We oppose Islam, not Muslims. We are against hate, not faith
by The Cat » Mon May 16, 2011 11:09 pm
maat wrote:But this discussion or even asking that question of allegiance is not right in this thread. And if any trolling going on that would be it.
CAT how does faraan correspond to furaan ?
by The Cat » Mon May 16, 2011 11:34 pm
by The Cat » Mon May 16, 2011 11:46 pm
The failure to consider authors other than Muhammad, the fallacy of bifurcation, is a problem that is found in nearly all criticisms of Islam. Everything we know about Muhammad comes not from the Qur'an, but from extracanonical sources such as sira literature, and various ahadith compilations; and, unfortunately, critics are a bit too willing to accept it all on face value. Even with writers such as Ibn Warraq and Ibn al-Rawandi, writers who have set a new tone in secular criticism of Islam, there is a hint of conflict. The writer seems torn between rejecting the traditional claims about the Qur'an's origin, and working with these traditions in order to formulate an understanding of Muhammad's role.
The reality is we have no reliable sources from which we can make any decisions with regard to the role Muhammad played in the creation of the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself tells us nothing, outside of a few ambiguous mentionings of a certain muhammad, or "praised one." All information on Muhammad, who he was, his interaction with Jibreel, his prophethood, et cetera, are derived from a highly questionable source: the ahadith. These are traditions that were, for the most part, written down and compiled more than two hundred years after the events they are allegedly relating. In fact, by the admission of the Muslims themselves, the most respected ahadith are those compiled by Imam Bukhari, who died in the late ninth century (roughly 870 CE), nearly two hundred and forty years after the time that Muhammad allegedly lived.
Furthermore, the dating system of the early Muslims is so weak that the issue of the gap in time between the writing of the ahadith and the events they are reporting becomes even more of a problem. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad was born during 'am-al-fil, the year of the elephant, which was allegedly 570 CE. This was, according to Islamic folklore, a year that many of the pre-Islamic Arabs remembered, because it is when an army of Ethiopian warriors on Elephants was repelled by birds throwing stones. Following that, we get another tradition that tells us that Muhammad was called to prophethood at the age of forty (approximately 610 CE). It is from here that the Islamic calendar starts, based on a shaky tradition, that is itself based on another shaky tradition, and therefore it is totally unreliable.
Muslims will, no doubt, demand that we accept the highly tendentious ahadith collections as a reliable source of information, but there is no real reason to do so. Many of these traditions contradict one another, or are of a highly absurd nature. Even worse, the Qur'an itself seems to warn the believers against resorting to any hadith-based information. One verse of the Qur'an (31.6) warns against those who spread "frivolous stories" (lahv-al-hadith), and yet another (45.6) says, in a very straight forward way: () "These are the revelations of God which we recite to you correctly; in what hadith other than God and his revelations will they believe?"
by The Cat » Mon May 16, 2011 11:56 pm
by phill01 » Sat Jul 02, 2011 5:32 am
by The Cat » Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:59 pm
by booktalker » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:53 pm
andMecca's current location at the time of the revealing of the Koran
at the time of Mohammad
by Badranaya » Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:31 am
by phill01 » Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:09 pm
The Cat wrote:Hi phill01
What I've got on this is here
viewtopic.php?p=135050#p135050
And also in the middle of page one, in this thread.
Bye.
. The bit that most interested me the most was the Al-Shams connection or modern day Syria (correct me if I’m wrong here). I will also attempt to answer BT’s questions in this post as well.by The Cat » Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:02 pm
Badranaya wrote:Dear The Cat,
I've read your completely impressive thread Muhammad : Myth vs. Reality - and would like to translate it to Indonesian language (especially your posts in page 1 & 2)
I, Of course, need your permit to translate and publish it in other free media. Looking forward to hearing your good news response.
Best regards,
Badra
by The Cat » Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:26 pm
phill01 wrote: I ask myself why Syria if she was supposed to be in Mecca more than a 1000 miles away and why not some other place ?. It obviously meant something ?......
All the above verses have nothing in common where modern day Mecca is. There is simply no destroyed towns or nations around them. But it’s clear that from these verses that Mohammad and the Meccan’s are the successors of these destroyed towns and cities and from verse 20:128 says they are even living in the very homes of those that were destroyed before them. How can this be ?? The geographical area these verses relate to are in North West Arabia and even refers to The Biblical Sodom and Gammorah where the Biblical LOT (LUT in the Koran) was from. Why would the pagan Meccans give a rats about events that occurred 1000 kilometers away. But yet the Koran goes as far and says that these pagans pass by the remains of these destroyed cities by day and by night in 37:133-138. Maybe this was a reason Mohammad initially failed to convert the Meccans ?.
As for where Mohammad really was ,I can safely assume from my studies he wasn’t in Mecca but anywhere from North West Arabia to Northern Arabia ?. But that is still a work in progress.
by Badranaya » Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:17 pm
by skynightblaze » Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:21 pm
Badranaya wrote:" The Cat wrote :
You're welcome, so go ahead my friend, just make sure to give the proper reference.
No worries I've done double check to all the references including wikipedia, free-mind.org etc.
Thanks so much.
by Badranaya » Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:48 am
by Idesigner » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:10 pm
A.Z.The emotional responses against what the Cat has written down have been so emotional that they actually obfuscates the points they are trying to get across. What we have forgotten is that the Cat is exploring territory that hasn't been fully explored and that is a big risk. Navigating into the wilderness has it's perils and running into dead ends is inevitable. Those who dare to go that far into uncharted territory have my respect.
by booktalker » Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:32 pm
Next: So Who Was The Historical Muhammad?
Well, I think he is known as one of his companion...
And it just happens that he was 'Muhammad' too!
He also had a brother called 'Mahmud'. Who's that?
Suliman Bashear was convinced that Muhammad ibn al-Hanifiya (son of the pagan woman) was the foundation for the fictional Muhammad that we read about today. He led a revolt in south Iraq in the 690s AD. Unfortunately the book he wrote about this is in Arabic, so I can't go through his argument at this time.
by phill01 » Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:57 am
by The Cat » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:18 am
booktalker wrote:Much earlier in this thread (half way down first page, in fact!) you tantalisingly gave us the following:Next: So Who Was The Historical Muhammad?
Well, I think he is known as one of his companion...
And it just happens that he was 'Muhammad' too!
He also had a brother called 'Mahmud'. Who's that?
But you never followed up...
by booktalker » Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:42 am
by The Cat » Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:46 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
