First of all I have never claimed that islamic scriptures are reliable in entirety. Even muslims don’t claim that. All the writers with the exception of one that CAT brought to show discrepancy between birth dates of muhammad belonged to an era when there was no hadith ( bukhari, dawud and muslim) and sira. I have already stated before that there was lots of material (authentic and fake) floating around when Bukhari or Ishaq started compiling their work. They had to sift from it. Only Ishaq mentions the date of birth of Muhammad as 570 AD while Bukhari, Sahih muslim, Abu Dawud and others are silent about it . So the next question is did Ishaq select the right source out of so many contradictory sources to get his date right? The names of writers that CAT brought died even before Ibn Ishaq started compiling his work. So he must have had access to their writings. Let us make use of sources outside islam to know if Ishaq selected the right date.
When we select the non muslim sources there are 2 possibilities here : Either non muslims are reliable or they are unreliable with respect to dates.
Let us first assume non muslim sources are reliable and see what happens in that case.
Here we go..
Stephen Shoemaker in his book mentions 11 different sources of non muslim writers placing the death of Muhammad somewhere between 635 AD to 640 AD. If non muslim sources are to be taken authentic, then we see muhammad must be born somewhere between 572 Ad (635 Ad- 63 years – age of muhammad when he died) and 577 AD (640 Ad- 63). Ishaq mentions year of muhammad’s birth as 570 Ad which is close to our estimates. A difference of 5-10 years would not make much of a difference. Therefore islamic tradition does not crumble as the narrators in the hadith would still be alive by that time. This means we can safely eliminate traditions that say he died in 700 AD as false. This would not even create a problem for muslims because they too do not believe that every single piece of islamic literature is genuine.
Now let us consider the other case i.e. If non muslims sources are unreliable or even partially reliable in this regard. This raises a question- Are the non muslim sources too fabrications? Going by “Cat’s logic” (the term indicates implicit stupidity. No need to mention separately), do we go about saying every single non islamic writer fabricated things just because we see them contradicting each other?
Now this problem seems to be a common problem and a common pattern across many early writings. If one reads my exchanges with Ibn Rushd on the thread mentioned below, one would see that the problem of date mismatch seems to be common even across non muslim writings too. I have put some logical reasons behind why I see the mismatch. CAT can go through them and address them if he can..
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtop ... 20&t=15524" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To give a few parallel examples, can someone tell me with precision as to when Jesus was born or when gospels were written with a precise date? I have seen discrepancy among christians in these matters. They give a range regarding gospels and not an exact date while some debate about the birth date of Jesus. So does this mean that every single thing written in the gospel was a lie? Ofcourse not! Same is the case here.
Here is another example from the book
History and Hagiography from the Late Antique Sinai
http://www.amazon.com/History-Hagiograp ... historians" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here is the book description on Amazon..
The Sinai peninsula emerged in late antiquity as a distinct region of the Christian holy land, identified from the fourth century onward as the Old Testament place where the Hebrews had wandered, Moses received the Law, and 'God's Majesty descended'. At the same time it was part of the late Roman province of Third Palestine and located deep in the heart of 'Saracen Country'. The historical essay and accompanying texts in this book enable readers to explore the particular ideals and dangers associated with this remote political and religious frontier. At its core are three Greek narratives previously unavailable in English: Pseudo-Nilus' Narrations, Ammonius' Report Concerning the Slaughter of the Monks of Sinai and Rhaithou, and Anastasius' Tales of the Sinai Fathers. Long known to historians, these narratives, all written c. 400-650, have long been used to reconstruct pilgrimage, monasticism, and Roman-Saracen relations in this area. However, each poses challenging questions of date, origin, and in
The problem that CAT raised can be raised about almost any early historic document. WE can show n number of internal contradictions but does that mean every single thing it writes is a lie? Ofcourse not otherwise we would have to discard a lot of history that provides us valuable information.
Next comes the argument of syriac meaning of words. I admit to begin with that I am clueless about syriac however atleast I don’t pretend unlike CAT. A point to be noted is that an Syriac illiterate like me can prove him wrong... Following are a few quotes from non muslim writers that use the term
“Tayyaye”.
(Thomas the Presbyter, Chronicle, pp. 147-148 [p. 120]) (640 AD)
In the year 945, indiction 7, on Friday 7 February (634) at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad (tayyaye d-Mhmt) in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician bryrdn, whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.
So if Tayayye means region as CAT says then the text would mean there was a battle between romans and REGION of Muhammad instead of arabs. Does that make sense? Can region of muhammad have battle with Romans? May yes in CAT’s world of logic.
Next comes the usage of word Mhaggre. I have read a few links on that.. Let us see what they have to say..
Hagarenes (Greek Ἀγαρηνοί), also mhaggre (with a pun on the word "muhajir", from Hagar's expulsion), is a term that describes "the followers or descendants of Hagar". The name was used in Judeo-Christian literature and Byzantine chronicles for Hanif Arabs, then for Islamic forces known collectively as Saracens, and during the height of the Ottoman Empire, for Turks. The name, used interchangeably with Ishmaelites, came also to mean any Muslim. An example of its current usage is "Ahryani" (Aхряни), a name used for Bulgarian Muslims in colloquial Bulgarian -although this term has also been explained as paralleling the spread of Balkan Islam with anti-trinitarian Arianism.
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2456159" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So it seems that Hoyland is not alone who thinks that way. Here is another link that states tayyaye was used to refer to muslims.
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=pUep ... ye&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Anyway this point is not so relevant. Let us for the sake of argument assume that no one used the word "muslim" early.So what? In my discussion with Ibn Rushd , she showed me that first reference to some person 500 years after his death. So does that mean he never existed? Also I have already made a detailed case as to why some keywords like Mecca, islam or muslims may have been missing in the early days of islam.
Finally I will put a million dollar question for CAT. Was Muhammad a good person or a bad person? I claim he was a nasty criminal as we see him in the ahadith. You want to deny islamic history . So does this mean you want people to believe he was a morally good person? I am sure this question is a problem for you...
