DO you agree with The Cat?

[Idesigner]

There should be third option also.

*** Do you believe that Koran is authentic historical document?

If all Hadiths are fabricated without any historical basis Koran is also a fabrication, plagiarized, ranting and raving document attiributed to one mad historic person i.e. Mohemmed.

Contents of Koran is also as illogical and absurd as many hadiths. One wonders what came first egg or chicke? Koran or Hadith?

Uthman gathered one ,final, eternal Koran and forced muslims to believe in one version. Other 49 versions were destroyed.One version was eaten by Ayesha's goat. Only way we can settlle the issue if some one can get hold of that authentic original on which Allah is sitting and farting on it everyday.

[The Cat]

I DO NOT believe that CAT's arguments have any merit .. The Cat is foolish to write all that his Crime investigation Islamic history report in FFI

So showing the fallacy of the hadiths goes against FFI's goals but not... upholding their LEGITIMACY as snb does?
Please don't let SNB or any other bully out your opinion. They are but bullying bubbles! The Islamic tradition is forged.
Demonstratively. Show me ANY genuine and historical hadith from between 630/690, which is the time of the Tabi'un.

His argument is that some portrays Muhammad as a criminal. At the time he was, first of all, perceived as another Moses
and you don't have to dig much into the Torah to find out that what he or Joshua had committed would so be branded as
'Crime against Humanity' by nowadays standards. How many Jews do you think left Judaism because of that? Very few...

Worse than Moses, the hadiths portray Muhammad as a -world conqueror- giving his followers a timeless justification.
So the hadiths prophetic legitimacy, which SNB defends, gives them the rightful background for any kind of dawa there is.
''I've been made victorious by terror'' (B.4.52.220) is only found in the hadiths... Hadiths are the fountain of terrorism.

Now, snb's position strengthen this -as legitimate- yet that's perceived here as ok (!?!). For if the hadiths portrays him as a criminal
(against unbelievers) then Muhammadans are justified to act alike anytime they want! The hadiths acknowledge terrorism in full day.

This is the very justification that snb defends as authentic!

And so, I'm proudly motivated to argue against it with might.

[The Cat]

*** Do you believe that Koran is authentic historical document?

If all Hadiths are fabricated without any historical basis Koran is also a fabrication, plagiarized, renting and raving document attiributed to one non historic person i.e. Mohemmed

Irrelevant to the present topic and pool. You are welcome to start a thread in the proper main.

I shall remind people that the question at stake here is not if hadiths complete or not the Koran,
but if their authenticity can be foolproof. They most obviously came out way to late too be so.

[Idesigner]

*** Do you believe that Koran is authentic historical document?

If all Hadiths are fabricated without any historical basis Koran is also a fabrication, plagiarized, renting and raving document attiributed to one non historic person i.e. Mohemmed

Irrelevant to the present topic and pool. You are welcome to start a thread in the proper main.

I shall remind people that the question at stake here is not if hadiths complete or not the Koran,
but if their authenticity can be foolproof. They most obviously came out way to late too be so.

Its quite relevant to talk about historical basis of Koran and Mohemmed.

I dont care whether Koran or Hadiths were complete or not. I am concerned with histotic proof of Mohemmed, Koran and Hadith meaning we have written confrimation ( even a one Koran chapter would do)within the life time of prophet. No oral traditions, nothing. Just some age dated ( carbon dating which is accurate for about 50 years) handwritten copy of Koran dated ( 600-650 ACE) ok I will allow till 700 ACE. Still we are not sure Mohemmed actually received revealations or he made it up, or he was a nutcase. If there were no witnesses who saw and heard Gibreel revealing to Mohemmed then its all fabrication.

Even Koran in present form we got was handiwork of Uthaman time scholars. That is some 40 years late. Uthman destroyed all other versions. I want all those discarded versions.

If you want to prove all Hadiths fake and fabricated prove to us what was the basis to believe that Mohemmed was a historic person and Koran was authentic documents recorded as the revelations occured.I will use same criteria as you use for Hadiths. Produce on handwritten copy or even a hand written chapter or worse of Koran which can be dated to the time when Mohemmed died( after and before 50 years) in Medina.

No Mohemmed, No koran, No Hadith and no Islam. All fabrication of Uthman and other Khalifas.

[skynightblaze]

You've been whining that you'd be ignoring my posts for a long time now, in fact anytime when you were cornered, which is often.
Just running out like a Sunnite. If true all you had/have to do is to put me on your 'foe' list. So where's the honesty in your saying?

I had initially decided to put you in the foe list but then later decided against it. Its not that I am ignoring you completely because you do copy paste some responses that are worth responding and therefore I reply to you selectively . When people don't respond to your nauseatingly stupid posts you think you have cornered them . This is exactly how trolls think. They think that writing on and on makes them win debates and corner other people. They simply don't understand that people ignore them because they cant debate properly.

[skynightblaze]

I have decided to reply to this stupid argument that you keep parroting every now and then about your scholars. Bring your best foot forward and I am going to destroy you here and eliminate your misconception that I avoid you because I am cornered.

Again, it's snb's elusive way to turn his back to all... the scholarly testimonies I just brought forth:
Goldziher, Schacht, Juynboll (etc) ''are not worth to be honest'', according to our 'epitome of logic'!
That's another dishonest statement... For the arguments I bring aren't 'mine'. That's dishonesty

Your scholars cannot explain how non islamic scholars confirm with what islamic scriptures say on many counts for e,g killing apostates is mentioned by John Penkaye and he also mentions of arabs of 630 ad (You obviously didnt read the link that I provided. The author of the book says that John was referring to an event of 630 AD). We have Constantine , Theophanes who confirm islamic history on some counts. We have another quote from a monk from 640 AD who talks about how violent arabs of Muhammad were. He too describes them as violent thugs who took captives etc etc. I have documented these quotes in my resource center thread and the latest quotes from John Penkaye are in the thread "Hadith timelines" in the quran and ahadith folder. Your scholars cannot explain why these people confirm islamic history.

Your scholars cant tell us why findings of Sanaa Manuscripts match with ahadith regarding compilation of quran. Historic research regarding Sanaa Manuscripts confirms ahadith. Quranic copy of Ibn Masud was found 400 years later and it was found to differ significantly from present day quran. Abu Dawud records the variants of this copy and Bukhari too recorded about the copy of Masud ( Sahih Bukhari chapter virtues of quran no 518). This again confirms with islamic history. Please take help of your scholars and explain the above things.

Lastly in the other thread you claimed that diacritical marks is a historical knowledge. The islamic sources make a mention of diacritical dots being added to the quran. If this is a historical fact then it only goes on to prove that the islamic scriptures recorded this fact correctly and hence all of these scriptures cant be fabricated . So congratulations ! You have just shot yourself in the foot Neither you nor your scholars can explain this.

Lastly your scholars contradict each other. Schacht says Ahadith were corrupted 2 centuries later while Goldziher says that they were immediately corrupted in the first 2 centuries. Patricia Crone contradict Goldziher

He was a strong believer in the view that Islamic law owes its origins to Roman Law but in the opinion of Patricia Crone his arguments here are "uncharacteristically weak".[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ign%C3%A1c_Goldziher

Wansbrough's work conveys Quran and ahadith are hearsay of arabs and character of Muhammad is myth which basically contradicts Schacht and Goldziher and even some of the scholars which you quoted. Your scholars don't share a common opinion which itself renders them useless. Btw you claimed somewhere that Wansbrough never held the opinion that Muhammad didn't exist. Its not the case. Read the following passage from wikipedia.

Spoiler! :

As time evolved the Judeo-Christian scriptures were adapted to an Arab perspective and mutated into what became the Qur'an which was developed over centuries with contributions from various Arab tribal sources. Wansbrough's research suggests that a great deal of the traditional history of Islam appeared to be a fabrication of later generations seeking to forge and justify a unique religious identity. Within this context, the character of Muhammad could be seen as a manufactured myth created to provide the Arab tribes with their own Arab version of the Judeo-Christian prophets.

By very the same honesty he must also dismiss his very good friend, Sam Shamoun.
His arguments can't have ''any merit'' since they're quite the same as the Koraners:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... _quran.htm

So, who's 'deluded' here? Shamoun, Goldziher, Schacht, Juynboll and me or... snb?

Sam shamoun doesn't believe that all the ahadith are corrupted because he was once provided me the list of questions to ask quran alone muslims. You obviously are an idiot so try reading it again and see if you can understand that Shamoun's argument regarding Sunna trumping quran appeals muslims and they cannot be used to refute a non muslim.

More ever I don't agree with Sam shamoun on everything for e.g I dont believe in his views about christianity. I have exactly opposite opinions.

[skynightblaze]

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Hagarism:_T ... amic_World

At the bottom we find plenty of renowned people disagreeing with Patricia Crone's work. This TROLL copies most of his arguments from Crone and COok. The book itself is controversial and is not acknowledged universally. John Wansbrough who mentored Crone itself dismisses the book on some counts. Please read what people had to say about Crone and Cook. Some people have accepted the book warmly however many of them have rejected the book.

This troll is here to promote quran and nothing else. Right from the day one, I have made my intentions clear as to why I defend the ahadith however this person defends quran and claims that nowadays islam is not represented by Quran. in other words he believes quran is a clean book. I have never ever claimed that ahadith are clean . What I have claimed is that they give us the correct details of Muhammad's life. Just because we have a books that display history in an ugly manner we don't start denying the history. We accept the history as true and condemn it. We do not neglect or claim that books written about Hitler gives us the wrong history . Instead we accept that the history regarding Hitler is correct and therefore he was a criminal. Same is the case here with Muhammad.

[Idesigner]

Cat:I shall remind people that the question at stake here is not if hadiths complete or not the Koran,
but if their authenticity can be foolproof. They most obviously came out way to late too be so.

Koran also came out late. Late by atleast 50 years during rule of Uthman. 50 years is not late for you but 100 years is too late for you. Koran is such a convolute documents that muslims had to relie on Hadiths since day one.

Not all Hadiths were born late. Tradition of writing and remembering and reciting predates Mohemmed. All khalifas from Abu the Bakri and others made sure that no conflicting interpretaion survives except their own version.

[skynightblaze]

Cat:I shall remind people that the question at stake here is not if hadiths complete or not the Koran,
but if their authenticity can be foolproof. They most obviously came out way to late too be so.

Koran also came out late. Late by atleast 50 years during rule of Uthman. 50 years is not late for you but 100 years is too late for you. Koran is such a convolute documents that muslims had to relie on Hadiths since day one.

Not all Hadiths were born late. Tradition of writing and remembering and reciting predates Mohemmed. All khalifas from Abu the Bakri and others made sure that no conflicting interpretaion survives except their own version.

This person is a con man. Its not that there was absolute nothing before Ishaq and others wrote their own books. I have refuted that argument here. Check the spoilers.

viewtopic.php?p=166671#p166671

Btw I have already debated him regarding authenticity of quran. This person has defended quran every single time. He tried to tell us how quran is of indisputable origin. Check the Muhammad folder . The topic name is "Ali Sina did you know this?". The debate starts from page 9. Just see how this con man shifts and tries to defend the quran.


This person;s interests are not genuine. He is here to prove islamic history as fabrication because he wants to promote quran and claim that it is a clean book. For that he has to portray Muhammmad in good light and therefore eliminating ahadith is essential.

[yeezevee]

I DO NOT believe that CAT's arguments have any merit .. The Cat is foolish to write all that his Crime investigation Islamic history report in FFI

So showing the fallacy of the hadiths goes against FFI's goals but not... upholding their LEGITIMACY as snb does?

No.., I didn't say that "The Cat". What all I said was those blue colored words. What you two guys are discussing is perfectly legit in FFI. "Freedom of Expression is must on internet, specially on a internet forums like this one. Both of your discussions/posts are legitimate and educational to the reader.

Please don't let SNB or any other bully out your opinion. They are but bullying bubbles!

No.. No The Cat, Neither SNB can bully me nor any one specially on internet. After all no one can put knife on my throat. I am in a very safe place. lol.,

The Islamic tradition is forged. Demonstratively. Show me ANY genuine and historical hadith from between 630-690, which is the time of the Tabi'un.

Good point but that is a different issue, we can discuss on that. I would greatly appreciate if you could write a page or so to educate the readers on the history of Islam during that time(630-690) period. for e.g posts similar to that you see here.. Prophet Muhammad allegedly died in the year 632 ., and there were RAVING WARS IN THAT AREA during next 60 years .. look at these wars that are internal to Islam and external to Islam where Muslims went all over to conquer the nations that surround Arabia

633: Campaigns in Bahrain, Oman, Mahrah Yemen, and Hadramaut. Raids in Iraq. Battles of Kazima, Mazar, Walaja, Ulleis, Hirah, Anbar, Ein at tamr, Daumatul Jandal and Firaz.
634: Battles of Basra, Damascus and Ajnadin. Death of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat Umar Farooq becomes the Caliph. Battles of Namaraq and Saqatia.
635: Battle of Bridge. Battle of Buwaib. Conquest of Damascus. Battle of Fahl.
636: Battle of Yermuk. Battle of Qadsiyia. Conquest of Madain.
637: Conquest of Syria. Fall of Jerusalem. Battle of Jalula.
638: Conquest of Jazirah.
639: Conquest of Khuizistan. Advance into Egypt.
640: Capture of the post of Caesaria in Syria. Conquest of Shustar and Jande Sabur in Persia. Battle of Babylon in Egypt.
641: Battle of Nihawand. Conquest Of Alexandria in Egypt.
642: Battle of Rayy in Persia. Conquest of Egypt. Foundation of Fustat.
643: Conquest of Azarbaijan and Tabaristan (Russia).
644: Conquest of Fars, Kerman, Sistan, Mekran and Kharan.Martyrdom of Hadrat Umar. Hadrat Othman becomes the Caliph.
645: Campaigns in Fats.
646: Campaigns in Khurasan, Armeain and Asia Minor.
647: Campaigns in North Africa. Conquest of the island of Cypress.
648: Campaigns against the Byzantines.
651: Naval battle of the Masts against the Byzantines.
652: Discontentment and disaffection against the rule of Hadrat Othman.
656: Martyrdom of Hadrat Othman. Hadrat Ali becomes the Caliph. Battle of the Camel.
657: Hadrat Ali shifts the capital from Madina to Kufa. Battle of Siffin. Arbitration proceedings at Daumaut ul Jandal.
658: Battle of Nahrawan.
659: Conquest of Egypt by Mu'awiyah.
660: Hadrat Ali recaptures Hijaz and Yemen from Mu'awiyah. Mu'awiyah declares himself as the Caliph at Damascus.
661: Martyrdom of Hadrat Ali. Accession of Hadrat Hasan and his abdication. Mu'awiyah becomes the sole Caliph.
662: Khawarij revolts.
666: Raid of Sicily.
670: Advance in North Africa. Uqba b Nafe founds the town of Qairowan in Tunisia. Conquest of Kabul.
672: Capture of the island of Rhodes. Campaigns in Khurasan.
674: The Muslims cross the Oxus. Bukhara becomes a vassal state.
677: Occupation of Sarnarkand and Tirmiz. Siege of Constantinople.
680: Death of Muawiyah. Accession of Yazid. Tragedy of Kerbala and martyrdom of Hadrat Hussain.
682: In North Africa Uqba b Nafe marches to the Atlantic, is ambushed and killed at Biskra. The Muslims evacuate Qairowan and withdraw to Burqa.
683: Death of Yazid. Accession of Mu'awiyah II.
684: Abdullah b Zubair declares himself aS the Caliph at'Makkah. Marwan I becomes the Caliph' at Damascus. Battle of Marj Rahat.
685: Death of Marwan I. Abdul Malik becomes the Caliph at Damascus. Battle of Ain ul Wada.
686: Mukhtar declares himself as the Caliph at Kufa.
687: Battle of Kufa between the forces of Mukhtar and Abdullah b Zubair. Mukhtar killed.
691: Battle of Deir ul Jaliq. Kufa falls to Abdul Malik.
692: The fall of Makkah. Death of Abdullah b Zubair. Abdul Malik becomes the sole Caliph.

Yes I have to agree with you that Islamic history is not cleanly written., I am glad you are exploring subject in an entirely different angle with reference to Quran.

His argument is that some portrays Muhammad as a criminal. At the time he was, first of all, perceived as another Moses and you don't have to dig much into the Torah to find out that what he or Joshua had committed what would be branded as 'Crime against Humanity' by nowadays standards. How many Jews do you think left Judaism because of that? Very few...

yes that is true and you know well the reason why SKB is portraying Muhammad actions and his followers actions were as Criminal . I have said this to you many timee., his goal is eliminating Islam all together so that coming generations need not worry about the wars by Muhammad followers

I am not sure why can not understand that logic., In fact your goal is also same as SKB's., but you guys are working in a different angle. You would like to do with in Quran and with in Islam. In other words you would like to see soft core sing song Islam, where as his point is very fundamental, it goes beyond Islam/Islamisms.. even to Christianities and Judaisms and to all alleged Monotheistic religions.

So I can safely say you two have same goals but going on in different routs.

Worse than Moses, the hadiths portray Muhammad as a -world conqueror- giving his followers a timeless justification. So the hadiths prophetic legitimacy, which SNB defends, gives them the rightful background for any kind of dawa there is. ''I've been made victorious by terror'' (B.4.52.220) is only found in the hadiths... Hadiths are the fountain of terrorism.

What?? What is wrong with you The Cat?? SKB is NOT PORTRAYING Muhammad as world conqueror. He is portraying Muhammad.. The Prophet of Islam as CRIMINAL.. .. CRIMINAL..CRIMINAL..CRIMINAL .. Please remember that next time.

Next thing you must realize is, SKB is not giving any legitimacy a timeless justification to his followers., SKB putting them also as criminals along with Muhammad.

Reading many your posts on this subject of Moses/Jesus/Muhammad/Quran, I understand your point that much of the Quran was written keeping Moses and Jesus in mind but projecting their words/actions stories to Muhammad., But that is nothing to do with SKB's offensive posts against Islam Quran/Muhammad. Now to change SKB's opinion you have to write some time line history of Muhammad and first 100 years of Islam. You have not done that.

Now, snb's position strengthen this -as legitimate- yet that's perceived here as ok (!?!). For if the hadiths portrays him as a criminal (against unbelievers) then Muhammadans are justified to act alike anytime they want! The hadiths acknowledge terrorism in full day.

yes hadith do acknowledge Islamic terrorism , and Muslims have used that terror since the day Khadija died and it exploded when Muhammad died. Now what I differ with you is SNB/SKB is not strengthening the Islamic terrorism., what he is doing is telling the FFI readers that "ISLAM IS TERRORISM" and Muslims who don't use terror to meet the goals of Islam are NOT really Muslims.

This is the very justification that snb defends as authentic!

No..no., Again the reason why SKB defends haidth is to prove Islam in its totality is nothing but terror based cultish religion.

And so, I'm proudly motivated to argue against it with might.

well you should be proud what you are doing and he should be proud of what he is doing at FFI. I am glad to read both of you guys..

with best regards
yeezevee

[MesMorial]

Yeezevee says:

In other words you would like to see soft core sing song Islam

Here's preview of sing-song Islam:

[The Cat]

I reply to you selectively . When people don't respond to your nauseatingly stupid posts you think you have cornered them. This is exactly how trolls think. They think that writing on and on makes them win debates and corner other people. They simply don't understand that people ignore them because they cant debate properly.

What's that 'logic' again: You completely annihilate my stands when not answering?
The rest being just the fallacy of Poisoning the Well, another old habit of yours.

Then, you're selectively answering me? Ever heard of this being a logical fallacy too?
Or stating that I'm debating 'shadow people' whom are... your 'Appeal to the People'!

Our 'epitome of logic' is nothing but a collection of fallacies...
including this very poll and his thread, not belonging into RC.

Your scholars cannot explain how non islamic scholars confirm with what islamic scriptures say on many counts for e,g killing apostates is mentioned by John Penkaye and he also mentions of arabs of 630 ad (You obviously didnt read the link that I provided. The author of the book says that John was referring to an event of 630 AD). We have Constantine , Theophanes who confirm islamic history on some counts. We have another quote from a monk from 640 AD who talks about how violent arabs of Muhammad were. He too describes them as violent thugs who took captives etc etc. I have documented these quotes in my resource center thread and the latest quotes from John Penkaye are in the thread "Hadith timelines" in the quran and ahadith folder. Your scholars cannot explain why these people confirm islamic history.

His Senility keeps on discrediting himself furthermore. Checking...

--You've been proven wrong on Penkaye, who wrote in 686 anyway and from a remote monastery.
viewtopic.php?p=166816#p166816
viewtopic.php?p=166837#p166837
viewtopic.php?p=166855#p166855

--You're a laugh: it's Constantine VII (d.959) yet mostly repeating Theophanes. Constantine was born way before!

--Theophanes said he died in 629/630. The Doctrina states he was alive in 634-637. Theophanes only confirms
that the beginning of the forgery was then under way, for these details were ignored by John of Damascus.

Your scholars cant tell us why findings of Sanaa Manuscripts match with ahadith regarding compilation of quran.

False premise: Mind you we're talking about the siras/hadiths, not Koran, which is -historically- much more grounded.
And I've ALWAYS stated that hadiths with purely historical accounts should be judged at their own intrinsic value.

Lastly in the other thread you claimed that diacritical marks is a historical knowledge. The islamic sources make a mention of diacritical dots being added to the quran. If this is a historical fact then it only goes on to prove that the islamic scriptures recorded this fact correctly

So... it's your poll's question that is dishonest to the core from inception, just like I've stated...
viewtopic.php?p=128620#p128620
You've AGAIN committed the fallacy of Raising the bar, so to win. Again, just plain dishonesty!
viewtopic.php?p=165881#p165881

Lastly your scholars contradict each other. Schacht says Ahadith were corrupted 2 centuries later while Goldziher says that they were immediately corrupted in the first 2 centuries. Patricia Crone contradict Goldziher. Wansbrough's work conveys Quran and ahadith are hearsay of arabs and character of Muhammad is myth which basically contradicts Schacht and Goldziher and even some of the scholars which you quoted. Your scholars don't share a common opinion which itself renders them useless. Btw you claimed somewhere that Wansbrough never held the opinion that Muhammad didn't exist. Its not the case. Read the following passage from wikipedia.

--Prove that Schacht and Goldziher disagreed on this. They didn't...
viewtopic.php?p=164264#p164264
viewtopic.php?p=165881#p165881

--Wansbrough stated the the CHARACTER of Muhammad was a myth (much like Robin Hood, whom could have been real originally).
So he goes in the same direction as the others: the hadiths were fabricated backward.

--Patricia Crone stated on Goldziher: ''his arguments here are "uncharacteristically weak". She only contradicts him on the topic
of the Roman law, to be further deepen, yet to recognized that usually his arguments were -characteristically strong-. See?

Sam shamoun doesn't believe that all the ahadith are corrupted because he was once provided me the list of questions to ask quran alone muslims. You obviously are an idiot so try reading it again and see if you can understand that Shamoun's argument regarding Sunna trumping quran appeals muslims and they cannot be used to refute a non muslim. More ever I don't agree with Sam shamoun on everything for e.g I dont believe in his views about christianity. I have exactly opposite opinions.

You're also in the habit of building false testimonies to suit your wicked mind.... What's new?
viewtopic.php?p=160616#p160616
viewtopic.php?p=166954#p166954

At the bottom we find plenty of renowned people disagreeing with Patricia Crone's work.

These so called 'testimonies' were brought by Saifullah (from islamic-awareness), editing wikipedia. Refuted...
viewtopic.php?p=166816#p166816
The wild assumptions aren't made by Crone/Cook whom, contrary to them, substantiated their claim. Example:

Historian Daniel Pipes states: "In Hagarism, a 1977 study by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, the authors completely exclude the Arabic
literary sources and reconstruct the early history of Islam only from the information to be found in Arabic papyri, coins, and inscriptions
as well as non-Arabic literary sources in a wide array of languages (Aramaic, Armenian, Coptic, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Syriac). This
approach leads Crone and Cook in wild new directions. In their account, Mecca's role is replaced by a city in northwestern Arabia and
Muhammad was elevated "to the role of a scriptural prophet" only about a.d. 700, or seventy years after his death.

Crone/Cook were perfectly justified in their scholarly approach: the biography of Muhammad is untrustable.
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...

How can anyone believe a biography emerging 200 YEARS (ibn Hisham) after the alleged death of such an important prophet?

Muhammad: Myth vs Reality
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5518

MECCA -Myth vs Reality: In Search of Mt Sinai!
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8527

What I have claimed is that they give us the correct details of Muhammad's life....
Instead we accept that the history regarding Hitler is correct and therefore he was a criminal. Same is the case here with Muhammad.

The correct details of Muhammad's life began to be known some 200 years after his death? How can this be logical?

Liar. What you've claimed is the authenticity/legitimacy of the hadiths. You've been call on this many times, so to recant.
You NEVER did. You're thus logically endorsing the Muslims' right to genitally mutilate young girls, child-bride, stoning...
up to the terrorism the hadiths uphold... for all time. I've said you think like a Mullah and keep on proving me right!

This is like endorsing the legitimacy of Mein Kampf. As I've wrote: ''Either you don't know what you're talking about,
which discredit you of ANY meaningful debate. Or, you know and that makes you a disgusting person'' or a mental.
viewtopic.php?p=129729#p129729
viewtopic.php?p=130181#p130181

Authenticity means to give legitimacy
viewtopic.php?p=130980#p130980
viewtopic.php?p=160913#p160913

[The Cat]

I have already debated him regarding authenticity of quran. This person has defended quran every single time. He tried to tell us how quran is of indisputable origin. Check the Muhammad folder . The topic name is "Ali Sina did you know this?". The debate starts from page 9. Just see how this con man shifts and tries to defend the quran.

Didn't you just stated that: ''The islamic sources make a mention of diacritical dots being added to the quran. If this is a historical fact
then it only goes on to prove that the islamic scriptures recorded this fact correctly.'' That was my argument: the collation of the Koran,
as reported, makes sense. You argued otherwise. That thing about the dots and marks prove that it can't be a work of God.

LIAR: Where did I acknowledge the Koran's 'authenticity'? That's ANOTHER dishonest statement!
viewtopic.php?p=130487#p130487
viewtopic.php?p=130601#p130601
viewtopic.php?p=130603#p130603

From an epigraphical point of view, the very rasm (primitive Arabic) in which it was first written
makes it firmly, no doubt possible, between a secured time-line of about 580/710. But, all along,
dots and marks demonstrate how it couldn't be the work of a god capable of transmitting soundly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet#History

He is here to prove islamic history as fabrication because he wants to promote quran and claim that it is a clean book. For that he has to portray Muhammmad in good light and therefore eliminating ahadith is essential.

As MesMorial said, the Koran is the best hadith-spray. So I use both... external and internal arguments.
Here, again, you're dishonest about me. Even MesMorial could see that I'm not a Koraner. Not you!

By acknowledging the hadith's authenticity, since some depicts Muhammad as spreading terror to win,
you do bless Muhammadan's TERRORISM. What you're REALLY stating to them is: I despise your hadiths
but, since they're genuine, then you're legitimized to use it... no matter what I think about them.

That's the bottom line of His Senility's 'logic'!

Did I say you think and argue like a Mullah? Discrediting yourself furthermore? YES.

The Hadiths' Perfidy
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8185

My answering to His Senility's thread in RC
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=10680

[yeezevee]

Yeezevee says:

In other words you would like to see soft core sing song Islam

Here's preview of sing-song Islam:

Hi "MesMorial. Is that fat guy in the center Edip Yuksel,... lol.. If he is he should grow back his beard & mustache .. lol..

[skynightblaze]

What's that 'logic' again: You completely annihilate my stands when not answering?
The rest being just the fallacy of Poisoning the Well, another old habit of yours.

Useless arguments don't warrant a response. You do not understand that atleast 90% of what you write is complete crap. More ever you do not understand what these fallacies mean and how they are applied. Everytime you use them you insult those who coined these fallacies.

Then, you're selectively answering me? Ever heard of this being a logical fallacy too?
Or stating that I'm debating 'shadow people' whom are... your 'Appeal to the People'!

One doesn't have to answer crap . It would be a fallacy if I refused to answer good arguments and only answer which I could but refusing to answer crap is not a fallacy by any means. If anyone can show me how not answering crap is a fallacy then I would gladly accept their argument.

Our 'epitome of logic' is nothing but a collection of fallacies...
including this very pool and his thread, not belonging into RC.

You are yet to understand what logic means. Please take lessons at logic because you are extremely poor at it. I am not the only one to observe this.

His Senility keeps on discrediting himself furthermore. Checking...

--You've been proven wrong on Penkaye, who wrote in 686 anyway and from a remote monastery.
viewtopic.php?p=166816#p166816
viewtopic.php?p=166837#p166837
viewtopic.php?p=166855#p166855

Scribbling something is not called rebuttal. What have you refuted exactly? Spell it out here. Penkaye tells us that early muslims followed the tradition of Muhammad and they killed apostates which is in line with islamic traditions. So was Penkaye lying when he said this?? Was Penkaye lying when he said in other quote that he recalls the barbarity of arab conquests in 630 AD? You were given a link to the quote of John Bar Penkaye. The author of the book said that John describes in his book about the horror conquests of arabs in 630 ad and thereafter he quotes what John Penkaye had to say about the conquest of 630 AD.

We all know Muhammad and his band of thugs were present around the same time in arabia.

--You're a laugh: it's Constantine VII (d.959) yet mostly repeating Theophanes. Constantine was born way before!

According to your stupid theory the fabrication of non quranic sources continued even till 14th century because Ibn Kathir was writing in the 14th century. Isn't it a co-incidence that Constantine 7, Theophanes, John Penkaye were all witnesses during which the alleged fabrication was taking place and yet none of them said anything about it ? Instead of blowing a whistle upon the fabricators they instead quote islamic scriptures and call Muhammad a criminal

--Theophanes said he died in 629/630. The Doctrina states he was alive in 634-637. Theophanes only confirms that the beginning of the forgery was then under way, for these details were ignored by John of Damascus.

Enough of your stupidity. Theophanes was born in 760 AD. He would have known that the siras were fabrications and he would have certainly mentioned this. Theophanes through his writings confirms that Muhammad was a criminal and this is what the islamic scriptures tell us about Muhammad. I know a sh!thead like you can never understand simple things and that is why you are a unique troll. Use all the arguments from your scholars and tell us how come the fabricated scriptures found way in the non muslim writings.

Your scholars cant tell us why findings of Sanaa Manuscripts match with ahadith regarding compilation of quran.

False premise: Mind you we're talking about the siras/hadiths, not Koran, which is -historically- much more grounded.
And I've ALWAYS stated that hadiths with purely historical accounts should be judged at their own intrinsic value.

Not only your logic is poor but you comprehension is equally awful. I am talking about ahadith here and not quran. What I said is Sanaa manuscripts confirm the ahadith which talk about compilation of the quran. Your scholars cannot tell us why finding of Sanaa manuscripts confirm with whatever is documented in the ahadith regarding compilation of the quran.

Anyway even after losing the debate by a land slide regarding compilation of quran you dare to claim that quran is much more historicall grounded. One can see the miserable performance of this poster in the following link..

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=9828&start=160

Lastly you are really a joke. All the ahadith are fabrications and yet they can be taken as historical accounts . Fabricated quotes can give us the correct history. I guess this is your scholarly approach and I really respect you for such an approach

Lastly in the other thread you claimed that diacritical marks is a historical knowledge. The islamic sources make a mention of diacritical dots being added to the quran. If this is a historical fact then it only goes on to prove that the islamic scriptures recorded this fact correctly

So... it's your pool's question that is dishonest to the core from inception, just like I've stated...
viewtopic.php?p=128620#p128620
You've AGAIN committed the fallacy of Raising the bar, so to win. Again, just plain dishonesty!
viewtopic.php?p=165881#p165881

Oh please spare of those fallacies. You don't even understand what a fallacy is. You don't even understand when something can be called a fallacy .

Let me point out what an absolute idiot you are. 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.

--Prove that Schacht and Goldziher disagreed on this. They didn't...
viewtopic.php?p=164264#p164264
viewtopic.php?p=165881#p165881

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.Herbert Berg in his book himself mentions this.. Read the point no 55 in the following link..

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8oYL ... ht&f=false

In short your 2 scholars cannot agree within themselves as to how ahadith were fabricated!
Further lets see how Goldziher refutes himself..

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 a hadith to suit its purpose. They had to do what their opponents did: invent and have invented, hadiths in their turn

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Origins_of_the_Qur%27an

This is a self refuting argument. To silence the opposition circles the fabricators had to take utmost care which itself means that the room for fabrication was limited! So it cannot happen that these people simply called Muhammad a thug when he was a saint and their lies got accepted all the way!

Secondly how does Goldziher know about the early muslims? What are his sources ? These are fundamental questions which anyone with common sense would ask. It seems that your scholars too like you are selectively picking up things from islamic scriptures.

--Wansbrough stated the the CHARACTER of Muhammad was a myth (much like Robin Hood, whom could have been real originally).
So he goes in the same direction as the others: the hadiths were fabricated backward.

Which is totally against your view that Muhammad existed and it is also against what Schacht and GOldziher because they believed Muhamamad existed . Again Wansbrough cannot explain why non muslim historian called Muhammad a thug just like islamic scriptures portray him to be.

--Patricia Crone stated on Goldziher: ''his arguments here are "uncharacteristically weak". She only contradicts him on the topic
of the Roman law, to be further deepen, yet to recognized that usually his arguments were -characteristically strong-. See?

So what? Wansbrough and others whom you conveniently did not mention criticized or disagreed with crone's work . So even within non muslim sources we have contradictions. I have shown some basic problems with Goldziher's arguments and how he contradicts Schacht. Anyway here is what Wansbrough has to say regarding Crone..

Spoiler! :

John Wansbrough, who had mentored the authors, reviewed the book, specifically the first part, in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. He begins by praising the book claiming, "the authors; erudition is extraordinary their industry everywhere evident, their prose ebullient." However, he later comments that "...most, if not all, [of the sources] have been or can be challenged on suspicion of inauthenticity" and that "the material is upon occasion misleadingly represented...My reservations here, and elsewhere in this first part of the book, turn upon what I take to be the authors' methodological assumptions, of which the principal must be that a vocabulary of motives can be freely extrapolated from a discrete collection of literary stereotypes composed by alien and mostly hostile observers, and thereupon employed to describe, even interpret, not merely the overt behaviour but also intellectual and spiritual development of the helpless and mostly innocent actors. Where even the sociologist fears to tread, the historian ought not with impunity be permitted to go."[33]

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Hagarism:_T ... amic_World

Spoiler! :

At the bottom we find plenty of renowned people disagreeing with Patricia Crone's work.

These so called 'testimonies' were brought by Saifullah (from islamic-awakening), editing wikipedia. Refuted...
viewtopic.php?p=166816#p166816
The wild assumptions aren't made by Crone/Cook whom, contrary to them, substantiated their claim. Example:

Historian Daniel Pipes states: "In Hagarism, a 1977 study by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, the authors completely exclude the Arabic
literary sources and reconstruct the early history of Islam only from the information to be found in Arabic papyri, coins, and inscriptions
as well as non-Arabic literary sources in a wide array of languages (Aramaic, Armenian, Coptic, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Syriac). This
approach leads Crone and Cook in wild new directions. In their account, Mecca's role is replaced by a city in northwestern Arabia and
Muhammad was elevated "to the role of a scriptural prophet" only about a.d. 700, or seventy years after his death.

What an absolute dishonest person you are.! Your own source Wansbrough criticized Patricia Crone's work Plus 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.

In short your sources are highly controversial. Saifullah didn't include all the testimonies mentioned in my link. He is accused of only fabricating one testimony . The link I gave has plenty of opposite views to Crone.

Crone/Cook were perfectly justified in their scholarly approach: the biography of Muhammad is untrustable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophetic_ ... usefulness

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.

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:

So bring me a source that describes Muhammad as good person and a kind person. We had people describing Jesus , Krishna , Buddha as good people however all we find about Muhammad is criminal criminal and criminal. We also have non muslim sources who accuse Muhammad and his gang for being a criminals. The non muslims sources are Theophanes, John Bar Penkaye, A monk writing from 640 AD , Constantine 7. If what you and your scholars say is true then a obvious question arises in the mind of a common man as to What was the character of Muhamamad like? .

1. The fact that no sīra work was compiled during the first century of Islam.

There were ahadith in the first century islam. I have quoted proofs in the spoilers in the thread "Hadith timelines"

2. The many discrepancies exhibited in different narrations found in sīra works.

please stick to your criteria and condemn all the scholars you claim to refute islamic history because we have some discrepancies among them too. What about the things in islamic history that confirm each other?? How is that two people who are centuries apart come with the same thing without any co ordination?

3. Later sources claiming to know more about Muhammad then earlier ones.

The early sources depict him as criminal and so do the later ones so there is no difference.

4. Discrepancies compared to non-Muslim sources.

Again please stick to your criteria and discard the scholars that you brought here because the writings of early non muslims which I have quoted confirm ahadith on some counts and therefore they actually are in discrepancy to the modern scholars of today which you brought here.

5. Some parts or genres of sīra, namely those dealing with miracles, are not fit as sources...

How can anyone believe a biography emerging 200 YEARS (ibn Hisham) after the alleged death of such an important prophet?[/quote]

There were plenty of ahadith in supply in the first and second generations and hence its not that these people had no access to any information about Muhammad and therefore your argument falls flat on face.

Rest of your nauseatingly stupid arguments in this post are not even worth quoting.

Now I will answer the next part of your stupid argument shortly..

[skynightblaze]

That was my argument: the collation of the Koran,
as reported, makes sense. You argued otherwise. That thing about the dots and marks prove that it can't be a work of God.

You confirm non quranic sources in the process which is what you do not understand

LIAR: Where did I acknowledge the Koran's 'authenticity'? That's ANOTHER dishonest statement!
viewtopic.php?p=130487#p130487
viewtopic.php?p=130601#p130601
viewtopic.php?p=130603#p130603

Now I am going to present a series of quotes from this disgusting LIAR.

My point is that the Koran dismisses nowadays man-made Islam. So why fight it blindly, according ourselves to the Straw-Islam built by the imams? The Koran is on OUR SIDE about this !

So is quran on our side really unless you claim that quran is a clean book?? This is just a sample.

viewtopic.php?p=131600#p131600

I'll explain why the Koran should be understood like the American Constitution: A code of laws.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8268

From an epigraphical point of view, the very rasm (primitive Arabic) in which it was first written
makes it firmly, no doubt possible, between a secured time-line of about 580/710. But, all along,
dots and marks demonstrate how it couldn't be the work of a god capable of transmitting soundly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet#History

How in the world does that make quran more reliable that ahadith?

Rest is absolute gibberish about how I support sunni and hence ignored.

[Ozes]

His argument is that some portrays Muhammad as a criminal. At the time he was, first of all, perceived as another Moses and you don't have to dig much into the Torah to find out that what he or Joshua had committed what would be branded as 'Crime against Humanity' by nowadays standards.

How can people compare Joshua,Moses & Muhammed :/
Do you need to be intellectually dishonest or have some scary tendencies of your own?

[MesMorial]

Thanks for the interesting threads of "Forward-thinking vs Backward-looking paranoia".

[The Cat]

Thanks for the interesting threads of "Forward-thinking vs Backward-looking paranoia".

Where can it be found? Thanks...

[The Cat]

1. To change SKB's opinion you have to write some time line history of Muhammad and first 100 years of Islam. You have not done that....

2. The reason why SKB defends haidth is to prove Islam in its totality is nothing but terror based cultish religion....

3. you should be proud what you are doing and he should be proud of what he is doing at FFI. I am glad to read both of you guys....

The only secured knowledge are the Arabic conquests, performed by Saracens and Tayyaye (both names pointing to a Northwest location).
Yet they were not done by 'Muslims' in the name of 'Islam'. The first caliph attested by epigraphic evidences is Muawiya. On his inscription
of the bath of Gadara, we find no reference to Muhammad nor Islam, but an opening cross! Not even on his two inscriptions in Ta'if!

According to Yehuda Nevo: ''the first dated occurrence of the phrase Muhammad rasul Allah (Muhammad is the prophet of God)
is found on an Arab-Sassanian coin of Xalid b. Abdallah from the year 690 A.D., which was struck in Damascus (Nevo 1994:110).''

Many Western scholars (Puin/Ohlig/Luxenberg) even think that this former 'Muhammad' was but a
christological surname and I think it had an apocalyptic connotation, referring to his second coming.

2. If so, then he's also upholding their very right for terror, child-bride marriages, stoning, etc. On the contrary my position,
and that of eminent Western scholars, is taking away from under their knees the very historical carpet upon which they believe
and pray, beginning with the shahada, all of this without any hatred.

3. It's alright. Bye...