Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

[skynightblaze]

Qur'an alone is not tenable. Qur'an is a book of prayers only, and doesn't give any history. You need hadith and sira for that.

I thought you didn't like me though?

No I don't bear hatred towards people merely for their different opinions. Its not necessary for you to agree with me every single time. May be my posts at times(especially in this thread itself in my debate with CAT) may have given an impression that I have bitter feelings towards you but on a serious note I don't have any. I hope I have cleared any misunderstanding that was between us.

Now I have a problem with CAT because I can clearly see that his aims are not in line with that of FFI. He clearly wants to promote quran alone faith here and that's why I am firmly against him.

[Multiple]

Qur'an alone is not tenable. Qur'an is a book of prayers only, and doesn't give any history. You need hadith and sira for that.

I thought you didn't like me though?

You are quite right without the Hadith and sura Islam could not exist as the CULT it is. But don't belittle the Koran to much THEY think its tha ACTUAL and UNALTERABLE words of their SATANIC allah. A set of INSTRUCTIONS on how to live your life with instructions for everything from how to wipe your ar*se to how to BEAT your wife and how to treat your SLAVES. How could any Mohammedan know HOW to do those things without it.

[The Cat]

As for the page 1 & 2 of this thread, they agree with current scholarship regarding archaeology and historiography.

Ask her whether she supports quran alone stand. Ask her whether your posts create problem for quran or not. You are the only idiot who believes who is making valid points here. Even book talker and phil took your post to mean that quran was written in 8th century.... I know you are a whore who has been hired by pimps - the free minders. Btw even Badranaya thinks that your posts are debunking Quran and hadith and not just hadith. You dont even understand what your posts imply. AS far as scholarship is concerned, copy pasting stuff from other sites doesn't make you a scholar at all.

First, what has all your bile to do with the comment of Ibn Rushd? Which is exactly what Badranaya was asking.

Second, building false testimonies is a common habit from you...
viewtopic.php?p=159286#p159286
viewtopic.php?p=154125#p154125
viewtopic.php?p=154144#p154144
viewtopic.php?p=154146#p154146
That's when not using logical fallacies, one upon the other...
viewtopic.php?p=154433#p154433

Third, you mix up and confuse everything in your salve of hatred, something weird from someone acknowledging
the very AUTHENTICITY of the hadiths... Once people are aware of this they run away in shame and disgust!
viewtopic.php?p=129729#p129729
viewtopic.php?p=129836#p129836
viewtopic.php?p=129863#p129863
viewtopic.php?p=130181#p130181

viewtopic.php?p=130330#p130330
viewtopic.php?p=130869#p130869
viewtopic.php?p=130980#p130980
I know you'll say that you don't endorse their content, yet you do endorse their very legitimacy...
like child-bride marriages, children genital mutilation and stoning. That makes you disgusting.

And on scholarship, you're not exactly a reference...
viewtopic.php?p=152252#p152252

--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.

--''There must be proof . Its only that I aint finding it.''

Right now, the Quranists are THE biggest threat there is to nowadays 'Islam'. Skynightblaze doesn't like it of course!
Is skynightblaze a closet Sunnite, working at FFI pitfall through hatred rather than that of Islam? It's a wonder to me...

[Multiple]

As for the page 1 & 2 of this thread, they agree with current scholarship regarding archaeology and historiography.

Ask her whether she supports quran alone stand. Ask her whether your posts create problem for quran or not. You are the only idiot who believes who is making valid points here. Even book talker and phil took your post to mean that quran was written in 8th century.... I know you are a whore who has been hired by pimps - the free minders. Btw even Badranaya thinks that your posts are debunking Quran and hadith and not just hadith. You dont even understand what your posts imply. AS far as scholarship is concerned, copy pasting stuff from other sites doesn't make you a scholar at all.

First, what has all your bile to do with the comment of Ibn Rushd? Which is exactly what Badranaya was asking.

Second, building false testimonies is a common habit from you...
viewtopic.php?p=159286#p159286
viewtopic.php?p=154125#p154125
viewtopic.php?p=154144#p154144
viewtopic.php?p=154146#p154146
That's when not using logical fallacies, one upon the other...
viewtopic.php?p=154433#p154433

Third, you mix up and confuse everything in your salve of hatred, something weird from someone acknowledging
the very AUTHENTICITY of the hadiths... Once people are aware of this they run away in shame and disgust!
viewtopic.php?p=129729#p129729
viewtopic.php?p=129836#p129836
viewtopic.php?p=129863#p129863
viewtopic.php?p=130181#p130181

viewtopic.php?p=130330#p130330
viewtopic.php?p=130869#p130869
viewtopic.php?p=130980#p130980
I know you'll say that you don't endorse their content, yet you do endorse their very legitimacy...
like child-bride marriages, children genital mutilation and stoning. That makes you disgusting.

And on scholarship, you're not exactly a reference...
viewtopic.php?p=152252#p152252

--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.

--''There must be proof . Its only that I aint finding it.''

Right now, the Quranists are the biggest threat there is to nowadays 'Islam'. Skynightblaze doesn't like it of course!
Is skynightblaze a closet Sunnite, working at FFI pitfall through hatred rather than that of Islam? It's a wonder to me...

Are you cracking up or just so angry you could HISSS!!!! Pussy your highlighted sentence makes no coherent sense at all.

[The Cat]

What do you think of someone endorsing the right of Muhammadans to perform children genital mutilation (etc), as snb does?

Check the links and make-up your mind. I know it's ugly... so people are running away from him the minute they're aware about it!

[darth]

"The cat" - You need to stop talking about logical fallacies. You simply do not have any understanding of logic.
Your quran only stance is based on fanciful interpretations (in other words it is a bunch of nonsense which will probably only impress the ignorant and the foolish). Sky's posts will convince anyone (that is not lacking in logical analysis) that the quran is as corrupt as any hadith.
God help those poor fools who are "guided" by cat's posts. Case of the blind leading the blind.

[skynightblaze]

--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.

--''There must be proof . Its only that I aint finding it.''

That's the only point in our whole series of debates where you had an edge however I had the guts to agree that. After that you have always been a big time loser. My approach was incorrect at that time. All one has to do is find Mecca in the quran and both quran and ahadith need to be dismissed on the basis of that and not just ahadith.

Right now, the Quranists are THE biggest threat there is to nowadays 'Islam'. Skynightblaze doesn't like it of course!
Is skynightblaze a closet Sunnite, working at FFI pitfall through hatred rather than that of Islam? It's a wonder to me...

Why did you have to make this public?? but now that my cover is blown I have to admit that I am the sunnite agent working towards downfall of FFI..

[skynightblaze]

Your quran only stance is based on fanciful interpretations (in other words it is a bunch of nonsense which will probably only impress the ignorant and the foolish).

One has to understand why these people resort to such acrobatics. The reason they want to discard ahadith is because it exposes islam and nothing else .These people want to rewrite history and white wash the sins of muhammad and claim that he was a saint and that is why they try to find every single fault they can find with the hadith. To be honest, to prove that Muhammad was criminal one doesn't need ahadith at all. Quran itself is a proof but ahadith add clarity to the crimes of muhammad.

[phill01]

Hi SKB

You wrote:

"More ever read my response to Abraha's scripture argument used by con teachers CAT and his free minders CREW.."

viewtopic.php?p=152734#p152734

Since this is right up my sleeve I would like to address your response. You gave it a .5 for it being true, but am not sure if this is out of 100 or 10 or 5 ?. Anyway that doesnt really matter. I don't think this verse relates to Mecca at all but rather the town of LOT (LUT).
Now the Koran refers to it as the "the people of the Elephant". recent archaelogical discoveries have located the main temple in Petra. Between 1993 and 2006 excavations by Brown University uncovered the main temple site at Petra which showed that it was adorned with elephant heads everywhere on top of it's great columns. Here is the article http://opencontext.org/projects/A5DDBEA ... 343CBDC857

Here are some pics of the excavations http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukow ... phant.html

Likewise if you go a bit further south to Al Ula aka Al Hijr aka Hegra aka Hagra you will find elephant rock which is an awesome sight to see.

Here is a pic http://www.flickr.com/photos/28500898@N08/3098344877/

So if we take into account the meaning of the verse "People of the elephant" it is quite likley that it is referring to the peoples who lived in this geographical area and not Mecca. Taking this into account and who the verse is aimed at then the Koran is quite possibly right and the Ishak fairytale is just that...a fairytale.

[skynightblaze]

Let's understand the problem first.

The muslim tradition regarding Abraha is that he attacked Mecca in the same year when Muhammad was born. This is what answering islam wrote...

Spoiler! :

A far greater problem for the Islamic traditions is that the Sabean date on this inscription is 552 A.D.1 According to the most recent scholarship, Abraha died in 553 A.D. or shortly thereafter2 – but, according to the Muslims, Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. So, if we want to believe the Muslim traditions concerning Abraha, we have to push Muhammad's birth back 15, 16 or even 18 years. This has enormous consequences for much of early Islamic history. If Muhammad was born 18 years earlier, when did Muhammad begin to receive revelations? When did the Hijrah occur? When did Muhammad die? When did various battles take place, and when did the first four Caliphs reign? This is potentially messing up everything that Muslims believe about their early history. Moreover, this may cast doubt on much of the Islamic Traditions. The accuracy of their so-called "Sahih" Hadiths cannot be trusted because the "chains of transmission" may now be broken - most events in the life of Muhammad has been pushed back 18 years and gaps are bound to open up somewhere in the chains between Muhammad and the time of Bukhari, Muslim, and the other collectors.

Hi SKB

You wrote:

"More ever read my response to Abraha's scripture argument used by con teachers CAT and his free minders CREW.."

viewtopic.php?p=152734#p152734

Since this is right up my sleeve I would like to address your response. You gave it a .5 for it being true, but am not sure if this is out of 100 or 10 or 5 ?.

Probability is a mathematical concept and it's always out of 1 so a probability of 0.5 would mean an equal chance or simply put there is a 50 % chance of the story being reported by islamic scriptures as true

.The islamic scriptures(Ishaq to be precise) claim that Abraha attacked Mecca in the same year as Muhammad's birth . The story has an equal chance of being false just as it has for it being true. That is what I meant by assigning a probability of 0.5. Even the muslims who deny IShaq can ask you .. what if time of attack by Abraha and the year in which Muhammad was born don't coincide?? It's ishaq that reports this fact so if this is false your entire argument goes down the drain because in that case we don't have to shift the events 15-20 years back and therefore the chain of sahih hadith doesn't break..

Anyway that doesnt really matter. I don't think this verse relates to Mecca at all but rather the town of LOT (LUT).
Now the Koran refers to it as the "the people of the Elephant". recent archaelogical discoveries have located the main temple in Petra. Between 1993 and 2006 excavations by Brown University uncovered the main temple site at Petra which showed that it was adorned with elephant heads everywhere on top of it's great columns. Here is the article http://opencontext.org/projects/A5DDBEA ... 343CBDC857

Here are some pics of the excavations http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukow ... phant.html

Likewise if you go a bit further south to Al Ula aka Al Hijr aka Hegra aka Hagra you will find elephant rock which is an awesome sight to see.

Here is a pic http://www.flickr.com/photos/28500898@N08/3098344877/

So if we take into account the meaning of the verse "People of the elephant" it is quite likley that it is referring to the peoples who lived in this geographical area and not Mecca. Taking this into account and who the verse is aimed at then the Koran is quite possibly right and the Ishak fairytale is just that...a fairytale.

I think you have misunderstood my post . I am not basing my argument on verses in the quran relating to the event. I merely mentioned in my resource center thread that quran documents this event however my case has never been based on quranic verses.

We saw how it creates a problem for you if you assume that story reported by Ishaq is false . Now lets see the other case i.e. we assume that story of Ishaq is reliable...

If the story of Ishaq is true then it would mean that muhammad was born in 552 AD then this shifts all the events 15-20 years back . Now if all the events are pushed 15-20 years back then We have a problem for quran too...

When did Muhammad receive revelation? When was the quran compiled and collected? Therefore this would not only kill Sahih hadith but also the authenticity of quran.

So either way this argument is useless. If the story is true then it would mean both quran and hadith are false but if the story is false then it creates no problem for quran as well as hadith.

[Ibn Rushd]

Phil, your opencontext site is not working. I was able to view the photos though.

This merely confirms what I've been finding: that the Qur'an was written and refers to a northern location, one which was forgotten or abandoned in place of Mecca.

[phill01]

Phil, your opencontext site is not working. I was able to view the photos though.

This merely confirms what I've been finding: that the Qur'an was written and refers to a northern location, one which was forgotten or abandoned in place of Mecca.

Hmmm. It was working last night. It was just an overview of the work Brown University are doing at Petra. Well yes it does confirm it. Patricia Crone mentioned in one of her books where she eluded to some information that the Kaaba was once north of Medina ?. will try and find her sources for this.

Al Ula/ Al Hijr is the prime suspect based on numerous sources which have been mentioned in this thread already. What is a possiblilty though is that Ishmael is buried here since tradition states that he is buried in the Hijr. It is assumed by Muslims that the Hijr is a corner of the current Kaaba in Mecca where they say he is buried. But it is more likley it is the actual geographic location in Northern West Arabia where the oldest Mosgue's qiblas actually pointed to from Iraq and Egypt.

[skynightblaze]

Phil, your opencontext site is not working. I was able to view the photos though.

This merely confirms what I've been finding: that the Qur'an was written and refers to a northern location, one which was forgotten or abandoned in place of Mecca.

48:24 makes a mention of Mecca. This is not a mistranslation however if historic research proves that Mecca was never a place until 8th century then it means quran was written in the 8th century.Following is an extract from Dr william Cambell's article. He claims that no manuscripts of quran can be dated before 8th century.This might interest you.

http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil5.html

Spoiler! :

The Topkapi and Samarqand Codices


Despite the evidences that no quran QurŸan manuscripts can be reliably dated till the late eighth century, it is a popular fiction in the Muslim world that one or more of the copies of Zaid's codex that `Uthman distributed to the Muslim provinces survives intact to the present day. The motive for this popular belief is the desire to prove from existing texts that the quran QurŸan is unchanged to its last letter from its first written codices down to its most recent copies.


It is known for certain that Zaid's original manuscript, which was originally in Abu Bakr's possession and thereafter under the control of `Umar and Hafsah, came into the hands of Marwan upon the latter's decease, having been sent to him by `Abdullah ibn `Umar. It is expressly stated that this manuscript was destroyed by him immediately thereafter (Ibn Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.21). Two of the early Kufic manuscripts surviving without vowel points, however, are especially presented as originals of the copies which `Uthman made from Zaid's codex, one being a codex said to be preserved in the State Library at Tashkent in Uzbekistan. It is popularly known as the "Samarqand" codex as it is said to have first come to this city about 1485 AD and to have remained there until 1868. Thereafter it was removed to St. Petersburg and in 1905 fifty facsimile editions were prepared by one Dr. Pisarref at the instigation of Czar Nicholas II under the title quran Coran Coufique de Samarqand, each copy being sent to a distinguished recipient. In 1917 it was taken to Tashkent where it now remains.


Not more than about a half of this manuscript survives. It only begins with the seventh verse of Suratul-Baqarah and many intervening pages are missing. The whole text from Surah 43.10 has been lost. What remains, however, indicates that it is obviously of great antiquity, being devoid of any kind of vocalisation although here and there a diacritical stroke has been added to a letter. Nonetheless it is clearly written in Kufi script which immediately places it beyond Arabia in origin and of a date not earlier than the late eighth century. No objective scholarship can trace such a text to Medina in the seventh century.


Its actual script is also very irregular. Some pages are neatly and uniformly copied out while others are distinctly untidy or imbalanced. On some pages the text is fairly smoothly spread out while on others it is severely cramped and condensed. At times the Arabic letter kaf is written uniformly with the rest of the text, at others it has been considerably extended and is the dominant letter. The manuscript may well be a composite text of portions from different original codices, alternatively different scribes were employed to transcribe it. It also has artistic illumination between some of the surahs with coloured medallions. The very appearance of the text compared with the known development of the early scripts prevents a date earlier than one hundred and fifty years after Muhammad's death or a place of origin anywhere in Arabia.


The other famous manuscript is known as the "Topkapi" codex as it is preserved in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul in Turkey. Once again, however, it is written in Kufi script, giving its date away to not earlier than the late eighth century. Like the Samarqand codex it is written on parchment and is virtually devoid of vocalisation though it, too, has occasional ornamentation between the surahs. It also appears to be one of the earliest texts to have survived but it cannot sincerely be claimed that it is an `Uthmanic original.

A comparison between these two codices in any event shows that they were not transcribed in the same place at the same time. The Topkapi codex has eighteen lines to the page while the Samarqand codex has between eight and twelve. The whole text of the former is uniformly written and spaced while the latter, as mentioned already, is often haphazard and distorted. They may well both be two of the oldest sizeable manuscripts of the quran QurŸan surviving but their origin cannot be taken back earlier than the second century of Islam.

The oldest surviving texts of the quran QurŸan, whether in fragments or whole portions, date not earlier than about a hundred and fifty years after the Prophet's death.

[Ibn Rushd]

Very interesting link on the codices. The verse about Mecca may prove to be a 8th century text, or refers to another location. Either way, we only "know" that Mecca is in the place that it is today thanks to the sira and late tafsirs. Some early tafsirs preserved in partial quotations show a different understanding. Gabriel Said Reynolds used one of these in his latest book, The Qur'an and its Biblical Subtext.

[Ibn Rushd]

Hi phil. Your link is working now. There was an article in Archaeology magazine last year about Mada'in Saleh, and how it was the southern reach of the Petra kingdom. It seems that this and Hegra are the original locations for the Islamic accounts.

[The Cat]

"The cat" - You need to stop talking about logical fallacies. You simply do not have any understanding of logic.
Your quran only stance is based on fanciful interpretations (in other words it is a bunch of nonsense which will probably only impress the ignorant and the foolish). Sky's posts will convince anyone (that is not lacking in logical analysis) that the quran is as corrupt as any hadith.
God help those poor fools who are "guided" by cat's posts. Case of the blind leading the blind.

Look who's lacking logic, himself using the logical fallacies of Argumentum ad Populum and Poisoning the Well!

And how could snb states that the hadiths are corrupted while maintaining their authenticity (as in Resource center)?

[The Cat]

Snb's optuse impetuosity is at it again...

The islamic scriptures(Ishaq to be precise) claim that Abraha attacked Mecca in the same year as Muhammad's birth . The story has an equal chance of being false just as it has for it being true.... It's ishaq that reports this fact so if this is false your entire argument goes down the drain because in that case we don't have to shift the events 15-20 years back and therefore the chain of sahih hadith doesn't break....

If the story of Ishaq is true then it would mean that muhammad was born in 552 AD then this shifts all the events 15-20 years back . Now if all the events are pushed 15-20 years back then We have a problem for quran too... When did Muhammad receive revelation? When was the quran compiled and collected? Therefore this would not only kill Sahih hadith but also the authenticity of quran. So either way this argument is useless. If the story is true then it would mean both quran and hadith are false but if the story is false then it creates no problem for quran as well as hadith.

You're such a lousy thinker in the garb of 'logic'... Let us see:

What the Abraha inscription -proves- is that there was no Mecca (where it now stands) and no al-Muttalib, the 'ancestor' of Muhammad
(an Abbasid forgery to gain power). It doesn't disprove the very existence of the Arabic prophet at all, nor the compilation of the Koran.

The Abraha inscription completely destroys Mecca's present location, related with the ancestry of Muhammad.
It leaves untouched the more and more evident Northwest location of Muhammad's homegrown as 'Mecca'.

All one has to do is find Mecca in the quran and both quran and ahadith need to be dismissed on the basis of that and not just ahadith.

Your problem is that 'Mecca' in 48.24 only comes when trampling the Classical Arabic dictionaries
all defining MKK as 'suckling' (like at the negotiations of Hudaibiya, the very subject of sura 48).

And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them,
in the midst of wrangles, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.

As I've said to you MANY times already, if 'Mecca' was mentioned elsewhere in the Koran,
I wouldn't object but since 48.24 is the only place were it's found, I most obviously doubt.
And -even if it was so- IT DOESN'T GIVE ITS LOCATION !! Get it??

MECCA -Myth vs Reality: In Search of Mt Sinai!
On 48.24 Bibatni 'Makkata' (where I parted from free-minds' destruction for swindles -squabbling or wrangle)
viewtopic.php?p=137029#p137029

--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.

--''There must be proof . Its only that I aint finding it.''

That's the only point in our whole series of debates where you had an edge however I had the guts to agree that. After that you have always been a big time loser. My approach was incorrect at that time. All one has to do is find Mecca in the quran and both quran and ahadith need to be dismissed on the basis of that and not just ahadith.

Where did you have the guts to agree over that? Or are you defining yourself as a poor liar?

And, correction: You're STILL incorrect, you've been proven wrong in all of our debates, like this one over Mecca.
viewtopic.php?p=150221#p150221

Summing the Archaeological evidences (against nowadays Mecca)
viewtopic.php?p=150476#p150476
22.26; 33.21; 2.282
viewtopic.php?p=150805#p150805
Debunker, the Abbasids
viewtopic.php?p=151280#p151280

Always using senile assertions like: 'my approach was incorrect at that time' just to keep on... the same incorrectness still!

No wonder why you still uphold the authenticity of the hadiths (in Resource center): They're just as unsound and deluded as you are!

And... how could you now state that the hadiths are corrupted while maintaining your thread in Resource center? That's snb's 'logic' !

[phill01]

Very interesting link on the codices. The verse about Mecca may prove to be a 8th century text, or refers to another location. Either way, we only "know" that Mecca is in the place that it is today thanks to the sira and late tafsirs. Some early tafsirs preserved in partial quotations show a different understanding. Gabriel Said Reynolds used one of these in his latest book, The Qur'an and its Biblical Subtext.

Hi Ibn Rushid

That is interesting, do you have a link ?

[Badranaya]

FYI :

MUHAMMAD: MITOS ATAU FAKTA SEJARAH
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60627804/Muha ... ta-Sejarah


an 84 page- ebook (a translation into Indonesian from thread Muhammad: Myth vs. Reality by The Cat) has made a shock to some Muslim readers.
This has so far been downloaded over 400 times in my accounts alone (some people have published in other medias as well - upon which I have no ideas how many times it's been downloaded).

An effort to translate good readings into native languages is mostly needed since in moslem countries a publication of historical criticism method on islam is banned (but criticism upon other religions are deliberately at loose). It's really important that FFI members keep posting honest, intelectual & critical readings and make some scholarship books & articles noticable to public and be translated for non-english readers.

Highly appreciation for The Cat and others.

Regards

[darth]

Look who's lacking logic, himself using the logical fallacies of Argumentum ad Populum and Poisoning the Well!

A person who uses quranic verses to authenticate itself ought not to talk about logic (or scientific methodology) at all.

As I've said to you MANY times already, if 'Mecca' was mentioned elsewhere in the Koran,
I wouldn't object but since 48.24 is the only place were it's found, I most obviously doubt.

?? Come again. Since mecca is mentioned only once it cannot mean "mecca"? Seriously?

Let us see - quranic translators translate it as mecca. People that know arabic translate it as mecca. We are now supposed to accept the word of one person (who does not know arabic) when he suddenly claims that it is not mecca? I think you should just quit with 48.24 once and for all.