In search for the historical Mohammed

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Takeiteasynow »

Well I am like a genie in a bottle - you gotta rub me the right way.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

I have upset you? Not sure how, but sorry anyway, not intended.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by SAM »

manfred wrote:Eaid Mubarak, SAM ...

do you think looking for evidence for the historical Mohammed is "demeaning" him? You rather build your religion on lies?
Christianity, is a religion of losers and full of harmful lies.
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

Whatever, SAM.... anything about the topic? Perhaps explain this... the first obviously Muslim coin dates from 691 or 692. That is some sixty years after Mohammed's death. By then Muslim rule has reached the Levant and much of Persia. And yet, we have no coins minted by the "rightly guided" Qalifs, not until much later... and yet almost all rulers tend to announce their presence with a coin.

Any thoughts?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Takeiteasynow »

Manfred wrote:I have upset you? Not sure how, but sorry anyway, not intended.
Of course not - perhaps I was a bit disappointed with your default answer.
Well, "Medina" unfortunately is not a very original name... it really just means a (walled) city. You find that is how the word is still used in much of the Arab world. Almost every city of any age has a "medina" , an old (once or still) walled in part, usually with a maze of narrow lanes (to keep the sun out). Within that some have a fortress or keep, the Qasbah.... a last refuge in times of attacks.

So where did Mohammed settle after he left his home town?

The Qur'an is not helping here, as is also uses "al-Medina" which is ambiguous, and could mean either the specific city of Medina, or simple "the city".
Let's debug this:
  • Medinah was originally an Aramaic word meaning place or seat of government from the word din or law with the connotation of a city.
  • The word was related to medinata which means area of governance or 'province'.
  • These words, mdn and mdnt are first attested in Safaitic, an early Arabic script that existed until the 4rd century AD. This script was almost exclusivity used in the Harran desert, east of the King's highway in Jordan and east of the Kerak plateau.
  • Ancient Arab towns, like for instance Petra, Madaba or Kerak followed classical architectural patterns - that of the Greek polis. Only at the end of the sixth century AD the transformation from monumental architecture to compact architecture with 'mazes of narrow lanes' starts.
  • Yathrib is a genuine Arabic name that can be found in old South Arabian inscriptions, “Medina” is not
So there is no evidence whatsoever that before the 7th century AD Medinah ment something like a walled town. Nothing - it's only a historiagraphical deduction from its much later meaning.

So then why is Kerak the first and original Medinah? That would require an additional and extended post but for now I can give some brief highlights:
- The first recorded battle between Byzantines and Messainic Jews took place just outside Kerak;
- The first recorded conquest battle of the Arab campaign is that of a city 10 km north of Kerak;
- Kerak is part of the area where words mdn and mdnt were first attested in Arabic scripts;
- Kerak matches the geographical descriptions given in the description of 'The Battle of Medinah' - a more precise translation would be 'The Battle at the Seat of Government';

So the original name of Kerak - in Aramaic 'walled town' - becomes thus associated with the Arab word for place of governance which is Medinah when Muhammed establishes his 'seat of government' in the 'walled town'. Centuries later, after the transposition from Petra to Mecca, Yathrib is renamed to Medinah as this is what the hadith requires. And of course: Kerak has, because of its high location, a perfect view on Jerusalem.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Takeiteasynow »

At least this thread show how easy it is to debunk historiography, such as the Khaybar or Medina accounts. The energy that some Islamic apologists invest in the promotion of pseudohistory or pseudoscholarship, attempting to distort the historical record is worrisome - as always motivated by a religious or personal agenda.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
Hombre
Posts: 3741
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:18 am

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Hombre »

SAM wrote:Christianity, is a religion of losers and full of harmful lies.
Then why many passages written in NT have been copied into the Quran?

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

I think we can reach an interim conclusion so far... Mohammed the man was most likely a historical person. He is referred to in at least one or two contemporary texts. But the Mohammed of Islam is something really created some 200 to 300 year later. The actual Mohammed was something different.

So far so good?

Then there is the question of the Qur'an... we already know there are at least 30 different versions around today, with thousands of small variations. We also know that there were at least 3 major edits.

So how reliably can this text even linked with this man Mohammed?

We also have ONE manuscript that could PREDATE the days Mohammed supposed to have lived, by quite some margin. While it is possible that the text was written much later than when the parchment was made, this would be a conjecture, so we should stand along side that also the other possibility, for the sake of honesty. The existence of this manuscript certainly throws doubts on Mohammed's authorship of the Qur'an.... or at least part of it. Mohammed is only mentioned by name 4 times in the whole Qur'an (plus the "Ahmed" which may or may not refer to him) and ALL of those references are from the Medina part of the text, and there in the last few additions... The earliest parts of the Qur'an never mention him.

So the early recensions of the Qur'an are certainly more than simply bringing things together.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Takeiteasynow »

So far so good?
Well yeah sure.
So how reliably can this text even linked with this man Mohammed?
Perhaps one could start with defining of a set of criteria that can quickly validate historiographical texts which shouldn't be so difficult. And you have to understand its origin - my best guess now is that Yemenite tribes of Himyarite/Safaitic origin migrating to Jordan brought the conceptual Qu'ran.

In the second century AD Jordan suffered from a sever drought and prolonged shortages in the water supply which forced Safaitic tribes to migrate south - "the yaer of the great migration" all the way to Yemen where they founded the semi-Judeo kingdom of Himyar. After the Ethiopians with Byzantine support conquered Yemen many migrated their homeland in Jordan taking north the conceptual Qu'ran, new architectural design or concepts for city planning ('maze of narrow lanes' ) and linguistical concepts.

Most important is to reconstruct what happened before - the most challenging and time consuming task - so the role of Messianic Judaism can be clearly understood.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

Perhaps another piece in the puzzle is in the writings of John of Damascus.

He is roughly 100 years after Mohammed, and his observations give us a glimpse into the transition from Mohammed the man to Mohammed of Islam.

First of all, he mentions Mohammed by name, so he speaks of something that was common knowledge in his days. But he has not quite become the Islamic Mohammed of today... He is described mostly as CHRISTIAN heretic, a false prophet of Christianity, someone who got most of his material from a Arian monk. He is not yet a fully fledged founder of a new religion. John discusses Mohammed's views on Jesus quite accurately and shows he has seen Qur'anic texts, which he quotes more or less verbatim.

But he also describes Mohammed as an author of many BOOKS. NOT the QUR'AN!. He mentions some of them, and we can recognise them as having become surah's later. He mentions the titles of some. But there is also one he mentions "the book of the camel of God". There is the she-camel of the Thumud in the Qur'an, but the story John summaries a very different story, and in some detail, and this is not in the Qur'an. Given that otherwise his quotes were very accurate, it is fair to conclude that in his days the Qur'an was not a set text yet and the story John re-tells was in fact part of the passages lost of edited out.

What is interesting is that he completely leaves out surah 9 which you would expect him to raise, because of the way it treats Christians and Jews. A later addition? We cannot tell for sure, but we can be pretty certain that the Qur'anic texts he knew were fragmented.

Then we have a discussion about the Kaaba. He does not mention the name of the town where it is but he knows about a stone Muslims kiss. But he does point out something interesting to a historical enquiry:

He tells us that Muslims say it was where Abraham began to sacrifice his son. He does NOT say that Muslims claim Abraham built it. That is very important, when it comes to analysing what must be a later addition to the Qur'an. In fact he records that Muslims say Abraham tied his camel there (there were no domesticated camels at the time of Abraham) or that Abraham had "relations" with Hagar on top of it. These details are very telling.

First, notice the "on top" ? The Kaaba in Mecca does not have a proper roof. So for a romantic encounter it would unsuitable. Second, as John points out, to make a sacrifice near this Kaaba, there would have to be easily collectable wood near by. This also does not fit Mecca.

Also, John says that the stone of the Kaaba is the head of an Aphrodite statue (a female idol).


In short, John is useful for discovering something of the transition period,before the fully fledged Mohammed of Islam was created, and what within the Qur;an are unlikely to be related to Mohammed.

You can read his own words here, it is not too long:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Takeiteasynow »

Actually I'm on this story line but have not yet incorporated the work of John of Damascus but his reference to the 'Book of the Camel' is fascinating for the following reason: when Sargon II replaces the population of Samaria he moves defeated Thamudic (Tamudi) tribes migrate from the area of Wadi Rum to the land of Beth Omri where they convert to 7th century version of Yahwism.

This could be the moment where the story of prophet Salih and the She-Camel (and others) merges with Israelite monotheism, creating a syncretic religion that simultaneously absorbs traditions from Mesopotamian Kutha: for instance the cornerstone concept for temple construction. To a certain extent these 'Cuthians' or Arab population in Samaria influence the Samarian Yahwist elite and introduce concepts such as the 'afterlife' and 'cornerstone'.

After Alexander the Great conquers Samaria these Thamudic Cutheans migrate, through the Sinai, back to their place of origin and change the Nabataean religion which was, until then, mainly focused on deity Allat. A likely scenario as the name personal Salih is attested in Hismaic and Safaitic and new theophoric naming conventions are introduced in Nabataea that are (almost) similar to those in Samaria and Gerizim.

The work of John of Damascus strongly suggests that the theological Muhammad is based upon multiple characters which could include that of an ancient Thamudic scribe or prophet.

So to establish a baseline you first have to connect the annals of Sargon II with the archeological and epigraphical record - at least that is what I think.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Takeiteasynow »

... Mesopotamian Kutha ...
An early apocryphal source states that Ali, the first Imam of the Shiites and successor to Muhammad calls himself 'one of the Nabateans from Kutha'. Among the early Shiites identified themselves with the Nabateans and early Shiite strongholds were to a great extent in the area inhabited by Nabateans.

And there are others from Kutha for instance Ibn Abbas, the son of Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, an uncle of Muhammad and one of the early Qur'an scholars.

This implies that Muhammad 's early alliance, established in 622 may have included parts of Iraq - areas controlled by the 'East Nabataeans' near Babylon. If so, this would make it much easier to explain the distribution of early Islamic material.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Takeiteasynow »

Actually it isn't that difficult to determine the difference between the historical and theological Muhammad. You only have to answer this question: what would Adam Schiff have done to unite a diverse religious empire - after the Abbasids defeated the Ummayads - under a single religious banner?

You would need to compose a historical figure that can be associated with key events, those that created your empire and with your dominant theological tradition and leadership. You would extend a base profile with the characteristics of your own religious leader and then define his role as 'the successor'.

Likely not everybody would agree - you may even experience a shism.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Eagle »

manfred wrote:Perhaps another piece in the puzzle is in the writings of John of Damascus.

He is roughly 100 years after Mohammed, and his observations give us a glimpse into the transition from Mohammed the man to Mohammed of Islam.

First of all, he mentions Mohammed by name, so he speaks of something that was common knowledge in his days. But he has not quite become the Islamic Mohammed of today... He is described mostly as CHRISTIAN heretic, a false prophet of Christianity, someone who got most of his material from a Arian monk. He is not yet a fully fledged founder of a new religion. John discusses Mohammed's views on Jesus quite accurately and shows he has seen Qur'anic texts, which he quotes more or less verbatim.

But he also describes Mohammed as an author of many BOOKS. NOT the QUR'AN!. He mentions some of them, and we can recognise them as having become surah's later. He mentions the titles of some. But there is also one he mentions "the book of the camel of God". There is the she-camel of the Thumud in the Qur'an, but the story John summaries a very different story, and in some detail, and this is not in the Qur'an. Given that otherwise his quotes were very accurate, it is fair to conclude that in his days the Qur'an was not a set text yet and the story John re-tells was in fact part of the passages lost of edited out.

What is interesting is that he completely leaves out surah 9 which you would expect him to raise, because of the way it treats Christians and Jews. A later addition? We cannot tell for sure, but we can be pretty certain that the Qur'anic texts he knew were fragmented.

Then we have a discussion about the Kaaba. He does not mention the name of the town where it is but he knows about a stone Muslims kiss. But he does point out something interesting to a historical enquiry:

He tells us that Muslims say it was where Abraham began to sacrifice his son. He does NOT say that Muslims claim Abraham built it. That is very important, when it comes to analysing what must be a later addition to the Qur'an. In fact he records that Muslims say Abraham tied his camel there (there were no domesticated camels at the time of Abraham) or that Abraham had "relations" with Hagar on top of it. These details are very telling.

First, notice the "on top" ? The Kaaba in Mecca does not have a proper roof. So for a romantic encounter it would unsuitable. Second, as John points out, to make a sacrifice near this Kaaba, there would have to be easily collectable wood near by. This also does not fit Mecca.

Also, John says that the stone of the Kaaba is the head of an Aphrodite statue (a female idol).


In short, John is useful for discovering something of the transition period,before the fully fledged Mohammed of Islam was created, and what within the Qur;an are unlikely to be related to Mohammed.

You can read his own words here, it is not too long:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This text is similar in many ways to the Doctrina Jacobi discussed earlier. The short passage by this esteemed "church father" is by no means representative of the Quran's contents, form or extent as it was in his time. It surely is not, considering the heavy bias and intent of the author, representative of Islamic beliefs of the time. Especially coming from a school of thought known as justifying its use of lies and deceit, so as to save people into the loving arms of Christ. Eusebius his esteemed predecessor for instance was the official propagandist for Emperor Constantine, who judged that
"it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived",
the Church father notorious for his deception and distortions of evidence to advance the cause of the church, was described by St Jerome himself who thought of him as well as other Church Fathers such as Origen as sometimes
"compelled to say not what they think but what is useful",


In his tract, John doesnt claim to have gone through the book from cover to cover. He did not even have a manuscript while penning his work and was obviously relying on hearsay. He paraphrases very few verses, amplifying certain aspects so as to serve the purpose of his polemic. He jumbles clear Quranic chapters, calling them "books" since the scripture of his Christian audience is composed of books, and extra Quranic material, oral and written, as well as 2nd hand reports from non-Muslims about Muslims, like Herodotus's statement about Muslims worshiping Aphrodite. This concise polemic is meant to resonnate to the average Christian of his time, ignorant of the teachings of their own bible on similar issues that undermine his very contentions against Muslims; Arianism, sexual depravity and parallelisms with the antichrist. Jesus' portrayal in the Quran is thus presented as partly in line with Arianism and gnosticism, Muhammad's prophethood is rejected, certain Islamic laws are amplified and misrepresented, sometimes completely distorted so as to render them offensive to flesh-hating Christians, including monastics like himself.

The irony is that this caricature, read through a Christian lens and aimed at a Christian audience even more ignorant than him of what Islam is, would undermine similar later criticisms of Islam, more particularily modern, by his Christ-loving peers. He for instance although is unfamiliar with the Quranic text, speaks multiple times of descendents of Abraham and Ishmael, venerating a single Book whose messenger, a "seemingly" pious man named Muhammad, received from heaven. His Muslim contemporaries whom he repeatedly "embarasses", affirmed the oral and textual corruption of his Bible. Regardless of the sharpness of their arguments or whether these Muslim interlocutors are real or fictitious, putting aside their supposed legends surrounding the Kaaba and the black stone, which are conveniently embarassing and self-serving for his polemic, these Muslims still affirmed the Abrahamic legacy with the Kaaba whose stone he says Muslims rub their face upon
"but they still assert that the stone is Abraham's".
In his "refutation" of that Muslim claim, he appeals to his Bible which he seems as unfamiliar with as he is with the Quran and Muslim tradition. Abraham had to travel, according to Genesis for a few days from the place where he gathered wood to the location of the near sacrifice. This makes his argument for the supposed lack of wood at the Kaaba's location irrelevant to his contention.

What is clear is that some zealous Muslim contemporaries hit a nerve for John, accusing him of idolatrous worship of the cross, while John himself was having a hard time defending the veneration of icons against many fellow Christians. Instead of justifying his position, as he does against the Muslim rejection of Jesus' divinity, he engages in an untenable polemical invention. The black stone supposedly is, up to his day a carving with the features of the head of Aphrodite. The Muslim historians do not shy away from naming, describing every main idol and statue introduced into the Kaaba and the surrounding sites. None has ever mentionned anything close to that claim. Not a single idol was left standing in the precincts of Mecca after its conquest, including the main idol Hubal. Why would an obscure female deity be left up to a 100 years later?

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

A character assassination of John of Damascus is ineffectual, as it says nothing at all about his accuracy.

First, let's deal with your misrepresentation of Genesis 22: It says that Abraham took the wood with him, and he travelled THREE DAYS with a donkey to Moria, the place of sacrifice. So there is a nice wood grove within 3 days walk of Mecca? A donkey would travel about 20 miles in one day. So we are talking within 60 miles or so of Mecca. And a donkey needs water EVERY DAY.

Did Abraham offer his son (whichever son) for sacrifice in Mecca according Islam today?

Next, the fact that he describes a DIFFERENT QUR'AN to the the one you use is the whole point. It is evidence that at his life time there was not a set text yet.

And does today's Islam teach that the black stone is "Abraham's"? If fact we have a whole range of fairy tales about the Kaaba and the stone, all with the same purpose, and each more ridiculous the next.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

As to your accusation of Bishop Eusebius....
eagle wrote:"it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived",
You left out the start of the sentence:

"HOW MAY IT be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived",

and he said this in connection to his reason for confiscating unapproved religious literature. In other words, he did not say that lying is acceptable to spread the gospel, he said the exact opposite.

see here
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Eagle »

manfred wrote:As to your accusation of Bishop Eusebius....
eagle wrote:"it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived",
You left out the start of the sentence:

"HOW MAY IT be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived",

and he said this in connection to his reason for confiscating unapproved religious literature. In other words, he did not say that lying is acceptable to spread the gospel, he said the exact opposite.

see here
No, Eusebius' quote is actually the title of the 31st chapter of his "praeparation evangelica", in which Plato tries justifying deception for a just cause. Eusebius corroborates that principle by appealing to the HB in which God is portrayed in antropomorphic ways just to make a point by the author of the text. The full title is translated in slightly different ways, and all agree with the intent; justifying deception as modus operandi. Paul did the same so why the surprise?

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Eagle »

manfred wrote:A character assassination of John of Damascus is ineffectual, as it says nothing at all about his accuracy.

First, let's deal with your misrepresentation of Genesis 22: It says that Abraham took the wood with him, and he travelled THREE DAYS with a donkey to Moria, the place of sacrifice. So there is a nice wood grove within 3 days walk of Mecca? A donkey would travel about 20 miles in one day. So we are talking within 60 miles or so of Mecca. And a donkey needs water EVERY DAY.

Did Abraham offer his son (whichever son) for sacrifice in Mecca according Islam today?

Next, the fact that he describes a DIFFERENT QUR'AN to the the one you use is the whole point. It is evidence that at his life time there was not a set text yet.

And does today's Islam teach that the black stone is "Abraham's"? If fact we have a whole range of fairy tales about the Kaaba and the stone, all with the same purpose, and each more ridiculous the next.
Meccans never used wood for fire? Of course there is wood in and around Mecca, including in Ta'if. No need to travel 3 days.

Once more, Abraham had to travel, according to Genesis for a few days from Beersheba where he gathered wood to the location of the near sacrifice in Moriah. The wood was obviously not freshly cut from a forest as it would not burn, and neither is Beersheba an area that has wooded mountains. Abraham took wood from what he had already gathered, which he simply split, traveling with what he needed and leaving the rest behind. This makes John's argument for the supposed lack of wood at the Kaaba's location irrelevant to his contention. He further deceptively states or is simply ignorant of the text he appeals to, that the wood was gathered on the spot of the sacrifice itself. The blunder is so gross, coming from an esteemed church father, that one can only conclude that it is a purposeful deception so as to win an argument, just as he does throughout his poorly written apologetic.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by manfred »

It seems you can quite shamelessly sidestep your misquote, still persisting in the lie even when shown the text. The idea to use deception to make converts is entirely Muslim territory.
Your argument here really is quite pathetic. You MISQUOTE purposefully a bishop John of Damascus has never met because he has been long dead when he was born, as "proof" of John being dishonest. Then you baselessly make accusations of the same kind about Paul, as if that detracts from the testimony of John of Damascus. I expected better from you. It seems you need these preposterous lies to hold on to your own beliefs.
Eusebius' quote is actually the title of the 31st chapter of his "praeparation evangelica",
READ the chapter, for goodness sake.
'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.'Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.
He does not ask to use deception, but to teach according to the capability of people to understand. He states many times, over and over, that the original an complete message of Christ is what must be taught.

The landscape around Mecca is barren. There was insufficient wood to even make roofs, never mind fires. A common source for fuel in medieval Arabia was camel dung, and other dung, occasional shubs, also "rock oil". and of course there never was any Mecca during the days of Abraham.

Look:


Think for a second... how long does a tree take to grow? Now suppose a village in a desert, with just a few trees near by. These are cut down for building or fuel. So what do the people do next?

And this is passage from Genesis you speak of
3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together,
As there simply is no wood to cut within the distance specified Mecca cannot be the place of binding. Straight forward point. I can't believe you have issues with that.

John simply pointed out just ONE simple thing why the relocation of Abraham is ridiculous. There are of course a great many others.

Interesting how a highly educated, peaceful monk is so untrustworthy for you, while you hold up a warloard and sex addict as example for all to follow.

And from Beersheba to Mecca it takes 3 days on a donkey? :lotpot: This is 1400 km.... so Abraham used buraq perhaps, or several of them?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: In search for the historical Mohammed

Post by Eagle »

manfred wrote:It seems you can quite shamelessly sidestep your misquote, still persisting in the lie even when shown the text.
ChXXXI of book 12 says nothing of using apocrypha. It discusses and agrees with the idea of being deceptive to promote "truth".
XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment

[PLATO] 'But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?
'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.'
Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.
manfred wrote:Your argument here really is quite pathetic. You MISQUOTE purposefully a bishop John of Damascus has never met because he has been long dead when he was born, as "proof" of John being dishonest.
Eusebius merely serves as proving that in the school of thought to which this respected church leader belongs, deception is perfectly acceptable. As to John himself, his invented polemics, dishonest portrayals of certain Islamic rulings as already shown, suppression of truth and distortion of what even his bible says are what prove him a liar, and not even a good one.

So Abraham gathered wood from the location of the sacrifice?
manfred wrote:The landscape around Mecca is barren. There was insufficient wood to even make roofs, never mind fires. A common source for fuel in medieval Arabia was camel dung, and other dung, occasional shubs, also "rock oil". and of course there never was any Mecca during the days of Abraham.
Of course there wasn't. Until Abraham established the first settlement there. So you are confirming Meccans never use and used wood for fire. Neither palm branches for multiple purposes including within the structures of the houses? And what about Ta'if?
manfred wrote:As there simply is no wood to cut within the distance specified Mecca cannot be the place of binding. Straight forward point.
Still irrelevant to John's contention. According to him the location of the sacrifice itself had to be wooded so as to allow Ibrahim to gather fire-wood while he had alerady done so days before reaching the place
manfred wrote:John simply pointed out just ONE simple thing why the relocation of Abraham is ridiculous. There are of course a great many others.
Let us just take this specific point and show how the bible version of the event is untenable, besides the many other known ones. The HB states Abraham had to journey from Beerseba where he dwelt with Isaac before and after the event of the sacrifice Gen21:31-34,22:19 to mourn Sarah's death in Canaan Gen23:2. Was Sarah living away from both husband and son all this time or just after the sacrifice and why? Jewish tradition suggests she dwelt in Canaan before Isaac's near sacrifice since it is this news that sadenned her to the point it caused her demise Gen.Rabbah58:5. The only way she could have known of the incident while in Canaan was if Abraham and Isaac had left for the location of sacrifice (ie Moriah) from Canaan itself. However we are told Abraham and his "only son" left for the sacrifice from Beerseba, not from Canaan.

And by the way, it would have never taken Abraham 3 days to reach Moriah in Jerusalem, from his location near Hebron, which is less than a day's walk.

The only way for all these conflicting elements to come together is to say that Abraham had left alone from Beerseba to the location where he had settled his "only son", and from there to the location of the sacrifice. The Quran and the traditions say he left to Mecca where he had settled his firstborn Ismail, and from there to Marwah nearby, for the sacrifice. Interestingly, this Marwah which the the HB calls "Moriah" is located in 2Chron3 in Jerusalem and yet when David purchases the site later on from a Jebusite, neither the writer, David, the owner, the angels, nor God or any prophet make a connection between that site, and one of the most significant locations to Judaism, the place where the event of the near sacrifice occured. Instead it is simply labelled the "threshing floor" of the future Temple.
manfred wrote:Interesting how a highly educated, peaceful monk is so untrustworthy for you,
Depends which side of the Christian fence one views his contributions
manfred wrote:while you hold up a warloard and sex addict as example for all to follow.
Warrior prophets with multiple wives and concubines are not worthy of being emulated?

Post Reply