Parents must have been proud?pr126 wrote:My job before I retired was IT engineer.
Please do not put a video in your signature. If must, only use a link, or it will be deleted.
Parents must have been proud?pr126 wrote:My job before I retired was IT engineer.
Parents have been dead for many decades.Yos1994 wrote:Parents must have been proud?pr126 wrote:My job before I retired was IT engineer.
Ok. I will join twitter. We cannot have a debate but we can persuade muslims to debate here.ygalg wrote:it has guidelines although I have yet experience restriction of sort. also terror organizations and neo nazis account are there which tells you its less restrict. but the twitter is good place to invite muslims to a debate here. a better way is to list Robert Spencer @jihadwatchRS watch sort of muslims hackle him.skynightblaze wrote: Does twitter allow freedom of speech? I call Muhammad all sorts of names. Also how comfortable is it for debating? I mean does it have all the features of a forum like we have here? I have never been on twitter and that is why I do not know.
twitter allows 140 paragraphs to be type you need to be familiar with short typing for instance instead writing "you voted for Romney" you write "u voted 4 Romney"
there are apps you can use such as http://www.twitlonger.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that allows you to make more paragraphs in full. but does not works on replies. also https://bitly.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that helps you to shorten links
VIP (@jihadwatchRS) accounts most won't follow you back, so don't follow them. list them instead. create categories where to list VIP or other stuff. there is restriction about how much you can follow. its better to follow these who follow you, which are the most regular accounts and be sure they've share interests. as there are these who use twitter to advertise themselves. if some poster suddenly not posting familiar, probably the account was hacked. so be careful not to press links.
It's here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/rober ... exist.html I'm looking forward to watching it later.Fernando wrote:I'd be more interested to see the real debate about whether there was some kind of historical Mo, referred to a couple of times, between Spencer and Wood. Has anyone a link to that please?
Oh yeah, I'm sure Jesus wants to be buried next to Muhammad. I hope he has enough cash on him to pay Muhammad's bones jizyah.He was buried where he died, in Aisha's house. During the reign of the Umayyad caliph al-Walid I, the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the Mosque of the Prophet) was expanded to include the site of Muhammad's tomb. The Green Dome above the tomb was built by the Mamluk sultan Al Mansur Qalawun in the 13th century, although the green color was added in the 16th century, under the reign of Ottoman sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. Among tombs adjacent to Muhammad's are those of his companions (Sahabah)—the first two Muslim Caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar—, and an empty one that Muslims believe awaits Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Death_and_tomb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I thought the Saudi Wahabis had demolished and concreted over everything so that no tombs could ever be found again, They claim it's to avoid idolatry rather than crushing though.marduk wrote: Besides, his tomb is right there in Medina. We could dig him up right now and crush up his bones so he can never be resurrected. He caused enough trouble the first time.
Did the Prophet Muhammad Really Exist? _ Robert Spencer’s Answer
Well, no. If you mean the prophet of Islam who was purported to receive revelations from Allah that were put into the Koran. No, that guy certainly did not exist,” he boldly proclaimed. “The regular guy — he possibly existed.”
Dated Texts Mentioning Prophet Muḥammad From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE by M S M Saifullah & ʿAbdullah David from islamic-awareness.org
The history of the quest for the "historical" Muhammad in the modern Western literature has its origins from the time (c. 1850 CE) of Sir William Muir and Alois Sprenger. Both of them suspected that much of the Islamic traditions on Muhammad, which were accepted by Muslims as authentic, were in fact forged. Their views were given a further impetus by Ignaz Goldziher who became convinced that the tradition literature had grown up after the Arab conquests, i.e., the aḥādīth did not reflect the life of Prophet Muhammad; rather they reflect the beliefs, conflicts and controversies of the first generation of Muslims. In other words, the aḥādīth reflect reality, but not the reality of seventh century Arabia but of Umayyad and early Abbasid empires.
 Sir W. Muir, The Mohammedan Controversy, Biographies Of Mohammed, Sprenger On Tradition, Indian Liturgy And The Psalter, 1897, T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh.
 A. Sprenger, The Life Of Mohammad, From Original Sources, 1851, Presbyterian Mission Press: Allahabad; idem., Das Leben Und Die Lehre Des Mohammad Nach Bisher Grösstentheils Unbenutzten Quellen Bearbeitet, 1861-1865,
((Three Volumes, Nicolai'sche Verlagsbuchh.: Berlin. For a review summarizing the contents of these two books, especially on the skepticism of life of Muhammad as mentioned in the Islamic literature see Sir W. Muir, The Mohammedan Controversy, Biographies Of Mohammed, Sprenger On Tradition, Indian Liturgy And The Psalter, 1897, op. cit., pp. 106-118.))
 I. Goldziher (Ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, Atherton: New York and Aldine: Chicago, p. 11. ....
 J. Schacht, The Origins Of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 1950, Oxford At Clarendon Press, p. 165.Following the earlier scepticism, albeit charting a new direction, John Wansbrough argued that ḥadīth literature is exegetical in origin, i.e., the bulk of the tradition literature is closely tied to the interpretation of the Qur'an, which he believed did not take its final form/canonised until the late eighth / early ninth century. Ḥadīth literature is not rooted in history but it originated due to the propensity of the early Muslims to tell the stories related to the Qur'an. A variation of Wansbrough's position was put forth by John Burton who suggested that the origins of ḥadīth had nothing to do with real life and everything to do with the problem of interpreting the Qur'an.
Following the footsteps of Wansbrough, a different approach was taken by Judith Koren and Yehuda Nevo to study Islamic history. They contend that any Muslim source must be checked against a non-Muslim source (preferably material, e.g., archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics), and if the two sources conflict, the non-Muslim source is to be preferred. Concerning Muhammad, they claim:
[Brock] points out that there are no details of Muhammad's early career in any Byzantine or Syriac sources which predate the Muslim literature on the subject.
While commenting on the Islamic sources, Nevo claims that "neither the Prophet himself nor any Muhammadan formulae appear in any inscription dated before the year 71 / 691" and that the earliest occurrence of the phrase Muhammad rasūl Allāh is on an Arab-Sassanian coin of Khālid bin ʿAbdullāh from the year 71 AH / 691 CE. It will be seen later that Nevo and Koren were wrong on both accounts, not in keeping with their most surprising claim that it is the revisionists and not the "traditionalists" who pay close attention to the findings of archaeology, epigraphy and numismatics. Perhaps the situation can be summed up no better than the recent analysis by Jeremy Johns, Professor of Islamic Archaeology at the Oriental Institute, University of Oxford. He said,
The polemical style permitted historians to dismiss this article as not worth an answer, while Nevo's unorthodox interpretation of material evidence embarrassed archaeologists into silence (Fig. 1). What, it was widely asked, could have persuaded Der Islam to waste space in this manner?
well we can go on asking such questions on that unknown character of Islam and explore answers..manfred wrote:I think, to put it simply, it would summarise it like this:
1) Was there a PROPHET Mohammed? Obviously not.
2)Was there a man called Mohammed? Very likely.
3)Did he have a following who BELIEVED that he was a "prophet". Again very likely.
and most those sources almost all of them are from hadith., very little from EXTERNAL SOURCES.. what other credibly sourced material could we present here that are NOT related to haidth manfred"?A great many details about this man are quite credibly sourced, which does not mean that there also has been a lot of myth-building about him after his death.
I have read about John of Damascus and I discussed here and thereincluding in the old FFi forums. Could you please add some references of him and his statements about Muhammad? and I would greatly appreciate if any readers or you could get this little book of Daniel J Sahas on Johannes Damascenus, Ohoffff stupid link says 172 dollars for that bookJohn of Damascus was born some 40 years after the recorded death of Mohammed. He is an early independent witness the to the existence of MUSLIMS, and their belief in Mohammed. At his time a great many people would have known personally people who have met Mohammed during their lifetime. He was writing about Islam BEFORE Bukhari. It means that the myth-building process could not have progressed vastly, and therefore he is a good historical source for the existence of a historical Mohammed. (the man, not the prophet)
hello Mr. Hombre'.. greetings and my good wishes to you., I have not read many posts from you and that is because I was not very active in ffi although I am in this forum from the beginning.,... Damn that was 12 years ago....Hombre wrote:No I think we are dealing with same man. Because, if we review the path and formation of cults, Mohammad fits the same pattern...........
............We saw that with Hitler Jim Jones in Guayna, and Mao Tse-Tung inChina, and now in N. Korea, when the grandfather of this guy started the cultis dynasty there..
By that you are saying "Islam of Muhammad is different from Islam of his "successors" /followers". And Who are these guys the successors? are they just Arabian pagans? are they just Arabian Bedouin Baboons ? Or are they , Jews, Christians, pagans and other tribes of Arabia and from other countries/cultures who moved in to Islam?manfred wrote:Well , Islam ALMOST died out soon after the death of Mohammed, and it took drastic action of his "successors" to ensure its survival. "Death to the apostate" is one reason. Another one is the continuing and accelerating military expansion. Sticks and carrots. If you leave we will kill you, but you stick around and play along you may get rich.
manfred give me an example of a cult that lived 1400 years after the death of its leader...To me there is no mystery why it did not die out at all. Not all cults die with their leaders, particularly not those who have ruthless successors.
Yes indeed the preset book and texts in it is schizophrenic and confusing but i would NOT blame that on Muhammad. I would blame that on those who that book together and we know well it is put together way after his alleged death. I went through Quran many times and i know well alleged Meccan texts are way different from Madinan texts., In fact in the old ffi forum I have analyzed that in number of posts. the other important thins many of Muslims as well as Non-Muslims DO NOT READ QURAN CAREFULLY..manfred wrote:The Qur'an itself is in a sense schizophrenic, and quite different in the Mecca texts and Medina texts.
well that is possible and it is also possible that Meccan Muhammad an Madinan Muhammad are NOT two different people . Also it is possible that Meccan Quran writers are different from Madinan Quran writers along with the 3rd category those who put the book together what we see now are different from the first two groups..So you may well ask if in fact we are talking about two different people, a "Mecca" and a "Medina" Mohammed. But I would not go as far as suggesting that these "two" are in fact physically different people.
i will not do that I want my head to stay on my neck...Put yourself into the shoes of this man.
Links please., That is not true and there is NO proof of that. His first wife Khadija was alive all the way until alleged Islam is 10 year old. You are obviously taking that from Sirah and hadith but according that he had more protectors with in a year after her deathHe had a relatively securely life in Mecca with a wealthy wife and powerful friends. All that fell apart. After the death of his wife his money, began to dry up, soon people got more and more irritable with his "prophet" claims, and more and more of his protectors fell by the way side.
I don't think there was any persecution" in Mecca .. All these guys were singing songs that is all what they did with the exception this alleged preacher Muhammad was questioning that Son of God hypothesis and Trinity hypothesis of Christians of Arabia So he wanted them to consider Jesus as Prophet or messenger Not son of godSure his "persecution" in Mecca was probably somewhat exaggerated in later texts, but it was enough for him to decide to pack his bags and move, alongside with all but a handful of his supporters.
that is also not true.. where did you get that information? from Jews and Christians of that time?? If he was same Muhammad he was well of in Madina also. And rest of your post in the spoiler below needs a detailed analysis of alleged Muhammad's alleged life manfred...What would have gone through his head on his journey to Medina? Surely he would have felt angry, most likely appallingly unjustly treated. All these years he tried the calm and patient way, and for what?
So I will do it in the next post.Spoiler! :
There is a difference. Islam claimed to be from God while other cults did not. I guess this makes a huge difference.Yeezevee wrote:If it is a cult why didn't it die with in 50 or 100 year after his death unlike the cults of unlike the cults of Hitler Jim Jones, and Mao Tse-Tung , N. Korea grandfather etc..etc...?"
I will question that, in the above list Hombre didn't pick up right names except Jim Jones. Other guys are political in nature,, let me give names of recent and old cults..skynightblaze wrote:There is a difference. Islam claimed to be from God while other cults did not. I guess this makes a huge difference.Yeezevee wrote:If it is a cult why didn't it die with in 50 or 100 year after his death unlike the cults of unlike the cults of Hitler Jim Jones, and Mao Tse-Tung , N. Korea grandfather etc..etc...?"