skynightblaze wrote:If one examines this quote carefully then one would find that the words [d.641] above from the statement of John of Damascus are simply absent. These words have been added by CAT knowingly or unknowingly (if at all he has a different source) to give an impression to the user as if Muhammad wasn't a prophet till 641 AD. This is a clear cut lie.... No where do we see the words [641 AD] in the above quote..
So now the quote perfectly makes sense without "[641 Ad]" because Heraclius and Muhamamad co existed. Heraclius was born in 575 AD and therefore its perfectly reasonable to say that Muhamamad claimed himself a prophet in 610 AD which was during the time of Heraclius and that before his emergence i.e before 610 AD muslims were idolators.
In short this quote proves nothing about ahadith being false. Its infact unfortunate for CAT that this ahadith which he brought once again confirms the ahadith because ahadith talk about co existence of Muhammad and heraclius. Ahadith of Bukhari mention about Muhammad;s letter to Heraclius.
Here's my quote...
As per John of Damascus (676-749), a high Damascus official (like his father) thus a first-class witness, who wrote: --So until the times of Heraclius (d.641) they [the Arabs] were plain idolators.
I added (d.641) because Heraclius indeed lived until 641, thus my added brackets! 2) There was no prophet -surnamed Mamed- ''until the times of Heraclius'' (d.641)! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius
Heraclius (Latin: Flavius Heraclius Augustus... c. 575 – February 11, 641) was Byzantine Emperor from 610 to 641.
Clearly, to anyone but snb, ''until the timeS of Heraclius'' mean the period of his reign (610-641), confirming the Doctrina Jacobi that the prophet was something NEW by 634-640, and certainly contradicting the Islamic tradition of Muhammad's death by 632!
I can't believe our home-Sunnite. He constantly build-up from wrong premises/understanding... A most pathetic 'epitome of logic'!
Argument 11: Examining writings of John of Damascus
The Cat wrote:
Spoiler! :
-So until the times of Heraclius (d.641) they [the Arabs] were plain idolators. --From that time to the present a false prophet appeared among them, surnamed Mamed --Having conversed, in like manner, with an Arian monk, put together his own heresy. 1) ''They were plain idolators'', ie. not following Muhammad! 2) There was no prophet -surnamed Mamed- ''until the times of Heraclius'' (d.641)! 3) ''From that time to the present a false prophet appeared'': Muhammad is NEW! 4) It wasn't perceived as brand new religion but as yet another arianist heresy...
--For sure, it/he was still widely unknown to the historian monk Nikephoros, still by 769. To him they were pagans... ''Nikephorus did not see the Arabs as distinctive from other non-Christian groups that were attacking the empire.'' http://answering-islam.org/history/byza ... onses.html And we begin to have a detailed idea of who is Muhammad, only from the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor (813).So it's rather clear that only between 780-810 was the 'tradition' of Muhammad started to be externally recognized.
If one examines this quote carefully then one would find that the words [d.641] above from the statement of John of Damascus are simply absent. These words have been added by CAT knowingly or unknowingly (if at all he has a different source) to give an impression to the user as if Muhammad wasn't a prophet till 641 AD. This is a clear cut lie.
Here are the actual words of John of Damascus..
John of Damascus wrote:So until the times of Heraclius they [the Arabs] were plain idolators. From that time till now a false prophet appeared among them, surnamed Muhammad, 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.
No where do we see the words [641 AD] in the above quote..
In short this quote proves nothing about ahadith being false. Its infact unfortunate for CAT that this ahadith which he brought once again confirms the ahadith because ahadith talk about co existence of Muhammad and heraclius. Ahadith of Bukhari mention about Muhammad;s letter to Heraclius. So i would like to thank CAT for providing yet another evidence for confirming ahadith.
Lastly the arguments made in the end of CAT;s quote are stupid to say the least. If Muhammad was unknown to non muslims like Nikephoros or some other non muslim how does this translate to "Muhammad's tradition was unknown"?? It would only mean that the above persons hadn't heard of Muhammad because we have proofs from non muslims before these historians who knew of Muhammad.
Now I am going to bring a plenty of non muslim sources here which confirm brutal deeds of Muhammad. All of them describe Muhammad negatively as a criminal and therefore they confirm ahadith . I will be adding these new non muslim sources in my argument 8 so interested readers can keep a track of the updates. I am also going to edit argument 9 to correct one small mistake and add some part to argument 7 (proofs to back my claims). The editing parts or additions will be preceded by use of red words in large caps indicating additions or modifications so that readers know which are the newly added arguments.
Before I end this post I would once again like to gift to our beloved friend CAT and all quran alone muslims (actually CAT is one of them and not separate from them) who trust John of Damascus here to debunk ahadith..It seems that they trust john of Damascus 100 % and therefore should also have no problem in accepting more of John of Damascus' work..
Spoiler! :
Similarly, later contemporary sources show knowledge of the existence of only a part of the Qur'an. John of Damascus was a Syriac Christian priest who lived in the 8th century, during and after the Arab takeover of Syria. In his work De Haeresibus (c. 750 AD), John reveals that he had an intimate familiarity with many Arab traditions. Among these traditions are certain books that he attributes to "this Mohammed". From John's apologetic defenses, it has become apparent to scholars that he was only familiar with Suwar 2-5 of what is presently the Qur'an, plus a few other Islamic oral traditions21, some of which eventually found their way into the Qur'an, such as a variant story similar to Surah 33:37, an allusion to the three rivers flowing with water, milk, and wine (Surah 47:15), and a story similar to that of Salih's camel (Suwar 7:77, 91:11-14)22. In addition, John deals at length with another book, which he describes by its title as the "book on the Camel of God", which does not appear in the present Qur'an, but which he yet refers to as one of the books of the "Ishmaelites". He lists this book in parallel with "the book of the Table" (Surah 5), "the book of the Heifer" (Surah 2), and the "book of the Woman" (Surah 4), dealing with them in the same way to refute the heresy taught within them. This suggests that “the Book of the Camel of God” was viewed by the "Ishmaelites" with whom he was dealing as equally authoritative as the other books that do now appear in the Qur'an. The Qur'an also makes passing references to this Book of the Camel of God (see Suwar 7:73,77; 91:13-14), but this book failed to make it into the final compilation of the Arab holy writings.
so if one reads the above quote then it means that not only CAT has provided further evidence to confirm the ahadith but he has helped us knowing a new truth that quran of today doesn't contain a chapter named "The book of camel of the God" thereby further debunking his position that quran of today is uncorrupt.
EDIT
The quote says "Until the times of Heraclius the muslims were idolators". Now this quote is used by CAT to somehow interpret that it is referring to a time 641 AD i,e death year of Heraclius.
Which time is it talking??
Until the TIMES when HERACLIUS was dead? UNTIL the times when Heraclius came to power?? UNTIL the times when HERACLIUS was born?
Therefore its not clear from the quote. Now even if this was true we still have quotes from other non muslim sources which make a mention of Muhammad before . Its not clear from the quote as to which time is being referred
Thomas The Presbyter (Writing c. 640 CE / 19 AH)
AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa‘dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Mụhammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Ṃhmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza.
This quote talks about Arabs of Muhammad in 634 AD. Please note that it doesnt say Muhammad participated in the battle or that Muhammad existed in 634 AD. It only says that Arabs of Muhammad fought a battle which means that Muhammad was already considered a prophet by arabs in 634 Ad. Therefore this should suffice to refute the argument that the quote of John of Damascus talks about Muhammad becoming a prophet in 641 Ad.
Last edited by skynightblaze on Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.
skynightblaze wrote: Lastly the arguments made in the end of CAT;s quote are stupid to say the least. If Muhammad was unknown to non muslims like Nikephoros or some other non muslim how does this translate to "Muhammad's tradition was unknown"?? It would only mean that the above persons hadn't heard of Muhammad because we have proofs from non muslims before these historians who knew of Muhammad.
We can only be confident about Mhmd from these three early sources: John of Damascus, Nikephoros and Theophanes the Confessor.
skynightblaze wrote:if one reads the above quote then it means that not only CAT has provided further evidence to confirm the ahadith but he has helped us knowing a new truth that quran of today doesn't contain a chapter named "The book of camel of the God" thereby further debunking his position that quran of today is uncorrupt.
Where does the hadiths talk about a book called the Camel of God so that it does 'confirm the Koran? It's pretty clear that John never had the Koran in his hand and talks about hearsay about it. Now, the 'Camel of God' is indeed mentioned in the Koran (7.73-78) and could have been its title to some (there was no such titles originally). It's also mentioned in 17.59; 54.27-28; 26.155-158.
skynightblaze wrote: This quote talks about Arabs of Muhammad in 634 AD. Please note that it doesnt say Muhammad participated in the battle or that Muhammad existed in 634 AD. It only says that Arabs of Muhammad fought a battle which means that Muhammad was already considered a prophet by arabs in 634 Ad. Therefore this should suffice to refute the argument that the quote of John of Damascus talks about Muhammad becoming a prophet in 641 Ad.
Muhammad, as a name, was unknown in Arabia, just to spring like wildfire by the 7th century. We can't be sure about the 'Arabs of Mhmd' since even Muhammad ibn Maslamah, for example, was plundering Syria and Iraq exactly around that time, even leading a small army...
skynightblaze wrote: Thomas The Presbyter (Writing c. 640 CE / 19 AH)
The prophet was only nickname 'Muhammad' and we're not sure from the sira-hadith where this nickname came from, to the already nicknamed al-Amin. Some sources say it came from Abu Talib, or else his mother Amina, others say it was given while the Hegira. A melting pot of confused traditions. Our guy (the prophet) is said to be named Abul Kasem 'al-Amin' Ibn Abdallah, in question mark.
It should be noteworthy that Sebeos named him Mahmet. John of Damascus called him MAMED, transliterated into Muhammad and doesn't think of him as a founder of but another heresy. So is it for Nikephoros (750-828), who wrote his 'Short Story' (covering the years 602-769).
As head of the Byzantine church Nikephoros would probably have had an awareness of Islam as a religion or at least had access to those who had detailed knowledge on the topic but there is little indication of this in his history.... Nikephoros never mentions the names of Muhammad, the name Muslim or the Quran.... In his account the Arabs are portrayed in the same way as the other barbarian tribes swarming around the empire in the 7th and 8th centuries, like the Avars.
Since the following historian, Theophanes the Confessor, suddenly knows much details on Muhammad by 813, we MUST assume that those details appeared between 780 and 810!
You can't disprove that we have no manuscript evidence of ANY early hadiths, and this silence is deafening for about two centuries, which disprove the possibility that the prophet may have abrogated his asking NOT to write down any hadith. For in that case we would have religiously preserved hadiths from the companions. We don't. Go figure...
You can't disprove that we actually have not a single hadith from Muhammad himself and that the looong ahad chain of transmission (6 to10 narrators) is proving so. The so-called 'Sahih' hadiths aren't even, for at least 95% of them, of the mutawatir type (many times corroborated). Some top Islamic scholars evaluated that there are no more than 110 hadiths of the mutawatir type. +/- 110 !
Neither can you disprove that the Koran interdicts any authoritative hadith for they aren't divine revelation. You relied on the biased translation of verses (7.185, 12.111, 31.6; 45.6; 77.50) which avoided to transliterate the Arabic Ĥadīthin correctly.
More so, you won't find a single verse in the Koran stating that the previous scriptures were corrupted.
But most of all you now have to deal with the obvious felony of giving the hadiths authority. Let us check your 'logic'...
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:And... recognizing their legitimacy makes you morally responsible. Same as if you'd recognized Mein Kampf's legitimacy or authority. Although it is 'authentic'... its authenticity is a very different thing. Recognizing its authenticity, you're truthfully endorsing the content.
Mein Kampf is an authentic book, but its authenticity is quite disgusting. And so are you. At best, a pity.
I was not supposed to reply to you because your arguments are too poor to reply but it seems that I cant resist replying. Right now the pathetic thing is your logic. Please improve it .None is denying here that hadiths are criminal. All we are saying is they are the truth.
If you don't even properly understand the meaning of the words you use, you're are unfit to any logical construction. Like a kid building his logo airplane without caring to read properly the instructions, that ends up with a total mess.
Now, you used the word AUTHENTICITY, didn't you?
skynightblaze wrote:The only point I want to make throughout this debate is hadiths are a part of islam . I am defending their authenticity and not the content.
And did it AGAIN, after I came up with an online definition for 'authenticity'
skynightblaze wrote:No! I am arguing for -authenticity- of hadiths in islam .
AGAIN, you haven't understood or pass through the dictionary definition I brought. I'll quote some more from the same link. Now pay attention... http://www.thefreedictionary.com/authenticity
Genuineness, legitimacy, believability, credibility, credibleness - the quality of being believable or trustworthy.
1. genuineness, purity, realness, veritableness. Some factors have cast doubt on the statue's authenticity. 2. accuracy, truth, certainty, validity, reliability, legitimacy, verity, actuality, faithfulness, truthfulness, dependability, trustworthiness, authoritativeness, factualness The film's authenticity of detail has impressed critics.
Now read AGAIN, slowly, my redded remark:
And... recognizing their legitimacy makes you morally responsible. Recognizing its authenticity, you're truthfully endorsing the content.
The term refers to their CONTENT, what they do talk about. The Bible, for example, is an authentic collection of many books but its AUTHENTICITY is questionable and the subject of endless debates.
By using and repeating the word -authenticity- as opposed to content you have proven yourself unfit to any logical debate. That is because you reconstruct EVERYTHING from your own fantasy world and holds it to be sacrosanct. That's DELUSION.
Your logic comes down to uphold its content as LEGITIMATE, accurate. Then, logically, you become morally responsible for its outcome, such as:
Female circumcision Marriage of genitally mutilated childbride Stoning
You have disqualified yourself both ways: Either you misconstrued your thoughts, time again, and so are unfit to debate, or not... which makes you an abjection.
We are going to examine writings of Byzantine sources and my source is going to be answering islam.
Spoiler! :
[quote="Theophanes"] In this year died Muhammad, the leader and false prophet of the Saracens, after appointing his kinsman Abu Bakr to his chieftainship. At the same time his repute spread abroad and everyone was frightened. At the beginning of his advent the misguided Jews thought he was the Messiah who is awaited by them, so that some of their leaders joined him and accepted his religion while forsaking that of Moses, who saw God. Those who did so were ten in number, and they remained with him until his murder. But when they saw him eating camel meat, they realised that he was not the one they thought him to be, and were at a loss what to do; being afraid to abjure his religion, those wretched men taught him illicit things directed against us, Christians, and remained with him.
I consider it necessary to give an account of this man’s origins. He was descended from a very widespread tribe, that of Ishmael, son of Abraham; for Nizaros, descendant of Ishmael, is recognised as the father of them all. He begot two sons, Moudaros and Rabias. Moudaros begot Kourasos, Kaisos, Themimes, Asados and others unknown. All of them dwelt in the Midianite desert and kept cattle, themselves living in tents. There are also those farther away who are not of their tribe, but of that of Lektan, the so-called Amanites, that is Himerites. And some of them traded on their camels. Being destitute and an orphan, the aforesaid Muhammad decided to enter the service of a rich woman who was a relative of his, called Khandija[44], as a hired worker with a view to trading by camel in Egypt and Palestine. Little by little he became bolder and ingratiated himself with that woman, who was a widow, took her as a wife, and gained possession of her camels and her substance. Whenever he came to Palestine he consorted with Jews and Christians and sought from them certain scriptural matters. He was also afflicted with epilepsy. When his wife became aware of this, she was greatly distressed, inasmuch as she, a noblewoman, had married a man such as he, who was not only poor, but also an epileptic. He tried deceitfully to placate her by saying, ‘I keep seeing a vision of a certain angel called Gabriel, and being unable to bear his sight, I faint and fall down’.
Now, she had a certain monk living there, a friend of hers (who had been exiled for his depraved doctrine), and she related everything to him, including the angel’s name. Wishing to satisfy her, he said to her, ‘He has spoken the truth, for this is the angel who is sent to all the prophets.’ When she had heard the words of the false monk she was the first to believe in Muhammad and proclaim to other women of her tribe that he was a prophet. Thus, the report spread from women to men, and first to Abu Bakr, whom he left as his successor. This heresy prevailed in the region of Ethribos, in the last resort by war: at first secretly, for ten years, and by war another ten, and openly nine.
There are something where Theophanes contradicts islamic scriptures but he also confirms them on many counts. Please read the part in red in the spoiler.
1) Ibn Ishaq page 257 claims that jews believed in Muhammad initially which is confirmed by Theophanes
Spoiler! :
Ishaq p .257 According to what I heard from ‘Ikrima, freedman of Ibn ‘Abbas or from Sa‘id b. Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbas, Jews used to hope that the apostle would be a help to them against Aus and Khazraj before his mission began; and when God sent him from among the Arabs they disbelieved in him and contradicted what they had formerly said about him
2) A minute detail of Muhammad's life is also recorded correctly i.e Muhammad eating camel meat. There are plenty of Bukhari ahadith mentioning this. Though this detail is not of much importance however it does tell us that even minute details of Muhammad's life were captured by later writers.
3) The story of Muhammad's marriage to Khadija and his epilepsy symptoms are recorded in islamic scripture like ahadith where Muhammad was seen to throw himself off the clip or where Muhammad saw things which aisha never saw. Refer the link below for the same..
4) The story of the monk who told Khadija that Muhammad was a prophet is also recorded in the islamic traditions. One can google for references.
5) Even the minute detail that Abu Bakhr became the successor of Muhammad is recorded by ahadith is confirmed by Theophanes and he also talks about Muhammad waging war in the last 10 years which again confirms the islamic traditions which record almost 80 wars that Muhammad fought (direct as well as indirect) in the last 10 years.
6) Theophanes is talking about Muhammad being murdered which again confirms some sahih ahadith wherein Muhammad claimed to have been poisoned.
In the light of the above proof , we can clearly see that Theophanes confirmed islamic scriptures on some counts however he also contradicted them on counts like when Muhammad died. He places the date as 629-630 AD which is close to 632 AD ( according to islamic tradition). Doctrina Jacobi claims that Muhammad was alive after 634 AD so even within Byzantine writings we have contradictions. People don't remember dates but however they remember events correctly. Byzantine sources also can be wrong and subject to bias however when they confirm with islamic scripture the bias on both the sides is eliminated for e.g Byzantine sources call him a criminal (which can be a biased statement) however islamic sources depict him the same and therefore Byzantine and islamic sources can be considered correct when they confirm each other because it eliminates biases.
To be continued..........
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.
His Senility, snb, doesn't even catch the proofs and comments mentioned right above and keeps on adding silliness... Since the following historian, Theophanes the Confessor, suddenly knows much details on Muhammad by 813, we MUST assume that those details appeared between 780 and 810!
skynightblaze wrote:There are something where Theophanes contradicts islamic scriptures but he also confirms them on many counts. Please read the part in red in the spoiler.
Here's what I've already published... Our 'epitome of logic' runs flat all over... again! He doesn't even catch how chronological deductions work: viewtopic.php?p=165652#p165652
Spoiler! :
Theophanes was -the first- to give a (very small) external biography of the prophet, which means that these details were quite unknownbefore the redaction of his Chronicles in 813, even to John of Damascus and Nikephoros, both authorities, writing between 740/768. It means that these details -emerged- in between 768 and 810, that is still MUCH later than the traditional portrait you assume genuine. Now in 629, Theophanes said that the prophet was:
1. The leader and false prophet of the SARACENS. -Is this in your tradition of doubtless authenticity?-
2. Even in his genealogy the names Nizaros, Moudaros and Rabias are unfamiliar as descendants of Ishmael! What were his sources? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael Now he said that they were all dwelling in Midian, not in the distant place we know as Mecca. Is this traditional?
3. Was Khadija distressed by her epileptic husband or the first to support him, according to the tradition?
4. Much like John of Damascus, he thinks of what we call 'Islam' as a Christian heresy. Again... is this traditional?
5. Was Muhammad consorting with both Jews and Christians -whenever he came in Palestine- on scriptural matters?
6. Did the prophet die in 629/630 (''in this year died Mouamed''), according to the Islamic tradition?
So Theophanes knew some framework of 'Mouamed's' life... but many details were flagrantly discordants or absents, showing how the lies were build and explaining why no other one before Theophanes knew much about him, if at all.
skynightblaze wrote:1) Ibn Ishaq page 257 claims that jews believed in Muhammad initially which is confirmed by Theophanes.
2) A minute detail of Muhammad's life is also recorded correctly i.e Muhammad eating camel meat. There are plenty of Bukhari ahadith mentioning this. Though this detail is not of much importance however it does tell us that even minute details of Muhammad's life were captured by later writers.
3) The story of Muhammad's marriage to Khadija and his epilepsy symptoms are recorded in islamic scripture like ahadith where Muhammad was seen to throw himself off the clip or where Muhammad saw things which aisha never saw. Refer the link below for the same..
4) The story of the monk who told Khadija that Muhammad was a prophet is also recorded in the islamic traditions. One can google for references.
5) Even the minute detail that Abu Bakhr became the successor of Muhammad is recorded by ahadith is confirmed by Theophanes and he also talks about Muhammad waging war in the last 10 years which again confirms the islamic traditions which record almost 80 wars that Muhammad fought (direct as well as indirect) in the last 10 years.
6) Theophanes is talking about Muhammad being murdered which again confirms some sahih ahadith wherein Muhammad claimed to have been poisoned.
In the light of the above proof , we can clearly see that Theophanes confirmed islamic scriptures on some counts however he also contradicted them on counts like when Muhammad died.
His Senility fails to mention many other discrepancies, while all the above can be explained by the fact that Theophanes' book was written in 813-815! And since John of Damascus and Nikephoros ignored all these details between 740-768, we MUST conclude that the forgeries began between 768-813 for they were INEXISTANT before, which is confirmed by Joseph Schacht!
Now, point by point comments... 1-2) His point 1 contradicts his point 2. Jews left Muhammad except 10 of them, while the Doctrina states they were still allied.
3) What has epilepsy to do with 'seeing things Aisha never saw'? And was Khadija distressed by it or rather supportive?
4) Waraka ibn Nawfal, whom Theophanes doesn't name, was not a monk... neither was he a friend of Khadija (but a cousin).
5) Theophanes wrote: ''This heresy prevailed in the region of Ethribos, in the last resort by war: at first secretly, for ten years, and by war another ten, and openly nine.'' Now, was Muhammad in the region of Ethrobos (Yathrib) for twenty years, according to the tradition? How come he failed to mention Mecca, the Hegira and his welcoming into Yathrib, or its Constitution.
So we can see how our 'epitome of logic' keeps on laying down, over and still again, the same dysfunctional type of associations. The total silence over who exactly was this 'Mahmet', 'Mamed' or 'Mouamed' before Theophanes, proves the sirat's forgeries!
It is often noted that a coherent image of Muhammad cannot be formed from the literature of sīra, whose authenticity and factual value have been questioned on a number of different grounds. Wim Raven lists the following arguments against the authenticity of sīra:
1. The fact that no sīra work was compiled during the first century of Islam. 2. The many discrepancies exhibited in different narrations found in sīra works. 3. Later sources claiming to know more about Muhammad then earlier ones. 4. Discrepancies compared to non-Muslim sources. 5. Some parts or genres of sīra, namely those dealing with miracles, are not fit as sources....
Yep, as time passed... the more the so-called 'tradition' knew about Muhammad! This is what's confirmed by Theophanes!
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
Pathetic responses to my above post can be found in the link below. His responses are actually an insult to human intelligence and one can't stop laughing when he utters the word "Logic".
Theophanes tells us that the HERESY (and NOT LOCATION) of Muhammad being a prophet prevailed in Ethribos/Yathrib (Medina) .
Theophanes wrote:Thus, the report spread from women to men, and first to Abu Bakr, whom he left as his successor. This heresy prevailed in the region of Ethribos, in the last resort by war: at first secretly, for ten years, and by war another ten, and openly nine.
Theophanes doesn't make a mention of Mecca however he partially confirms islamic scripture because the heresy indeed spread in Medina. He does contradict islamic scriptures on the count that muhammad stayed in Mecca till the year 622 AD. SO we have a case of partial confirmation and partial contradiction. This again proves that islamic scriptures are not complete fabrications or else we would have seen nothing but contradiction. The bias is eliminated when we have both the muslim and Byzantine confirming with each other. Byzantine sources can be subjected to error and therefore its plain stupid to claim that since Byzantine scriptures contradict Islamic on some counts therefore islamic scriptures are completely unreliable.
Secondly, unless one claims that Theophanes was a accomplice of Islamic historians the argument that Theophanes included the part of siras which was forged in 780 AD and thereafter. This is absolutely stupid to say the least. Why would Theophanes include such information if Siras were forgeries? Wouldn't he know this that the fabrication of siras started in 780 AD especially when he himself lived during that time???According to CAT just because Nikpephoros or John of Damascus doesn't describe Muhammad in detail like Theophanes the Siras are forgeries
Thirdly , the claim that details of Muhammad's life were not known until 813 AD is false .I have quoted a person called John bar Penkaye in my argument 8 who was writing in 687 AD. He makes a mention of Muhammad's followers killing apostates and they followed him in every aspect of his life.
Fourthly, I missed on this portion of Theophanes' quote.
Spoiler! :
Theophanes wrote:He taught his subjects that he who kills an enemy or is killed by an enemy goes to Paradise; and he said that this paradise was one of carnal eating and drinking and intercourse with women, and had a river of wine, honey and milk, and that the women were not like the ones down here, but different ones, and that the intercourse was long-lasting and the pleasure continuous; and other things full of stupidity. Also, that men should feel sympathy for one another and help those who are wronged.
The above details are in line with what islamic scriptures like ahadith or sira tell us. In my next post, we shall see writings of Constantine .
Last edited by skynightblaze on Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.
skynightblaze wrote: Pathetic responses to my above post can be found in the link below. His responses are actually an insult to human intelligence and one can't stop laughing when he utters the word "Logic".
How come then that you haven't refuted -anything- so far? Slandering and dismissing aren't valid arguments and simply backfire at you.
Let us see furthermore...
skynightblaze wrote:Theophanes doesn't make a mention of Mecca however he partially confirms islamic scripture because the heresy indeed spread in Medina. He does contradict islamic scriptures on the count that muhammad stayed in Mecca till the year 622 AD. SO we have a case of partial confirmation and partial contradiction. This again proves that islamic scriptures are not complete fabrications or else we would have seen nothing but contradiction. The bias is eliminated when we have both the muslim and Byzantine confirming with each other. Byzantine sources can be subjected to error and therefore its plain stupid to claim that since Byzantine scriptures contradict Islamic on some counts therefore islamic scriptures are completely unreliable.
If they confirm the tradition, tell me again who was this 'Mhmd' plundering Syria/Iraq by 634-656?
skynightblaze wrote:Secondly, unless one claims that Theophanes was a accomplice of Islamic historians the argument that Theophanes included the part of siras which was forged in 780 AD and thereafter. This is absolutely stupid to say the least. Why would Theophanes include such information if Siras were forgeries? Wouldn't he know this that the fabrication of siras started in 780 AD especially when he himself lived during that time???According to CAT just because Nikpephoros or John of Damascus doesn't describe Muhammad in detail like Theophanes the Siras are forgeries
These newly informations came from distant sources, which Theophanes was unable to check. Of course the forgers wouldn't have come to him and say: ''look at what we've just came with.'' If already existing Nikephoros, John of Damascus & others would obviously had reported some. Thing is they didn't.
skynightblaze wrote: Thirdly , the claim that details of Muhammad's life were not known until 813 AD is false .I have quoted a person called John bar Penkaye in my argument 8 who was writing in 687 AD. He makes a mention of Muhammad's followers killing apostates and they followed him in every aspect of his life.
Penkaye wrote at the end of the 7th century, at the time of Abd al-Malik! His account is thus way too late and unsourced. Now, is this believable?: Firstly, they were so attached to the tradition of Muhammad who was their leader, that they inflicted the death penalty on anyone who seemed not to obey his commands. Their troops went every year into distant countries and islands, raided and brought back captives from all the nations that are under heaven.
Did the prophet's troops raided -every year- into distant countries bringing back captives ''from all the nations under heaven''? A little later Penkaye wrote: ''While Mu'awiya reigned there was such a great peace in the world as was never heard of...'' !!! How is this credible? How is this 'traditional'?
And I've answered:
--What Muawiyah did was perfectly relevant to the fact that Muhammad was never considered an example to follow. It wasn't so when collecting the very Koran, for he never collected it himself; The first caliphs didn't follow his example of allowing 7 different recitations, when they decided the standardization of the Koran. They followed their conscience... If Muhammad is to be followed, tell me where does the Koran makes him an IMAM (a timeless religious guide) as with Abraham (2.124), Isaac/Jacob (21.73)... or Moses (46.12)?
--Was Muhammad plundering Syria/Iraq by 637, according to the tradition? --And those lootings were customary to ALL the Bedouin's tribes. So what? They only demonstrate how this 'Mhmd' was following ancestral customs! More so, Muhammad ibn Maslamah, a companion, was plundering Syria and Iraq exactly around that time, even leading a small army...
skynightblaze wrote:Fourthly, I missed on this portion of Theophanes' quote ().... The above details are in line with what islamic scriptures like ahadith or sira tell us.
Wrong again. They are in line with the Koran, which was in existence way before the siras and hadiths.
skynightblaze wrote:In my next post, we shall see writings of Constantine .
My pitiful 'historian'.... Constantine lived 272-337, do you think he foretold Muhammad and the siras/hadiths?
That's really just like our 'epitome of logic'...
Last edited by The Cat on Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
Without even bothering to check , the idiot CAT passed the judgement that Constantine lived in 272 AD to 337 AD. Little does he know that Constantine was not just one person but the successors of him too were called Constantine . The Constantine I am talking about is Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. Answering islam refer him as Constantine so even if I made a mistake on not mentioning which COnstantine I was talking about it has nothing to do with using logic because this is a matter of information and it has nothing to do with using logic. Anyway let's see what he had to offer.
Answering islam wrote:
Spoiler! :
Constantine has excellent knowledge of political Islam such as the succession of caliphs and the sectarian splits within Islam but he knows little about Islam as a religion. Most of the information is taken directly from the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor and quoted verbatim. Constantine begins his account with a brief biography of the prophet Muhammad. It is worth quoting the text in full:
The blasphemous and obscene Mahomet, whom the Saracens claim for their prophet, traces his genealogy from the most widespread race of Ishmael, son of Abraham. For Nizaros, the descendant of Ishmael, is proclaimed the father of them all. Now he begat two sons, Moundaros and Rabias, and Moundaros begat Kousaros and Kaisos and Themimes and Asandos and various others whose names are unknown, who were allotted the Madianite desert and reared their flocks, dwelling in tents. And there are others further off in the interior who are not of the same tribe, but of Iektan, the so-called Homerites, that is, Amanites. And the story is published abroad thus. This Mahomet, being destitute and an orphan, thought fit to hire himself out to a certain wealthy woman, his relative, Chadiga by name[63], to tend her camels and to trade for her in Egypt among the foreigners and in Palestine. Thereafter by little and little he grew more and more free in converse and ingratiated himself with the woman, who was a widow, and took her to wife. Now, during his visits to Palestine and intercourse with Jews and Christians he used to follow up certain of their doctrines and interpretations of scripture. But as he had the disease the epilepsy, his wife, a noble and wealthy lady, was greatly cast down at being united to this man, who was not only destitute but an epileptic into the bargain, and so he deceived her by alleging: ‘I behold a dreadful vision of an angel called Gabriel, and being unable to endure his sight, I faint and fall’; and he was believed by a certain Arian, who pretended to be a monk, testified falsely in his support for love and gain. The woman being in this manner imposed on and proclaiming to other women of her tribe that he was a prophet, the lying fraud reached also the ears of a head-man whose name was Boubachar (Abu Bakr). Well, the woman died and left her husband behind to succeed her and to be heir of her estate, and he became a notable and very wealthy man, and his wicked imposture and heresy took hold on the district of Ethribos (Yathrib). And the crazy and deluded fellow taught those who believed on him, that he who slays an enemy or is slain by an enemy enters into paradise, and all the rest of his nonsense. And they pray, moreover, to the star of Aphrodite, which they call Koubar, and in their supplication cry out: ‘Alla wa Koubar’, that is, ‘God and Aphrodite’. For they call God ‘Alla’, and ‘wa’ they use as the conjunction ‘and’, and they call the star ‘Koubar’, and so they say ‘Alla wa Koubar.’ (De Administrando Imperio 14)[64]
Constantine confirms Theophanes and even he quotes some part of Theophanes writings directly. Again Constantine too contradicts islamic scripture on some counts and confirms them on some. This again proves my point that all the islamic scriptures can't be fabricated because if that was the case there would zero conformance between writings of islamic historians and non islamic scriptures. Now even if Byzantine sources contradict islamic scriptures on some counts it doesn't mean that islamic scriptures are lie. Its also possible that Byzantine sources were incorrect so we can't draw any solid conclusion.
Answering islam wrote:Constantine has more information on Muslim political history. He is aware of the succession of caliphs and correctly names Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. He is aware that Abu Bakr is related to Muhammad but does not elaborate on this. He gives approximately correct dates for their reigns. He also recounts the incident of Umar going to Jerusalem, meeting Sophronius, accepting the surrender of the city and building a mosque on the remains of the Temple of Solomon. (De Administrando Imperio 17-20)
My next post will deal with meat of the topic i.e. Mecca which is why this TROLL the CAT received some much attention as he copied all the information from his masters the Free Minders. I shall prove that Mecca existed even before Abbasids came into rule and this would refute the claim that Mecca was an invention of Abbasids. Anyway here is the long list of ahadith that mention Islamic paradise.
Spoiler! :
TIRMZI, vol. 2 states on page 138: Every man who enters paradise shall be given 72 (seventy-two) houris; no matter at what age he had died, when he is admitted into paradise, he will become a thirty-year-old, and shall not age any further. A man in paradise shall be given virility equal to that of one hundred men.
Hadith: Al hadiths, Vol. 4, Page-172, No.34: Hozrot Ali (r.a) narrated that the Apostle of Allah said, “There is in paradise an open market wherein there will be no buying or selling, but will consist of men and women. When a man desires a beauty, at once he will have intercourse with them as desired.
Sahih Bukhari 6:402: Allah's Apostle said, 'In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner there are wives who will not see those in the other corners; and the believers will visit and enjoy them all.'"
(Sahih Muslim 40.6795) This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira through another chain of transmitters that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: The (members of the) first group which would get into Paradise will have their faces as bright as stars in the sky. They would neither pass water, nor void excrement, nor will they suffer from catarrh, nor will they spit, and their combs would be made of gold, and their sweat will be musk, the fuel of their brazier will be aloes, and their wives will be large-eyed maidens and their form would be alike as one single person after the form of their father (Adam) sixty cubits tall.
Sahih Bukhari 4:544: Allah's Apostle said, 'The first group of people who will enter Paradise? Their wives will be Houris. All of them will look alike and will resemble their father Adam (in stature), sixty cubits tall.'
Sahih Bukhari volume 1 no 35 The Prophet said, "The person who participates in holy battles in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward or booty if he survives or will be admitted to Paradise if he is killed in the battle as a martyr. Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not leave behind any army unit going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause."
Sunan Abu Dawud 14:2514 The Prophet said: When your brethren were killed at the battle of Uhud, Allah put their spirits in green birds which go down to the rivers of Paradise, eat its fruit and nestle in lamps of gold in the shade of the Throne. Then when they experienced the sweetness of their food, drink and rest, they asked: Who will tell our brethren about us that we are alive in Paradise provided with provision, in order that they might not be disinterested in Jihad and recoil in war? Allah Most High said: I shall tell them about you; so Allah sent down the verse (Q3:169): "And think not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive and are provided sustenance from their Lord."
Al-Tirmidhi Hadith Hadith 5650 Narrated byHakim ibn Mu'awiyah Allah's Messenger said, "In Paradise there are a great river of water, a great rivers of honey, a great river of milk and a great river of wine; then the smaller river will be divided off."
MISHKAT, (volume three Says on pages 83-97): If a houri looks down from her abode in heaven onto the earth, the whole distance (space) shall be filled with light and fragrance. A houri's face is more radiant than a mirror, and one can see one's image in her cheek. The marrow of her shins is visible to the eyes. TIRMZI, volume two (p 35-40): A houri is a most beautiful young woman with a transparent body. The marrow of her bones is visible like the interior lines of pearls and rubies. She looks like red wine in a white glass. She is of white color, and free from the routine physical disabilities of an ordinary woman such as menstruation, menopause, urinal and offal discharge, child bearing and the related pollution. A houri is a girl of tender age, having large breasts which are round (pointed), and not inclined to dangle. Houris dwell in palaces of splendid surroundings.
[At-Tirmidhi] "In Paradise there is a sea of honey, a sea of wine, a sea of milk and a sea of water, and the rivers flow out of these seas."
Here is the link to Sira references which speak about promising heavenly rewards to those who fight for Allah and therefore Sira too is confirmed by Theophanes.
====================== More writings from John Bar Penkaye who was writing from 687 AD talking about the year 630 Ad (The author of the book claims that John is talking about 630 AD. All one has to do is follow the link below and find the quote of John Bar Penkaye above which the author makes this claim ..
John Bar Penkaye wrote:God summoned against us a barbarian kingdom - a people that is not open to persuasion (Isaiah 65:2) whose comfort lies in meaningless bloodshed ,whose pleasure is to dominate all nations ,whose wish to is to take captives and to make deportations.[/b]
Anyway more writings from John Bar Penkaye prove that Muhammad was exactly a criminal as shown in the ahadith.
Please read pages 216 and 217 and also page no 225 ( A christian Egyptian text) in the link below for what John Bar Penkaye had to say regarding islam.
The above quote which I have quoted from John Bar Penkaye is also found in the link in addition to the extra details that John Bar Penkaye has provided about islam..
=============================
Last edited by skynightblaze on Sun May 06, 2012 11:00 am, edited 3 times in total.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.
skynightblaze wrote:Without even bothering to check , the idiot CAT passed the judgement that Constantine lived in 272 AD to 337 AD. Little does he know that Constantine was not just one person but the successors of him too were called Constantine . The Constantine I am talking about is Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus.
So who's the idiot who didn't bother to check? There's one Constantine (without numbers). Was it that hard to write Constantine VII?
skynightblaze wrote:Answering islam refer him as Constantine so even if I made a mistake on not mentioning which COnstantine I was talking about it has nothing to do with using logic because this is a matter of information and it has nothing to do with using logic.
Yes it does, Your Senility. You just did the same before when arguing how the archeological proofs for Mecca were kept in England, or when arguing that al-Kalbi was promoted by answering-islam when he was not. A logical person check his sources, you don't ever.
And you claim that this has nothing to do with logic?... This very assertion is illogical and bordering crankiness!
skynightblaze wrote:Constantine confirms Theophanes and even he quotes some part of Theophanes writings directly.
Why do you keep on mistaking the Constantine implied? Because you reproduce the error although informed about it? Now, tell me the outcome of spreading such lies.... And yes Constantine VII (d.959) used Theophanes. So what? See... By 959, most of the forgeries were laid down, ie. the siras and hadiths. But snb can't have any logic in chronology either!
skynightblaze wrote: Again Constantine too contradicts islamic scripture on some counts and confirms them on some. This again proves my point that all the islamic scriptures can't be fabricated because if that was the case there would zero conformance between writings of islamic historians and non islamic scriptures.
Here's our 'epitome of logic' conclusion: Because there's -some- concordance (-from 813 and on-), all Islamic scriptures can't be fabricated. Again, he's totally missing the chrono-logical point I've made: since it suddenly, yet very partially, started to be known FROM 813 and on!
skynightblaze wrote:Now even if Byzantine sources contradict islamic scriptures on some counts it doesn't mean that islamic scriptures are lie. Its also possible that Byzantine sources were incorrect so we can't draw any solid conclusion.
So, according to this 'logic', when they concord with traditions (hey with much different details) then the latter is proven, but when they don't Islam (a name unknown to Theophanes) isn't proven wrong, ie. the traditions are like the 1st snow!
skynightblaze wrote:My next post will deal with meat of the topic i.e. Mecca which is why this TROLL the CAT received some much attention as he copied all the information from his masters the Free Minders. I shall prove that Mecca existed even before Abbasids came into rule and this would refute the claim that Mecca was an invention of Abbasids.
All you've got to do now is to PROVE that I've ''copied all the information from his masters the Free Minders'' or else stand as a LIAR.
This guy really never understood one single thing about what I've said, mixing everything up! My real contention, first of all, is that: ''There was no Mecca, where it now stands in the 6/7th century''. viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8527 But this guy is always jumping from Wrong Premise to False Dilemma and then Hasty Generalization as a rule.
Never ever fall for the historical crap. I made a mistake of getting into historical things. Its a TRAP to set you up. If you fall for it you lose the case.... Now in all the debates I made a few mistakes and I have learned from them so I can now gather all the things and put them in one thread in the resource center.
According to this 'logic', history is a trap-crap bound to make -anyone- lose 'the case'! And repeating the same mistakes he made then is a sign that he has learned much! Now, to do so he has to rely on the very trap-crap bound to make him lose the case.
Even his answering-islam source shows that Theophanes ignored Mecca in Muhammad's account:
He knows of the anti-Umayyad rebellion of Abdallah ibn al-Zubair but thinks it was at Yathrib (Medina) rather than Mecca. Theophanes does not seem to know about Mecca as he fails to mention it in his summary of Muhammad’s career in the year 6122.
Mecca is not on the inscription on the Dome of the Rock either and the first coin mentioning that name was minted around 822.
skynightblaze wrote:Here is the link to Sira references which speak about promising heavenly rewards to those who fight for Allah and therefore Sira too is confirmed by Theophanes.
This guy is incredible! Because the sira REPEATS what was -already existing in the Koran- they become confirmed by Theophanes!
Again, he has NO chronological logic, and NO logic whatsoever, yet keeps on pontificating over his own swamp of zany assertions!
Last edited by The Cat on Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
booktalker wrote:does anyone know if there is a link on this site to a post about how the ahadith were collected and when?
No sahih collections, nor al-Tabari, give ANY reference to former manuscripts, which were unexisting anyway. To hide this Muhammadans came with 'the science of hadiths', which is mainly a thick smokescreen of whitewashing giving the forgeries a semblance of reliability. None of their criterion would meet the requirement of a proof accepted in a courtroom. This was also the position of the Mutazilites.
For certain no hadiths, even from this 'Mhmd', was being counted as absolutely authoritative by the Mutaziles who ruled the Islamic legal system, before the traditionists came in following Shafi'i. Any said hadith from 'Muhammad' going contrary to reason, jurisprudence and common sense would have been dismissed on the spot, on the ground of being frivolous and spurious. So it was still in Umayyad Spain (producing luminaries like Avicenna and Ibn Khaldoun).
--By 900CE Sunnis considered that all the Companions of the Prophet were automatically upright... In effect, then, the first generation of hadith transmitters was beyond criticism (-although 9.47-50; 9.101-).
--The earliest critic, al-Zuhri, had only met the youngest of the Companions, and his hadith criticism mostly addressed the reports he heard from other Successors.... That the collective impunity of the Companions was a later construct of the Sunni worldview is evident when one finds occasional minor Companions listed in early books of weak hadith transmitters.
--When we thumb through books of transmitter criticism or Ilal, one of the most obvious characteristics of early hadith criticism is that early scholars almost never discussed the contents of hadith, let alone explicitly rejected a hadith because its meaning was unacceptable. Why is this?... For the (afore) Mutazilites, the idea that one could examine the isnad of the hadith to know if it was reliable or not was preposterous (they relied on Quran, usual consensus -sunna- and reason).
--If hadith critics admitted that a hadith could have an authentic isnad but still be a forgery because its meaning was unacceptable, then they would be admitting that their rationalist opponents were correct! If you could not have a strong isnad with a forged report, then any problem in the meaning of a hadith must mean that there was a problem in the isnad.
On the former Mutazilites... --Mutazilites had no compunction about making the content criticism the centerpiece of their method of hadith evaluation.... The Hanafi judge Isa b. Aban (d.836) thus argued that the early Muslim community rejected ahad reports that contradicted the Quran or established Sunna, or described an event that would have been more widely reported had it really occurred. He also makes the verdict of reason the ultimate arbiter for judging the veracity of a report, not the isnad.
--Essentially all hadiths were ahad. As Ibn al-Salah (d.1245), the most famous scholar of hadith criticism in the later period, explained, at most one hadith (-Whoever lies about me intentionally, let him prepare for himself a seat in Hellfire-) would meet the requirement for mutawatir. No hadiths could actually be described as being narrated by a large number of narrators at every stage of their transmission. In fact, when Mutazilites had insisted that hadiths be transmitted by a mere two people at every stage, the Sunni Ibn Hibban had accused them of trying to destroy the Sunna of the Prophet in its entirety.
--The final means by which hadiths achieved exaggerated authority in the late Sunni Tradition was the exploitation of the concept of the mutawatir reports.... Although scholars like al-Salah had declared that no such hadith existed in actuality, al-Suyuti composed a collection () in which he included 111 hadiths he declared mutawatir because ten or more Companions had narrated it from the Prophet. -But a mutawatir hadith had to have such number of isnads at every level of transmission, and not all the chains of transmission that al-Suyuti used as evidence were reliable to begin with.
Even nowadays top Islamic scholar, Harald Motzki, couldn't find ANY genuine source between 630-690. Nothing...
Much more in the above link. Some other references...
skynightblaze wrote:Dr Amari places Mecca in the 5th century AD. This person has done 20 years of research on Mecca working 8 hours day . He didn't simply come up with his thesis by merely scratching the surface. Dr Amari doesn't draw idiotic conclusions like yourself like tafsirs and ahadith are fabrications. Dr Amari didn't exactly depend on islamic sources for his conclusions otherwise we would be seeing him saying Mecca existed since time of Abraham.
I don't nicknamed him 'His Senility' for nothing. This argument have been refuted among all the others way before. He even gave it up ''There must be proof . Its only that I aint finding it.'' Just to rehash the same topic back again! viewtopic.php?p=149130#p149130 viewtopic.php?p=149180#p149180
skynightblaze wrote:Sam shamoun whom you like to quote also doesn't agree with you. Infact Sam had once given me a list of questions to ask to quran alone supporters. So if its all about scholars then I have equal amount of recognized scholars that hold other views. Craig winn also doesn't support this pathetic position. Your cook/crone are also not viewed by professors of history as scholarly.
You are bringing false testimonies in the equation, an old habit of yours. Is there ANY decency left in you? viewtopic.php?p=160616#p160616
HEY, woh now! It's Craig Winn who's not an historian, just a polemical ancient business man. Equalling his fantastic assumptions with cash says everything about you that one should know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Winn
The quote from J. van Ess is a blunder made by Saifullah (of islamic-awareness), editing wikiislam! The quote isn't found in his book 'The Making of Islam'! Once again, snb trolls-in anything at hand. http://www.islamfaith.info/re-patricia-crone
As for the link between the Jews and the Saracens, we've simply got too many proofs to reject it as they simplistically do. Didn't Umar got them back in Jerusalem to worship in their temple, yes or no? Is it contrary to the traditions, yes or no?
And the wikipedia says: ''dismissed by SOME as an experiment and criticised for its "use (or abuse) of its Greek and Syriac sources." What's that supposed to mean? Historians shouldn't count them in and solely rely on the blatant forgeries of the Islamic circular reasoning? Yet, even from within, as Goldiziher, Schacht and Juynboll has proven from Islamic jurisprudence, or even Wael Hallaq, they are internally inconsistent, unreliable, likely forged backward.
skynightblaze wrote:Doctrina claims that Muhammad was alive by 634 AD while Theophanes claims that he died in 629 Ad.... How in the world do the Byzantine sources confirm islamic scripture on some counts if entire ahadith are fabrications??
The Islamic tradition helds a discrepancy of 85 years! Which of them has more chances? Strangely enough, Western accounts thus seem to precede ANY reliable Islamic 'tradition'!
And because they are dynsfunctionals on many other accounts too, both externally and internally.
skynightblaze wrote: Btw John talks about 630 Ad. If you read the link to the book I gave it clearly says that John was talking about an event in 630 Ad. How come John claims that Apostates were being killed??? What a coincidence we have! John says in 687 AD that followers of Muhammad used to kill apostates and take slaves, deporting people from their lands, their barbarism and co incindently all fabricators like BUkhari, Sahih Muslim, Tabari, Ishaq say the same thing ! This is the logic according to CAT
And the rest has been refuted already, right above... viewtopic.php?p=164090#p164090 He shows how Muawiya, not Muhammad, was the guidance followed. Now, is this traditional?
skynightblaze wrote:Quran is older than islam and that;s because quran says so. Are you from Harvard? If I start quoting to display what an idiot you are I will require a separate thread.
Just come on... and prove that I've writen anywhere that ''Quran is older than Islam.'' Or that I've said that the Quran is sacred to me! Show to everyone the crooked liar and deceiver you truly are.
Now, there's many idiotic 'arguments' of yours like: ''When one can support his argument using logic is there really a need of historical proofs?''
skynightblaze wrote: You simply dont have a case for quran alone muslim but I guess since logic is not a part of your domain we can absolutely be sure that you will not correct yourself.
Who are the 'we' you're talking in the name of? Who are you to talk for them entirely?
Now, there was cases for koraners alone even BEFORE the traditions you defend came over, around 830. I've asked you to get informed about the Kharijites and Mutazilites, of course you didn't. Just like you...
skynightblaze wrote:Another rubbish lie by this TROLL. Islamic scriptures themselves record the existence of early ahadith... Bukhari in a foot note says that he has not included repeated traditions on account of brevity.
Wow this ''I don't have time to provide my sources''... How could this unscholarly attitude be proving his reliability?
skynightblaze wrote:First of all prove to us that 2 narrators is the correct criteria for something to be valid. This is a false criteria because 2 unreliable people cannot make up for a single reliable narrator . I am not saying a single narrator is the correct criteria for something to be valid. What I am saying is that its not necessary that just because there are no 2 narrators something can be termed as forged.
There can't be sahih hadiths that aren't mutawatur/tawatur (corroborated by many at each level of every narration). And there's only one of them: ''Those who spread lies concerning me intentionally must prepare their place in hellfire.''
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
But let's keep on with more crankiness from our 'epitome of Logic'....
skynightblaze wrote:The spoilers contain huge pile of information which refute this TROLL.
Again, show me one manuscript out of them. O-N-E!
Then, another proof on how you don't check your sources. You've wrote: ''In 1373 A.H. (1954 C.E.), two manuscripts of this book were discovered in the libraries of Berlin and Damascus, and were published by Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah with a detailed introduction. Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah edited these manuscripts which were written centuries ago. He has also compared their text with the one narrated in the Musnad of Imâm Ahmad. He could not find any material difference between the two texts.''
Forging Ahadith Now (by Muhammad Hamidullah), Hafiz Azhar A. Syed...
Saheefah Hammam ibn Munabbih is supposedly the earliest known collection of Ahadith compiled by the 8th century scholar Hammam ibn Munabbih. No one knew its whereabouts until the 20th century! Strangely, Dr Muhammad Hameedullah of India/France suddenly came up with its published “translation” in English in 1994....
In his death confessions he admitted that he was the chief instrument in fabricating the said Saheefah. Mullah Ikhwan Sarhadi Afindi applauds Hameedullah's great “discovery” (in Paris) as the earliest work of Hadith. He says, “The Saheefah Hammam ibn Munabbih was prepared by Hazrat Abu Hurairah for his pupil Hammam ibn Munabbih. Abu-Hurairah died in 58 A.H./677 CE, Hammam ibn Munabbih died in 101 A.H./719 CE.” It consists of 138 Ahadith that can also be found in Sahah Sittah with similar content and chain of narrators.
I visited Hameedullah in Nov 2002 along with some friends to meet with him and to check on his health. During the visit, he asked us to pray for his forgiveness. Haeedullah said that he had done the forgery in good faith and only when he was losing his faculties due to senility. He admitted plagiarizing from the SAHAH SITTAH.
His intentions? "To provide some credibility to the Hadith literature that is being challenged by some Quranic voices."
Where was the Arabic original discovered? “In the basement of my house in Paris.”
Sir, where is the original Arabic scroll? He answered, "I don't know why I burned it."
Why did it remain hidden for 12 centuries and how did it end up in Paris? Why wasn't it translated by anyone before? Why didn't anyone hear about it or mention it at all through these centuries? "I don't know", he said....
Now the English 'Saheefah' is very much there and Mullahs are using it to mislead people.
PS: Some Mullahs have recently claimed that Dr Hameedullah had discovered the scroll in 1960 in Paris.
Even if this posthumous 'manuscript' existed -and not before 750- questions would arise on its authenticity...
--Some of the above-named authors attempted to counter this objection (of no manuscript) by concretely pointing out texts or fragments of text of early hadith collections whose existence is asserted in these sources, but which had thus far not been discovered. A beginning had been made by Hanidullah, who published the sahifat of Hammam ibn Munabbih (d.719/720), supposedly the oldest preserved hadith work, in 1953..... (-hey, even a scholar like Motski can't give another source than this Hamidullah for such a manuscript!-).
--None of these texts is an autograph. Who can guarantee that the supposed Sahifa of Hammam ibn Munabbih is not a forgery or a collection of fabricated traditions by Ma'mar ibn Rashid (d.770) or by 'Abd al-Razzaq (d.827), who both appear before Hammam in the isnad? Abd al-Razzaq is the common link of all preserved versions of the text. What assurance does one have that the supposed texts of al-Zuhri really originate with him and were not ascribe to him by anonymous persons.... ?
Indeed, this is how forgers proceed in order to deceive!
skynightblaze wrote:I don't depend upon views of others but you are. In short you are committing a fallacy of appealing to popularity.... If you think they are irrefutable then we have got equal no of views who discard their theory.
You don't ''depend upon views of others''? Another blatant lie! What is parroting and trolling Islamist's arguments then.
Now, relying upon scholarship and critic studies is certainly not ''appealing to popularity'', Mr. Deceit.
An equal no of views discarding their theory is not a criteria, which is proofs. Equalling Joseph Schacht with David Waines as he did again, says it all !
That's the real fallacy of appealing to popularity.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
skynightblaze wrote:1)--Penkaye tells us that early muslims followed the tradition of Muhammad and they killed apostates which is in line with islamic traditions.... 2)--Theophanes was born in 760 AD. He would have known that the siras were fabrications and he would have certainly mentioned this. 3)--Your scholars cannot tell us why finding of Sanaa manuscripts confirm with whatever is documented in the ahadith regarding compilation of the quran. 4)--even after losing the debate by a land slide regarding compilation of quran you dare to claim that quran is much more historically grounded. One can see the miserable performance of this poster in the following link..
2)--Explain how he would have known the forgeries from far away Constantinople.
3)--You're contradicting yourself for you argued that the hadiths debunk the standard compilation. Now, as I've said, Umar, Uthman and Ali are historically much more credible than Ibn Abbas and al.
4)--It is. Was the Koran compiled two hundred years after Muhammad's death, in rasm? Then, where did I lost the debate 'by a landslide'. It's obviously the other way around.
skynightblaze wrote:You made a claim about diacritical dots. I asked you your source. You claimed that its a historical knowledge and therefore you refute yourself because even islamic scriptures make a mention of adding of diacritical dots to the quran. In other words historical knowledge (as you claim) confirms the islamic scriptures thereby refuting your stance that all the ahadith are fabrications.
skynightblaze wrote: I just checked Goldziher’s writings in detail and I found he doesn’t contradict Schacht regarding claim about the time lines when ahadith are fabricated. I will have to correct that mistake however Schacht does contradict Goldziher on other counts.... In short your 2 scholars cannot agree within themselves as to how ahadith were fabricated!
You'll have to correct yourself on many, many more accounts. You're in amateurish habit of bringing simple polemicists against scholars as if they could match equally. This CAN'T be.
Goldziher was a pioneer and his sources were wide, while Schacht limited himself to (still wide) legal jurisprudence. To Goldziher: ''It is no longer possible to determine what is authentic and what is unauthentic.'' But Schacht got more precise and draw a specific timeline: ''this process began with the Successors, and only LATER came to involve the Prophet. Legal hadiths, if they invoke the authority of the Prophet, MUST be inauthentic.'' (from your own reference).
And your sources (from Saifullah, editing wikipedia) has been proven biased. Wansbrough tends to dismiss ALL sources as inaccurate (your quote). But he's being on the extremist side of rejection. I think he's wrong. Coins and epigraphical evidences gathered by Yehuda Nevo yet kept by Crone & Cook simply cannot be so dismissed...
Archaeology and the History of Early Islam, the First Seventy Years (Jeremy Johns). http://www.krc.ox.ac.uk/Publications/Je ... s%202003(a).pdf A well documented search, I'll have to bring into 'The Hadiths' Perfidy'...
skynightblaze wrote:http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?p=166816#p166816 there are plenty of names in the link I gave who don't support what Crone says but you did not bother to comment upon these people
What I've found out is enough... --Craig Winn is not an historian, just a polemical ancient business man. --The quote from J. van Ess isn't found in his book. --RB Serjeant is a nobody, without any wikipedia entry. --They were all refuted by Herberg Berg, G. R. Hawting and... Michael Cook. From Herbert Berg: The problem of hadiths forgery, Forgery of isnads, etc. http://www.scribd.com/doc/41077970/Summ ... -Criticism The Islamic Origins Debate Goes Public, by Peter von Sivers. http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/ ... co_058.pdf
skynightblaze wrote: I have placed a link to my post to Ibn Rushd in the thread "hadith timelines" refuting Crone. its an ebook and refutes Crone. Most of your arguments are borrowed from Crone and sadly for you she has been debunked and even called unreliable by most of the renowned scholars.
The only acknowledge scholar in your list is Van Ess. Renowned scholars such as Craig Winn and RB Sergeant? Polemicists aren't scholars.
Oh, and I thought that, according to you, I got ALL my arguments from free-minds! Now... it's from Crone alone!
About al-Roubi's so-called refutation you wrote: ''I don't agree with the author with everything he says but I think he has done a decent job.'' So first specify what you disagree or agree with...
Then, its all about circular reasoning... from the tradition, which Crone dismissed as unreliable. Mr al-Roubi should thus start by answering this, which of course such apologist is unable to do...
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophetic_ ... usefulness It is often noted that a coherent image of Muhammad cannot be formed from the literature of sīra, whose authenticity and factual value have been questioned on a number of different grounds.[1] Wim Raven lists the following arguments against the authenticity of sīra:
1. The fact that no sīra work was compiled during the first century of Islam. 2. The many discrepancies exhibited in different narrations found in sīra works. 3. Later sources claiming to know more about Muhammad then earlier ones. 4. Discrepancies compared to non-Muslim sources. 5. Some parts or genres of sīra, namely those dealing with miracles, are not fit as sources...
...... [/quote] What you've done subsequently is to give me the paterniting of Win Raven quote... 1) I've told you that the character of Muhammad was forged from Moses & Joshua, a Jewish Messiah. 2) Win Raven talks about SIRAS, not hadiths, and we've got NO manuscripts for any of them. 3) And I've told you how the forgery began by Theophanes' time, his details ignored by John of Damascus. 4) Muhammad wasn't any different from the Bedouin's habit of devastating & plundering! See #1.
[quote="skynightblaze wrote:There were plenty of ahadith in supply in the first and second generations
Bring me one single valid manuscript from before the Abbasids. Let's have a look at these 'early' hadiths... viewtopic.php?p=129107#p129107
Moreover, the Islamic tradition itself states that there was no such compilation before al-Zuhri, who began it all.
skynightblaze wrote:You confirm non quranic sources in the process which is what you do not understand
The Cat wrote:Which is refuted by history without any authoritative hadith before Shafi'i and... AhmedBahgat exegesis: viewtopic.php?p=167775#p167775
1. What are your sources of history to determine that there were no authoritative ahadith before Shafi? You are again referring to islamic history to know this so again a case of selective picking.
2. Neither you nor Ahmed Bahgat can understand logic. He has already been refuted plenty of times and yet he keeps parroting the same thing just like you.
2. Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy too and mere allegations aren't proofs but bravados. You're being so amateurish. Now dare to disprove him both in the link given and those from 'The Hadiths' perfidy'... viewtopic.php?p=129368#p129368
skynightblaze wrote:he was a criminal. Even if we consider Doctrina Jacobi she also says the same . In her quote we find that this man ,whoever, was a murderer. How is that every single source claims that Muhammad was a criminal?
skynightblaze wrote:Show me a single statement from me saying that ALL THE AHADITH ARE AUTHENTIC. Just find one statement . If you can then you can start a poll otherwise the poll will be based on false accusations.
That's exactly what my figure wanted to dig out: so to show that your poll was based on false allegations from a wrong premise. Thus, in turn, show me a statement of mine stating that all the hadith as are unauthentic as per your fallacious poll's question.
Thus your very poll is a logical fallacy as you found out when switching the roles...
skynightblaze wrote:Penkaye does not say saracens followed Muawiya. He clearly says that they followed Muhammad
Just another fallacious argument proving once more that you are the one selectively picking to suit your goal: 'As a result of this man's guidance (Muawiya) they held to the worship of One God, in accordance with the customs of ancient law. At the beginnings they kept to the traditions of Mụhammad' (he could have said the traditions of Bedouins/Nomads just as well).
So indeed they followed Muawiwa instead of the barbarian custom of the Bedouins, such as Muhammad.
skynightblaze wrote:Penkaye writes about killing apostates and a monk writes about muslims taking captives and coincidentally it matches with whatever the later muslim writers came up with. This cannot be a coincidence.
Again, that was the usual SUNNA (as traditional custom) of ALL the bedouins' tribes. Nothing particular to this Mahmet or Mamed.
So we can see, here again, how SNB has nothing but polemical sweet nothings, in the garb of 'logic' presented through a vast conglomerate of logical fallacies.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
His Senility mixed up, in his first response, a non-existent challenge of mine with that of MesMorial and now multiples his responses by opening superflous thread while it should be in existing debates. viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11172
skynightblaze wrote: I do not have to dare to prove Schacht as wrong . He has already proven wrong by others. Here is abstract by Mcgill University on the book written by Alhomoudi, Fahad A.
Proven? That's another fallacy. You really think and argue like a Sunnite dispelling wild assumptions as victorious.
This once again, SNB repeat his deplorable habit of using people with amateurish scholarship... Had he checked his source he would have found that Alhomoudi has a degree in... Philosophy.
Schacht's conclusion that no legal hadiths from Muhammad became authoritative before Shafi'i can't be refuted.
skynightblaze wrote:finally you end up contradicting yourself. If you say what Muhammad did was according to the customs of the Bedouins then it means you acknowledge the history provided by ahadith as well as by non muslims where they depict him as a thug but on the other hand you also claim that we cannot get the image of character called Muhammad from the islamic history. Therefore you contradict yourself. Deal with it!
Secondly quran itself says that stealing is bad so how can it be a norm during Muhammad's time? You were crushed in the other debate where you tried to bring Reza Aslan. Even by his quotes stealing within the tribe was not a norm. Muhammad was a pagan for first 40 years of his life but he betrayed and attacked his own tribe so according to Reza Aslan's criteria Muhammad becomes a thug. You have been refuted TROLL!
2. That's why Penckaye lauded Muawiya: ''As a result of this man's guidance they held to the worship of One God, in accordance with the customs of ancient law. At the beginnings they kept to the traditions of Mụhammad.'' It then looks that this Muhammad wasn't following any koranic and/or biblical rules but those of the Bedouins. So who was he?
After that, you left the 'Aslan topic'. Now to state that I was 'crushed'... another Sunnite bravado.
skynightblaze wrote:Your arguments mean that no ahadith is reliable and therefore I was right in conducting a poll.
Fallacious argument, based on your usual triad of logical fallacies: Wrong premise: you claim that ahadith are abbasids forgeries and there was nothing before... False Dilemma: if aim of Abbasids was to forge they are not going to bother to include the true history. Hasty Generalization: Your arguments mean that no ahadith is reliable and therefore I was right in conducting a poll.
Another falsity! I've never stated that there was NOTHING before: Muhammad interdicting hadiths for example. Try to swim out of your poll being fallacious is only... drowning you furthermore into fallacious arguments. viewtopic.php?p=128620#p128620
skynightblaze wrote:My claim is that Muhammad was a violent character as depicted in the ahadith and this is confirmed by John Penkaye.
Again, this character was forged from Moses/Joshua, the usual customs of the Bedouin's. Nothing original here. Moreover, the hadiths were reproductions of the Jewish oral-torah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah
skynightblaze wrote:I think arguments at islamic awareness are correct atleast in this regard.
The article is based upon Nadia Abbott. A nobody in the scholars' circle with not even a Wikipedia entry. Are you about to bring Karen Armstrong now?
skynightblaze wrote:This paper is a chapter from Dr. Fahad Alhamoudi's book: "On the Common Link Theory: Remapping the Western Theories on Islamic Law".
Yes, indeed, someone having a degree in Philosophy has the credentials to oppose Schacht...!
The first of his arguments is that Schacht was unfamiliar with the biographical literature, something very circular since they were produced AFTER the main hadiths compilers, that is especially forged to suit them all! On this even the siras of Muhammad were forged all along with Ishaq/Hisham 'old' poetry' was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq
Again, the guy has no Wikipedia entry. This ain't the way scholarship is conducted by any means.... Thus you're not much different from the one who brought al-Kalbi to prove the existence of Mecca.
But, what the hell! Your zero credibility allows you to bring in any Sunnite's reasoning all along. Throwing stones into the pound may trouble the water but never ever the nature of the pound...
For those interested , I have done some updating on this thread. I have added a few points, corrected some mistakes and added some quotes from John Bar Penkaye which confirm the fact that Muhammad was a hard core criminal. I have highlighted words in red color or some color before the changes that I have made . Below are mentioned links to those specific posts where edits have been made. Since the posts are lengthy, one may not be able to see the edits immediately and hence one needs to scroll the post so that he/she finds them easily. They typically start with ===== and end with ====
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.
skynightblaze wrote:Quran alone muslims claim that Muhammad is not supposed to be obeyed and yet in this case they want people to obey Muhammad but yet these people are not bothered about NOT listening to Muhammad when he asked to burn the ahadith. Secondly even if we assume that Muhammad indeed forbid the ahadith it does not mean it blows away their accuracy.
skynightblaze wrote:Now I would be committing a fallacy of moving the goal post if I divert attention to quran without considering the corruption of ahadith . Now what I claim is ahadith as well as quran become false so I aint moving the original goal i.e ahadith being corrupt. I am only adding to the goal....
Our 'epitome of logic' is stating that adding to the goal isn't moving the goalpost!!! He's an expert into this fallacy, which includes his poll and his RC thread (see intro) viewtopic.php?p=168238#p168238
skynightblaze wrote:(1) I came across quotes from other non muslim writers that refer muslims are Saracens so therefore I have to correct this mistake however the rest of my arguments stays valid..... (2) Fabricating the time line of Muhammad (570 to 632 AD) absolutely doesn’t help the fabricator serve any purpose ..... (3) The text praises Muawiya for going against the teachings of Muhammad which means that Muhammad indeed taught violence and a message of intolerance and that message of Muhammad is well documented in the ahadith so thanks for again proving that ahadith regarding criminal activities of Muhammad are authentic. Now what muawiya did is irrelevant because the same quote also says that early muslims followed Muhammad dedicatedly to the extent that they would kill any apostate of islam!
1) That's right, keep correcting yourself. It sure doesn't help your seriousness at all.
2) It helped the Abbasids to forge a blood-line with him. That's the bulk of it all.
3) These criminal activities were that of all marauding Bedouins. It doesn't underline much! Since Muawiya was followed, instead of him, he wasn't prevailing over the main elites at all.
skynightblaze wrote: I am yet to examine what Herbert Berg and Andrew Rippin say but I guess my arguments 7 and 8 clearly demonstrate that some of the ahadith are true and I have used external sources I,e sources other than Islamic to make a case so it would be mere repetition if I am to refute Herbert berg or Andrew Ripping.
Your Dr Alhamoudi of I.A. quotes Nadia Abbott and Mustafa Azami, merely Islamic apologists, well debunked by Herbert Berg for their circular reasonings, using ascriptions as cash-truth. viewtopic.php?p=168418#p168418
skynightblaze wrote: More writings from John of Damascus who was writing from 687 AD talking about the year 630 Ad (The author of the book claims that John is talking about 630 AD. All one has to do is follow the link below and find the quote of John of Damascus above which the author makes this claim .... Please read pages 216 and 217 and also page no 225 ( A christian Egyptian text) for what John Bar Penkaye had to say regarding islam.
Your first link is blanked out but, no surprise, you confounded Penkaye with JoD. Keep correcting...
It says that Jacob knew Muhammad, which is plainly wrong. He was unheard of... ''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?"
--This unnamed prophet was newly appearing by 634-640. --He was proclaiming the second advent of Christ (!!??!!). --This NEW prophet was then allied with the Jews !!!
His reference is sloppy, as ALWAYS: Heraclius didn't even conquer Jerusalem in 630 but in the spring of 629.
skynightblaze wrote:I would not be angry with Spencer (as I would be with pissy Cat) even If i disagree with him because he is not trying to protect quran here. If Muhammad did not exist I am happy with that conclusion too because it would ultimately help in wiping out islam in entirety which is what i would like to see.
Prove us how Islam/Muslims existed in the alleged time of Muhammad from external sources. Without them, no traditional religious leader.
The historical truth is that we have no records of Muhammad before about 685. He was more likely a mix of Muhammad ibn Maslama and Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyah, not the one transmitted by the Islamic traditions, a gigantic backward build-up from constructed companions (Shahada). It was first made against the Umayyads and NOT by them. It was mainly a late Jewish/Persian construction.
As a matter of fact we find no dated inscriptions for the root shahida (shahada) before 157/774 (Hoyland).
skynightblaze wrote: I see he is trusting non muslim sources as if they are beyond error. I can show numerous discrepancies within non muslims writers about islam so it is clear that neither are non muslim sources sufficient enough to judge islamic sources Just to give an example Muawiya is painted as a thug who followed Muhammad's steps like threatening his neighbors by writing letters by a non muslim writer named Sebeos while Muawiya is portrayed as a saint who respected other religions by John Bar Penkaye so is it logical to derive a conclusion about islam from non muslim sources alone?
just ran a search through the pdf and could not find this particular quote...This is missing from his book. This one talks about existence of Muhammad...
You've been debunked over Penkaye way before, and right above.
Anyway there was NO Roman garrison in the Middle-East at that time for the region was already given and divided between the Ghassanids and Lakhmids Arabic tribes. Yet spoiling incursions and raids were frequents. More so since the apocalyptic literature was the norm back then. That's what the Doctrina Jacobi describes: a NEW prophet of the 2nd coming of Christ ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids
SNB is about to history what an elephant is to a glass house. That's what happens when you keep trolling Sunnites' views !
skynightblaze wrote:It is claimed from the quote of Doctrina JAcobi that Muhammad was alive by 635 Ad however Theophanes who was born around 760 AD wrote that Muhammad died around 629 AD to 630 AD. So again my question is who is correct here?
To the Doctrina, the unamed prophet is a brand NEW one, teaching the second coming of Christ ! Theophanes, a century later, had then access to some forming traditions and to John of Damascus.
It's also of interest that none of those sources wrote Muhammad but Mamed or Mamoud. And there was still NO Islam/Muslims to them.
Basically they contradict the quran and hence we need to accept that hadiths cant be taken as source of guidance.
--Whenever he quotes Islamic sources to defend the hadiths, he blatantly contradicts himself, legitimizing the very Sharia we're to fight ! viewtopic.php?p=158932#p158932
Thou should stop posting gibberish here from muslim sites.
skynightblaze wrote:I am fed up with people coming with radical theories.Spencer was the last and now it is this guy. I am no fan of traditional islam however some accounts of traditional islam are confirmed by non muslims writers of that time.... The acts like taking captives, killing apostates, shedding bloodshed for no good reasons, stealing adopted son's wife, raiding villages are confirmed by non muslim writers and they speak of these things even before the first biography of Ibn Ishaq or hisham came about.
First, no early non-Muslim writer wrote from 630-632, when Muhammad was traditionally a potentate ruling over all over Arabia, sending letters to emperors and kings in order to invite them to Islam. They rather prove that those letters were all HOAX. All...
All of them rather confirms his (later) ties with the Jews, again contrary to the traditional Islam. You can't refute this which alone contradicts your own position. They were still allies according to the Doctrina, Sebeos and Thomas. How is this traditional ?
skynightblaze wrote:The compilers of ahadith and authors of other books had to be extra ordinarily good at hiding lies. Some were centuries apart so establishing such an effective co-ordination in continuing the fabrication process for centuries together really takes a doing! It practically seems impossible to me.
All they had to do is search the million of story-tellers in circulation and build upon them, much like Robin Hood.
The development of early Sunnite hadīth criticism, by Eerik Dickinson
http://books.google.ca/books?id=StNnnz5 ... &q&f=false --Consistency in the authentification of hadith was the goal of the critics. By the time of Ibn Abi Hatim, technical criticism was already fully shaped in all of its practical aspects. Although the critics remained receptive to attempts to introduce greator rigor in the authentication process, they ran up against the fundamental problem that if standards were too strict, few hadith could meet them. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in Ibn Hibban's discussion of Hammad b. Salama. Those who would reject his transmissions say that he made mistakes, doctored isnads, paraphrased hadith rather than transmitting them verbatim and transmitted reports unknown to his contemporaries. Ibn Hibban concedes each point, but he counters that if one were to reject the transmissions of all those who did these things, there would be no hadith left.
--For the critics this variance in reliability was the salient fact and for this they had hard evidence in the form of the hadith transmitted by the students.... The legitimacy of the hadith with converging lines of transmission was probably the technical issue of the greatest contentioness between the adherents of hadiths and their opponents, the Kufans, who for the most part argued that he unparalleled hadith should be rejected out of hand. It is scarcely possible to over-estimate the significance of this issue, for it seems that the majority of hadith were of this type: Ibn Hibban went so far as to assert there was no other kind.
skynightblaze wrote:Islamic sources do make a mention of existing books in the 7th century . I am of the opinion that Bukhari had access to lots of written material to sift from.
According to him, Muhammad was illiterate yet to be perfectly emulated. So... real Muslims shouldn't be able to the Koran or his hadiths !
Now the pertinence of this 'Bukhari' (ie. from Bukhara) isn't corroborated anyhow before... al-Firabri (d.932) or Ibn al-Sakan (d.964)!
Bukhari and Early Hadith Criticism, by Christopher Melchert
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28920687/Bukh ... -Critisizm Actually, the Sahih of Bukhari seems not to have been widely published until well into the tenth century, for virtually all known transmissions were through a single man, Muhammad ibn Yusuf ibn Matar al-Firabri (d.320/932). Somehow, no one else of the many illustrious traditionists who related hadith of Bukhari (al-Mizzi lists over eighty) recognized the value of his collection of sound hadith and transmitted it. Its organization, in particular its chapter headings, seem not to have stabilized until the mid-tenth century. It first attracted commentaries in the later tenth century. The earliest hadith collection based on the Sahih of Muslim is said to have been that of Abu Bakr ibn Raja al-Sindi al-Isfarayini (d.286/900); however, the earliest that might have been based on the Sahih of Bukhari is that of Abu Ali sa'id ibn Uthman ibn al-Sakan (d.353/964).
And since there was no reliable isnad before 'Bukhari', why did his own suddenly became relevant and trustworthy? No one can even bring up a first hand manuscript of Ibn Masud or Ibn Abbas. We don't even have one from al-Zuhri!
skynightblaze wrote:Bukhari skipped multiple chains of transmission to avoid excessive length and that is why only a few ahadith out of some lakhs of ahadith made way to his collection. Atleast that is what he writes .
To make this yours correspond to your Sunnite trollings. It's contrary to any scholarship.
skynightblaze wrote:Sanaa manuscripts confirm the existence of multiple copies of quran and not individual chapters. John of Damascus lays out this claim that Muhammad wrote various books with each surah being a book. That is actually not wrong because quran as a book was compiled later. May be john of Damascus was not aware of the fully compiled quran because quran was last edited by governor of Al- Hajjaj around 715 Ad or 720 AD while John of Damascus was writing very close to 730 AD.
SNB should check better before twaddling more nonsense...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript The standardization of the Qur'anic text by 'Uthmān may have led to the non-standard lower text becoming obsolete, and thereby erased. This latter theory is consistent with carbon-14 tests, which make it likely that the lower text was written before 'Uthmān standardized the Qur'anic text: the parchment (and therefore the lower text) has a 75% probability of being older than 650 AD, and a 95% probability of being older than 660 AD......
Jeffrey Lang ''[I]t should be mentioned that the article's alarmist tone concerning the discovery of the Yemeni manuscripts seems totally uncalled for. Lester admits that so far the manuscripts show some unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment. However, the past existence of such manuscripts is well known to Muslims and those that did not completely agree with the Uthmanic text were eliminated in various ways. The recovery of an ancient manuscript dating back to the earliest history of Islam that differs in minor ways from the Uthmanic text and that was eliminated from circulation will hardly cause Muslims to feel the need to rewrite their history; if anything, it will only confirm it for them."
skynightblaze wrote:Historical reasearch behind Sanaa manuscripts backs the ahadith . The ahadith also tell us that there were discrepancies in the various copies of the quran. Sadly for you historic research has also confirmed the same. So you are talking about conspiracy theories and not me....
Historic researches, especially archaeology, prove His Senility's trolling of Sunnites' arguments wrong as always. viewtopic.php?p=169478#p169478
skynightblaze wrote: The only way these people could get hold of some information was word of mouth and nothing else. So there was very little scope for these non muslim writers to actually gather exact information on Muhammad. That is why we see no words like islam or quran in their writings or we even see them getting some details on Muhammad as incorrect....
Do you know who was John of Damascus, then better known as Yuhanna ibn Mansur ibn Sarjun ? He still ignored everything about Islam and named the movement: the Heresy of the Ishmaelites.
Nikephoros, patriach of Constantinople, was thinking of Arabs as just more barbarians like the Avars...
There is no way that people like Nikephoros or John of Damascus could ignore such manifest phenomenon as traditional Islam. Not a word from them all about a place named Mecca, and they all would know had some Muhammad wrote letters to Heraclius.
skynightblaze wrote:Thirdly we see more information in the later centuries. This could be attributed to use of paper for writing and also to the fact that islam was spreading rapidly as the Islamic thugs i.e the caliphs and generations thereafter were conquering lands fast enough and islam was spreading wildly so naturally if more people get exposed to it , the more they are going to write about it.
Wrong again. What else...
The unprecedented conquests came mainly during the Umayyads. Tom Holland is right: -rather than Islam making the Arab empire, the Arab Empire made Islam-.
But it would be better to state the Islam wasn't brought by the forming Umayyads but -against them-. Then, more legally, by Shaffi'i, against the former Mutazalites. Even the Abbasids had to give it up! They had started a train of fallacies, to establish a blood-line with the prophet, they then couldn't stop !
skynightblaze wrote:IT seems absolutely foolish on part of people to bother about isnads if their aim was fabrication.
The very need to build isnads indicates that there originally wasn't any reliable. The ahaad isnads are contrary to many Koranic injunctions about 2-4 witnesses.
Companions like Abu Huraira and Ibn Masud were totally fabricated, along with so-called Islamic history by al-Tabari, Mr. hearsays, all from a ton of story-tellers and wild hearsays. This is like taking the existence of Robin Hood in details from the English bards. viewtopic.php?p=163405#p163405 On the mythic Ibn Masud http://books.google.ca/books?id=VHZXeOs ... &q&f=false
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Who is online
In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes) Most users ever online was 135 on Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:37 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
thereby further debunking his position that quran of today is uncorrupt.
