopic.php?p=207827#p207827

The surname argument is poor. Even today we find a lot of people spelling muhammad as mahmad.

The text you've quoted isn't what John wrote. That's a wrong premise on which you often base your so-called 'logic'.

To manfred I wrote
--For someone as informed as he was, knowing it was a surname, to write 'Mamed' isn't a minor issue to me.
Sebeos I think wrote Mahmet, etc. It means that the 'Islamic' tradition wasn't that much established at all.
Then we can't build on over such disinformations. That's the difference between history and historicity.

I would pardon you because I know for a fact that you and common sense have nothing in common. Could it be possible that non muslims did not know much about muhammad but at the same time muslims were fully aware of their prophet? Can this possibility exist? Your logic is poor to the core. You are unable to think about various possibilities. Every cult has members and these members know more about the cult before the world finds it out. The world (non cult ) members find out about the cult when it grows. So just because the non muslims were not aware of details of islam does not mean islamic tradition was not established. That is a poor conclusion.

Secondly, so what about things that he accurately describes about islam? Should we just discard them just because he did not get the surname right? Is this what you call an argument?

Straighten yourself up! That is if you're not a desperate case of amateurism as I came to conclude...

You mean act stupid like you? That is not possible even if deliberately try to do.. You are beyond anyone's grasp..

[skynightblaze]

Additional questions for CAT.

Anyone with common sense can see that John of Damascus is talking about muhammad the prophet of islam and not of anyone else but CAT wants to desperately put an argument to somehow caste doubt on islamic tradition. He therefore claims that john of damascus did not get the surname right and this is a major issue to him. Let us entertain this poor argument for a minute. Let us assume that john of damascus wrote "Mamed" to refer to someone else and not the traditional muhammad that we know. In that case CAT should be able to answer following questions:

1) Who is this person called Mahmed who taught that men should circumcise?

2) Who this Mahmed who taught his followers to take 4 wives and countless concubines?

3) Who is this mahmed who taught his followers to kiss the black stone??

4)Who is this person who taught that in paradise you will have three rivers fowing with water, wine and milk?

5) Who wrote the book called Cow?

So CAT please tell us who this historical person is if not the traditional muhammad. I am sure you must be having plenty of historical records for this person. Please explain.

[manfred]

Ptolemy also mentions a people called the "Sarakenoi" living in north-western Arabia (near neighbor to the Sinai.

The Romans simply had very little interest in Arabia, it seemed a worthless place to them. The Roman "border" to Arabia was ill defined and not defended. They probably new some of the coastal settlements along the Red Sea, possibly Jeddah, as that had been around long before, but even that was not really part of the Roman world.

The Roman province of "Arabia" would be mainly what is Syria and Jordan is today, as well as the Sinai peninsula, but only a coastal strip alongside the Red sea coast of the Arabian peninsula, the length of the strip is roughly to the mouth of the gulf of Aqaba, or maybe a little further, but not even close to Jeddah.

The province was called "Arabia Petrea", but it is important to realise that the Romans also referred to the rest of the peninsula as "Arabia". To Roman way of thinking it too was part of the empire, but bad land, not worth to bother with. There were no goods or taxes to had to the Romans simply stayed away. The only thing the liked was the incense to use in the temples, and that could be traded.

And the term "Sarakenoi", even though Greek, was coined by the Jews: It means those "devoid of Sara", i.e. those people who in Jewish tradition are descendants of Abraham's OTHER son Ishmael, not born from his wife Sarah, but from the handmaid Hagar.

From the latinised version of that word we got the "Saracens".

[yeezevee]

Ptolemy also mentions a people called the "Sarakenoi" living in north-western Arabia (near neighbor to the Sinai.

The Romans simply had very little interest in Arabia, it seemed a worthless place to them. The Roman "border" to Arabia was ill defined and not defended. They probably new some of the coastal settlements along the Red Sea, possibly Jeddah, as that had been around long before, but even that was not really part of the Roman world.................

Well by the time Muhammad started his Islamic conquests(NOT PREACHING) which is last 13 years of his life and after the death of his first of Khadija., ROMANS AND THEIR POWER was dead and gone..

Let me put here the time line of world history that parallels alleged Muhammad's life., So

Muhammad was born in the year 571
Muhammad gets his first revelation in the year 610
Muhammad Migrates from so-called Mecca to the town Yathrib in the year 622 which is renamed as Madina at later times.
Muhammad dies in the year 632:

in short according to Islamic sources that is what his 63 years of his life was and we also must keep in mind all those wars wives women concubines of Muhammad falls in to that last 10 years of his life.

Now if we put that in contest of world history of his time on wars around the globe/fighting and world philosophers/ writers of that time what we have is this

568 Constantinople has been weakened by its prolonged wars and by warring tribes into its empire. The Lombards invade Italy, reaching Milan.

577 A Xiongnu chieftain, Yan Ch'ien, unifies northern China by force.

581 Diffusion brings Chinese rule in northern China back to the Chinese. The Xiongnu chieftain, Yan Ch'ien, dies in 580 under mysterious circumstances. Replacing him is his son-in-law, Yang Jian, a tough Buddhist soldier from an aristocratic Chinese family, who has had the title Duke of Sui. Yang Jian proclaims that heaven and earthly signs indicate that he, being virtuous and wise, has been designated by heaven as the rightful successor. He takes the name Emperor Wen, and to eliminate rivalry he has fifty-nine people murdered. The Sui Dynasty has begun.


587 In Japan, the Soga clan, which has intermarried with the royal Yamato family, fights the Mononobe and Nakatomi clans over influence in selecting a successor to the Emperor Yomei has taken place. The Soga favor importing Buddhism from the Asian mainland, described there as the religion of the most civilized. The Mononobe and Nakatomi hold that Buddhism would be an affront to the gods of the emperor. The Soga win the civil war. The head of the Soga family, Umako, makes his nephew, Sujun, emperor.

588 In Spain, the king of the Visigoths, Recared I, has discarded Arian Christian and converts to Catholicism. And as the king goes, so goes his nation.

589 From northern China, Emperor Wen has gained power through the south. After 271 years of division, China is again united.

592 Emperor Sujun wants to be rid of his benefactor, Umako, but Umako strikes first and has Sujun murdered. Umako places his thirty-nine year-old daughter, Suiko, on the throne and makes her twenty-nine year-old nephew, Shotoku, regent.

594 Shotoku converts Suiko to Buddhism. Buddhism becomes the state religion and is called upon to protect the Japanese nation.

600 Monotheistic religion has spread to Arabia. Jews have been in Arabia for centuries. Christian missionaries have been in Arabia for more than a century. The entire Arabian province of Najran is Christian. Christianity has been established superficially in various other centers of trade, and Arabs living on the borders of Constantinople's empire and Persia's empire have been influenced by those empires.

602 Constantinople's army mutinies against the Emperor Maurice and the masses join in against anyone who is wealthy – Christians against Christians. Maurice and his family are butchered as Maurice prays. Their heads are put on display and their bodies cast into the sea. A non-commissioned army officer, Phocas, becomes emperor. Pope Gregory joyfully applauds Maurice's demise, and he describes the coming to power of Phocas as the work of Providence. He asks Catholics to pray that Phocas might be strengthened against all his enemies.

603 Khosrau II of Persia, who had had a good relationship with Maurice and his family, is disturbed by their deaths and declares war against Phocas and Constantinople. The Zoroastrian priesthood in Persia is pleased. As they see it, their king is responsible for conquering the world in order to spread peace, the Zoroastrian faith, individual salvation and to prepare all humankind for the great, worldwide battle against Satan at Armageddon.

610 The army of Phocas has been occupied by war with Persia, and Avars and Slavs have been advancing through Constantinople's empire in Europe. Constantinople's governor in Egypt, Heraclius, sails with a small army to Constantinople, and with Phocas having lost much of his support, Heraclius easily defeats him. Phocas is executed and Heraclius became emperor.

613 Muhammad has begun preaching publicly in his hometown, Mecca, and he is being ignored or is thought to be crazy.

618 In China, the Sui Dynasty has worked people too hard on public works projects and has lost economic prosperity in its wars against Korea. With flooding and famine has come rebellion and civil war. The victor, the Duke of Tang, becomes Emperor Gao-zu. The Sui Dynasty has ended and the Tang Dynasty has begun.

622 Pilgrims from Yathrib visiting Mecca (a holy city before the existence of Islam) are favorably impressed by Muhammad and invite him to return with them to their town. The town has no unifying governmental authority. Muhammad is fifty-two and becomes recognized in Yathrib as a religious leader and someone to go to for settling disputes.

623 Yathrib has a large Jewish community, and its leaders reject Muhammad's claim to be a leader of Judaism. Muhammad and his followers stop bowing toward Jerusalem and begin bowing toward Mecca, and Muhammad abandons Saturday as the Sabbath and makes Friday his special day of the week.

624 Mohammad has responded to economic hardship in Yathrib by organizing raids on merchant's caravans. He has his greatest success so far, at Bedr, where the raiders kill an estimated fifty to seventy persons from Mecca. Muhammad and Mecca are hostile, Muhammad claiming God to be on his side and blaming Mecca for having rejected him.

626 Avars, helped by Slavs, attack the walls of Constantinople. The Persians also assault the city. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, leads a defense of Constantinople and defeats the Avars.

630 Muhammad's military has grown stronger, and in his war with Mecca he emerges victorious. Mecca's wealthy are obliged to donate to the well being of its poor. People in Mecca see Muhammad's strength as the power of his god, and they see the other gods as having become powerless. There is a mass conversion to Islam, and Muhammad adds Mecca's army to his own. Muhammad conquers the rest of Arabia, puts down others claiming to be prophets.

630 Constantinople's army pushed through Mesopotamia, destroying as they went. The great canal works in Mesopotamia have been destroyed. The Persian army has overthrown Khosrau II. His son is crowned Khavad II and signs a peace treaty with Constantinople and returns Egypt, Palestine, Asia Minor and western Mesopotamia to Constantinople's empire.

632 Muhammad the Prophet dies.

So that is what we have... So by the time Alleged Prophet of Islam became a rooster of Arabia, Roman empire is floored and gone.. But this ummah.com discussion Why was Yathrib renamed Madina? is interesting...

Fools talk nonsense.. Anyways manfred I was actually looking for a link from old ffi forum that you see at this link unfortunately I get the blank .. I wonder how to trace that link FFI?

with best regards
yeezevee

[manfred]

I will look into that link as soon as I get the new password.

[yeezevee]

I will look into that link as soon as I get the new password.

never mind manfred., skeptics annotated bible.com provides similar information of that post.. Let me paste that here .. it gives info of alleged verse and when they were reveled..

The Early Meccan Surahs year 610 to 617 .. Revelation order is in the brackets

Spoiler! :

1 The Clot (96)
2 The Pen (68)
3 The Enshrouded One (73)
4 The Cloaked One (74)
5 The Opening (1)
6 Palm Fibre (111)
7 The Overthrowing (81)
8 The Most High (87)
9 The Night (92)
10 The Dawn (89)
11 The Morning Hours (93)
12 Solace (94)
13 The Declining Day (103)
14 The Coursers (100)
15 Abundance (108)
16 Rivalry in Worldly Increase (102)
17 Small Kindnesses (107)
18 The Disbelievers (109)
19 The Elephant (105)
20 The Daybreak (113)
21 Mankind (114)
22 The Unity (112)
23 The Star (53)
24 He Frowned (80)
25 Power (97)
26 The Sun (91)
27 The Mansions of the Stars (85)
28 The Fig (95)
29 Winter or Qureysh (106)
30 The Calamity (101)

Middle Meccan Surahs (618-620)

Spoiler! :

31 The Rising of the Dead (75)
32 The Traducer (104)
33 The Emissaries (77)
34 Oaf (50)
35 The City (90)
36 The Morning Star (86)
37 The Moon (54)
38 Sad (38)
39 The Heights (7)
40 The Jinn (72)
41 Ya Sin (36)
42 Criterion (25)
43 The Angels (35)
44 Mary (19)
45 Ta Ha (20)
46 The Event (56)
47 The Poets (26)
48 The Ant (27)
49 The Story (28)
50 The Children of Israel (17)
51 Jonah (10)
52 Hud (11)
53 Joseph (12)
54 Al-Hijr (15)
55 Cattle (6)
56 Those Who Set the Ranks (37)
57 Luqman (31)
58 Saba (34)
59 The Troops (39)
60 The Believer (40)

Late Meccan Surahs (620-622)

Spoiler! :

61 Fusilat (41)
62 Counsel (42)
63 Ornaments of Gold (43)
64 Smoke (44)
65 Crouching (45)
66 The Wind-Curved Sandhills (46)
67 The Winnowing Winds (51)
68 The Overwhelming (88)
69 The Cave (18)
70 The Bee (16)
71 Noah (71)
72 Abraham (14)
73 The Prophets (21)
74 The Believers (23)
75 The Prostration (32)
76 The Mount (52)
77 The Sovereignty (67)
78 The Reality (69)
79 The Ascending Stairways (70)
80 The Tidings (78)
81 Those Who Drag Forth (79)
82 The Cleaving (82)
83 The Sundering (84)
84 The Romans (30)
85 The Spider (29)
86 Defrauding (83)

The 28 Medina Surahs 87 The Cow (2)

Spoiler! :

88 Spoils of War (8)
89 The Family of 'Imran (3)
90 The Clans (33)
91 She That is to be Examined (60)
92 The Women (4)
93 The Earthquake (99)
94 Iron (57)
95 Muhammad (47)
96 The Thunder (13)
97 The Beneficent (55)
98 Time or Man (76)
99 Divorce (65)
100 The Clear Proof (98)
101 Exile (59)
102 Light (24)
103 The Pilgrimage (22)
104 The Hypocrites (63)
105 She That Disputeth (58)
106 The Private Apartments (49)
107 Banning (66)
108 Mutual Disillusion (64)
109 The Ranks (61)
110 The Congregation (62)
111 Victory (48)
112 The Table Spread (5)
113 Repentance (9)
114 Succour (110)

So those Madinan surahs must be from the last 10 years of his life from year 622 to 632..

[The Cat]

he got the name wrong. Mamet. Well, Mehmet is also sometimes used to refer to Mohammed, so he was not that far wrong, and it is still quite obvious from all he says that he is talking about Mohammed

Not Mamet, Mamed. And Mehmet is Turk. And why do you assume that he mispelled it and not the surname he knew?
The question MUST be left to interrogations, thus to quote a source-document correctly (unlike snb) is crucial !!!

No external sources mentioned a new religion called 'Islam'. Not before at least Theophanes in the 9th century.
Finally, JoD seems to know his Mamed through the Quran and NOT much from any reported oral tradition.

To yeezevee you wrote

your quote is from a time BEFORE ANY hadith were collected and written down. Some of the "companions" were still alive, and a great many Muslims would have known a "companion".

If you learn about the second fitnah extensively, you'll find out that al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf killed most of the learned ones. It was massive.
More so this 2nd fitnah almost destroyed all of the remaining invading Arabs, both West and East. Bar Penkaye paints it bloody well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hajjaj_ibn_Yusuf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/john_ ... _trans.htm

One with the other, we can safely say that those who could have met anyone knowing personally the prophet had disappeared.

Yes, there was an historical Muhammad. Yet all the rest is the matter of story-tellers fabricating a religious Robin Hood.
Was there any historical Robin Hood? Most probably so too!

I'll answer snb when time allows.