Hi, phill01...phill01 wrote:Thanks for the info Cat. I am a firm believer in Jabel Al-Laws as the real Mt Sinai. It's a pity Saudi Arabia fenced it off after it was discovered. I think some of those rocks were looked at and that they were only black/burnt on the outside only ??. Lots of biblical similarities around the base of the mountain as well.
Reading you new posts it seems to point out that the script of the Koran is in a combination of Aramaic/Arabic...Gabriel Sawma adds some very realistic meaning to those difficult passages which I think is really credible and must be examined further.
Hey, this might be a digression from the thread but I'll still be under the shock for a looong while !The conjunction of Isa and Allah is all too well attested in the expression Insha 'Allah (إن شاء الله) ! So God will...
It's also related to another Arabic term, Mā šāʾ (Masih, Messiah) Allāh (ما شاء الله), which means "God has willed it".
18.23-24: And say not of anything: Lo! I shall do that tomorrow, Except if Allah will ('Illā 'An Yashā'a Allāhu).
There you have it: Yasha'a (plainly Yeshua, Jesus) is God's Will, ie. ISA !
42.19: He provideth for whom He will (Yarzuqu Man Yashā'u).
30.48:Allah is He Who sendeth the winds so that they raise clouds, and spreadeth them along the sky as pleaseth Him (Yashā'u),
and causeth them to break and thou seest the rain downpouring from within them. And when He maketh it to fall on whom
He will (Yashā'u Min `Ibādihi) of His bondmen, lo! they rejoice;
So, the name of Jesus in written in the Koran: Yashu and, like that of Isa, it means God's Will.
9.15: And He will remove the anger of their hearts. Allah relenteth toward whom He will (Alá Man Yashā'u). Allah is Knower, Wise.
In 9.26-27 Yashu is associated with the Jewish Sekinah (Arabic Sakinah, Peace of Reassurance).
9.26: Then Allah sent His peace of reassurance (Sakīnatahu) down upon His messenger and upon the believers,
and sent down hosts ye could not see, and punished those who disbelieved. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
---Then afterward Allah will relent toward whom He will (Yashā'u); for Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakina" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In the Koran, Isa is but a lordly attribute and Yashu (Yeshua) became a verb: The Verb (will).
24.46: Verily We have sent down revelations and explained them. Allah guideth whom He will (Yashā'u) unto a straight path.
There's a lot more to ponder over in the above link or in my extensive study in Resource Center:During the early years of the Umayyad dynasty, many Muslims were totally ignorant in regard to ritual and doctrine. The rulers themselves had little enthusiasmfor religion and generally despised the pious and the ascetic. The result was that there arose a group of pious men who shamelessly fabricated traditions for thegood of the community and traced them back to the authority of the Prophet.They opposed the godless Umayyads but dared not say so openly, so they invented further traditions dedicated to praising the Prophet's family, hence indirectly giving their allegiance to the party of Ali supporters, As (Ignaz) Goldziher puts it, "the ruling power itself was not idle. If it wished an opinion to be generally recognized and the opposition of pious circles silenced, it too had to know how to discover ahadith to suit its purpose. They had to do what their opponents did: invent and have invented, hadiths in their turn. And that is in effect what they did."......
Hadiths were liable to be fabricated for even the most trivial ritualistic details.Tendentiousness included the suppression of existing utterances friendly to the rival party or dynasty. Under the Abbasids, the fabrications of hadiths greatly multiplied, with the express purpose of proving the legitimacy of their own clan against the AJjds. For example, the Prophet was made to say that Abu Talib,father of Ali, was sitting deep in hell: "Perhaps my intercession will be of use to him on the day of resurrection so that he may be transferred into a pool of fire which reaches only up to the ankles but which is still hot enough to burn the brain." Naturally enough this was countered by the theologians of the Alids by devising numerous traditions concerning the glorification of Abu Talib, all sayings of the Prophet. In fact, as Goldziher shows, among the opposing factions"the mischievous use of tendentious traditions was even more common than with the official party."....
Of course many Muslims were aware that forgeries abounded. But even the so-called six authentic collections of hadiths compiled by al-Bukhari and others were not as rigorous as might have been hoped. The six had varying criteria for including a hadith as genuine or not: some were rather liberal in their choices, others rather arbitrary. Then there was the problem of the authenticity of the texts of these compilers. For example, at one point there were a dozen different Bukhari texts, and apart from these variants, there were deliberate interpolations. As Goldziher warns us, "it would be wrong to think that the canonical authority of the two [Bukhari and Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj] is due to the undisputed correctness of their contents and is the result of scholarly investigations." Even a tenth-century critic pointed out the weaknesses of two hundred traditions incorporated in the works of Hajjaj and Bukhari.
Goldziher's arguments were followed up, nearly sixty years later, by those of another great Islamicist, Joseph Schacht, whose works on Islamic law are considered classics in the field of Islamic studies. Schacht's conclusions were even more radical and perturbing, and the full implications of these conclusions have not yet sunk in. Humphreys sums up Schacht's theses as: (1) that isnads [the chain of transmitters] going all the way back to the Prophet only began to be widely used around the time of the Abbasid Revolution—i.e., the mid-eighth century; (2) that ironically, the more elaborate and formally correct an isnad appeared to be, the more likely it was to be spurious. In general he concluded, no existing hadith could be reliably ascribed to the Prophet, though some of them might ultimately be rooted in his teaching.
This is the reason as to why they reject the hadiths. When islam doesnt look good all they have to do is throw mud on hadiths and claim them unreliable.What's laughable about this claim is that muslims who reject hadiths believe that everyone was a corrupter but they spared the quran alone and corrupted everything else. A generation who wishes to corrupt things would target the quran first because thats the main book of islam. If one can swallow the garbage of quran even when it has passed through the same generation of people whom these hadith rejectors call corrupters then they should have no problem to digest hadiths . Anyway there is very little substance in what CAT's article says. Here is a sample from it.Idesigner wrote:Modenr muslims and apologists of Islams just cant believe or accept the brutal and illoigical belief system of 6th to 9th century muslims
How does the author know this? This is an unsubstantiated statement which is further used to draw conclusions. When the author claims that they were ignorant I expect him to demonstrate what was authentic and how they were deviating from it. Also what makes him think that what he considers authentic was really authentic ?During the early years of the Umayyad dynasty, many Muslims were totally ignorant in regard to ritual and doctrine.
Again where is the proof for this?The rulers themselves had little enthusiasm for religion and generally despised the pious and the ascetic
Ok I take your word that Ibn Warraq has provided proof . There is another point that I would like to make here. Let’s see a quote from his article.Ibn Rushd wrote:The author is Ibn Warraq and he documented everything profusely in his book. Arthur Jeffrey, Wensink, Arberry, these were some of the sources he was citing, and they cited the original documents, which still remain unpublished.
This is a self refuting argument .Doesn’t this mean that manipulators/fabricators couldn’t manipulate anyhow they pleased? Doesn’t this mean that the fabricators had very little chances to manipulate because of those pious watchdogs watching them over? They had to be witty to manipulate and take precautions which means scope to manipulate was limited otherwise there would be stiff resistance so how can anyone in this world claim that the entire set of hadiths were a fabrication? Infact this statement establishes the fact that the room for manipulation was limited and hence most of the hadiths must be true .Lets consider an e.g. suppose that age of Aisha was 20 years when Muhammad deflowered her .Now how in the world can the fabricators twist this fact and claim that age of Aisha was 9 and get away without resistance from pious believers?If it wished an opinion to be generally recognized and the opposition of pious circles silenced, it too had to know how to discover ahadith to suit its purpose
Whatever. I just want to show that we cant have a case for quran only muslims. The very arguments they use to demolish hadiths demolishes quran too so they have to drop these arguments of painting the early generation of muslims into bad light.Ibn Rushd wrote:The bit that Cat posted seemed to be concerning hadiths alone, but in the rest of the book he does showcase some who doubt the Qur'an too. I think his main point was to show to readers that scholars are not blind idiots, and giving a brief rundown of their arguments. Qur'anic criticism has just got a good push-off in the last decade, with the previous scholars taking as a given that Muhammad wrote it. Now some books are coming out that say no, he didn't write it, it took 200 yrs after he supposedly died for Qur'an to appear, and it follows the basis of Christian homily on OT texts.
As for "prophet" I'm not sure why he uses it, perhaps it is to make non-Muslim readers understand the muslim mindset.
A positive affirmation of authenticity always required an investigation of individual hadiths insofar as their particular mode of transmission was concerned. When these formal methods of enquiry were applied, Ibn al-salah himself found that the mutawatir is virtually non-existent.....
It is quite possible that some hadiths of the sahih type were considered to belong to the mutawatir category. What matters, in the final analysis, is the fact that this last category is quantitatively insignificant.... If both the traditionists and the jurists -the two most important groups in the Study of hadiths- have acknowledged the precarious epistemological status of the literature, then we need not squander our energies in arguing about the matter of authenticity. We have been told that except for a score of hadiths, the rest engenders probability, and probability, as we know - and as we have also been unambiguously told by our sources - allows for mendacity and error.
4 blasphemies, from a Koranic perspective, in one single hadith!Narrated Abu Hurairah
I said: "O Allah's Apostle! Who will be the luckiest person, who will gain your intercession on the Day of Resurrection?" Allah's Apostle said: O Abu Huraira! "I have thought that none will ask me about it before you as I know your longing for the (learning of) Hadiths. The luckiest person who will have my intercession on the Day of Resurrection will be the one who said sincerely from the bottom of his heart "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah."
And 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz wrote to Abu Bakr bin Hazm, "Look for the knowledge of Hadith and get it written, as I am afraid that religious knowledge will vanish and the religious learned men will pass away (die). Do not accept anything save the Hadiths of the Prophet. Circulate knowledge and teach the ignorant, for knowledge does not vanish except when it is kept secretly (to oneself)."
No hadiths came down directly from Muhammad...Very few, if any, of the Mohammedan traditions fulfil the postulates of tawâtur (that which has come down from the beginning, guaranteed not by chains of individual traditions, but by a chain of unanimous generations). The difference between this sort of guarantee and that which vouched for even the soundest ('sahih') tradition was recognised by the Moslems themselves. We begin to perceive that the very existence of isnad's is a sign of weakness, not of strength, not merely because they were actually, or were liable to be, tampered with, but because they are a standing confession of the fact that the tradition in question was not by tawâtur, was not the common property of every generation of Moslems from the very first; was not, therefore, riveted into the rock itself, but connected therewith by a chain which could never be wholly relied on as equally sound throughout.
If you dont want hadiths to be discussed in this thread then why are you posting anti hadith stuff?Reminder
This thread is all about the historical Muhammad which, like Mecca, has been proven faulty (see the 1st two pages).
Along with those words you should also say "Neither Quran came directly from Muhammad"nor it has come from that Allah/God but put together by some story teller/s .The Cat wrote:ReminderNo hadiths came down directly from Muhammad...Spoiler! :Spoiler! :
We do have hadiths where muhammad himself asked down to write what he said .Anyway there cant be a case for quran only muslim.Either you accept all the junk or reject all . All the arguments that he brought have already been answered.Yeezevee wrote:Along with those words you should also say "Neither Quran came directly from Muhammad"or they have come from that Allah/God.
Well you have lots of hadith sayings and it is clear that they were all made up way after the death of Muhammad(IF HE EXISTED). Human mind is smart enough to make silly stories based upon some other stories they heard before.skynightblaze wrote:We do have hadiths where muhammad himself asked down to write what he said .Yeezevee wrote:Along with those words you should also say "Neither Quran came directly from Muhammad"or they have come from that Allah/God.
"skynightblaze" I don't see any good reason for that. Muslims should have freedom to pick and choose whatever they like from their scriptures. Who are we to force others? In fact it is all good if every Muslim could filter off so-called violent verses of Quran/hadith and de-fang Islamic preachers.Anyway there cant be a case for quran only muslim.Either you accept all the junk or reject all . All the arguments that he brought have already been answered.
Ofcourse hadiths were written after the death of muhammad. I am not saying they are all accurate but saying that they are all made up is equally silly which is what CAT is arguing. As I said if they all made up stories to corrupt islam then one must forget about quran . People who can forge scriptures like hadiths, sira can easily forge quran . Infact the case for corruption of quran becomes stronger when one says that hadiths have been forged because as a corrupt person one would first aim at quran and then other scriptures because quran is the main book of islam.You are a hypocrite if you believe only in quran and reject the hadiths completely because by the virtue of your own arguments you debunk quran too along with debunking hadiths .Yeezevee wrote:Well you have lots of hadith sayings and it is clear that they were all made up way after the death of Muhammad(IF HE EXISTED). Human mind is smart enough to make silly stories based upon some other stories they heard before.
Anyway coming to the point, we debate on ideas not really to force anyone but to find the truth . If they claim that their version is true then they better stand up for it or else they need to accept that they dont care about the truth and want to believe only in quran for their satisfaction. In the latter case I have nothing to say but Quran only muslims do neither of the above 2 things.They boast about being rightly guided and in such a case they are bound to invite criticism and hence they would be shown how wrong they are.The truth is one cant be a muslim without accepting hadiths .I want to show them that they islam consists of quran alone not because its the truth but because they wish to believe its the truth. In my opinion that dishonesty.Yeezevee wrote:"skynightblaze" I don't see any good reason for that. Muslims should have freedom to pick and choose whatever they like from their scriptures. Who are we to force others? In fact it is all good if every Muslim could filter off so-called violent verses of Quran/hadith and de-fang Islamic preachers.Skynightblaze wrote: Anyway there cant be a case for quran only muslim.Either you accept all the junk or reject all . All the arguments that he brought have already been answered.
Again its not the question of freedom to believe because I cant force anyone to believe in something. Its the question of truth.One can believe in whatever they want but then they should be able to justify that or else simply accept that they dont care about the truth and wish to continue believing in whatever they want.Yeezevee wrote: I just don't see any reason why some Muslims should not have freedom to consider "Quarn as the ONLY book in Islam that is from allah/God and rest of Islamic literature is junk"??
There is a good reason to exclude quran only muslims from islam because factually and logically they are incorrect and hence nothing should prevent us from saying the truth i.e they arent true muslims. I have no idea about other religions but I never claimed that people from other religions should be given concessions.Further if people from other religions believe in the same way as quran only muslims then that doesnt mean we excuse quran only muslims.That's Tu QUOQUE.Yeezevee wrote: People in Islam for that matter other religions believe lots silly stories SELECTIVELY. So there is no good reason to exclude that from Quran only Muslims And there is no good reason to exclude quran only Muslims from Islam. However deluded they may be, why those Muslims who believe in Quran only not other Islamic literature should be excluded from Islam when similar cases exits essentially in every religion skynightblaze??
