Quote: I hope gave you at least satisfactory answers to your questions.

Yes, thank you. I think I now have a little better understanding of how you see Islam,which was my hope.

Wa Salaam.

(January 21, 2011 at 12:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Your ethnocentrism is showing Rayaan.

I was born into Bangladeshi Muslim parents. However, this doesn't mean that this is the only reason why believe in Islam because I'm old enough to think for myself and make my own decisions on matters of faith regardless of my cultural background. Maybe you are correct, but you can't be sure about that, because if I was born into a different family or in a different culture, then it's also possible that I would've converted to Islam as many people did (or maybe be an atheist), but there's no certainty on that.

(January 21, 2011 at 12:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I cannot think of any actual evidence ( aside from the koran itself and its reliability is what is in question) that your 'mohammad' ever existed.

What kind of evidences are you talking about?

There is already an overwhelming evidence of Muhammad's existence (aside from the Quran itself). For example, he had family members and companions who knew him and all of this is recorded in history with an unbroken chain of narrations. We also know the exact location of his tomb which is in this mosque (known as the Mosque of the Prophet). And there are volumes of hadith collections, which are essentially sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) on various Islamic topics. Where can all of this information come from if he didn't exist?

(January 21, 2011 at 12:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The history of the time is silent about him.

There are lots of historical info on Muhammad from many different sources (just like Aristotle, Caesar, Pythagoras, Alexander the Great, and many others). The question is, why would you think that these people existed while denying that Muhammad existed (assuming that you're actually serious about this)?

Also, an astrophysicist named Michael Hart wrote a book titled "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History," and in his list, he put the Prophet Muhammad as the most influential person out of the 100 people that he mentioned. I don't know if this true or not, but regardless, history shows that Muhammad was very influential during his time and even today.

(January 21, 2011 at 12:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Xtians try to shake off the fact that no one mentioned jesus by claiming that he was just an insigificant wandering preacher but mohammad was supposed to be this great conquering warlord. History usually recalls such people.

We do have physical evidence that Muhammad was involved in battles.
Here are the pictures of some of the swords that he owned (which are stored in museums):

http://www.usna.edu/Users/humss/bwheeler...words.html

(January 21, 2011 at 8:26 pm)padraic Wrote: Yes, thank you. I think I now have a little better understanding of how you see Islam,which was my hope.

You're welcome. Also, feel free to say whatever you think about Islam regardless of whether I agree with you or not. I'm open to hearing everyone's opinions.

Quote:There is already an overwhelming evidence of Muhammad's existence (aside from the Quran itself).

Let's see a list.

Remember, your own mythology is that he died c 530. What records do you have from the period 500-530 that indicate such a person ever existed?

Don't kid yourself, Min, You know that Muhammad existed.

You're telling me to give a list of evidences after taking a small quote from my entire post, even though I already I gave the evidences in my earlier post (which you didn't reply to), and then, you're saying that my own mythology is that he died in ca 530 which I don't even know where you got that from in the first place. I know that it's definitely not in the Quran. However, it's a historical fact he lived from a period of 570 to 632 AD (not 500 to 530). You'll find it on google.com after a quick search.

Then I'll gladly accept historical references to him from 600-632 AD but I already know you don't have any of those eithe because no one else does.

The legend of William Tell is a myth too. It started much later than mohammad and is still nothing but bullshit.

(January 23, 2011 at 12:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Then I'll gladly accept historical references to him from 600-632 AD but I already know you don't have any of those eithe because no one else does.

The legend of William Tell is a myth too. It started much later than mohammad and is still nothing but bullshit.

AFAIK arabs (in that age) were still nomadics tribes and our knowledge of that era mostly based on oral tradition. But still there are some non-islamic sources dating back to 7th century only decades after his death.
History does not always provide detailed hard copied sources but fragmented pieces. Muhammad's authenticty is not an ongoing debate amongst historians.

Then let's start one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_f..._Warraq%29

Quote:he Quest for the Historical Muhammad, edited by Ibn Warraq, is an anthology of 15 studies examining the origins of Islam and the Qur'an. The contributors argue that traditional Islamic accounts of its history and the origins of the Qur'an are fictitious and based on historical revisionism aimed at forging a religious Arab identity.

Threatening to cut the heads off scholars who dispute islamic folklore is not generally considered a reputable scientific position.....not that YOU made any such suggestion but let's not pretend that intimidation is not rampant in the field.

Quote:Threatening to cut the heads off scholars who dispute Islamic folklore is not generally considered a reputable scientific position.

Not usually, no, but you have to admit it's a wonderfully effective way of silencing a specific critic.----especially if you're willing to carry out the threat, which many Muslims are happy,nay thrilled,to do.

The Catholic church had it own version for centuries.It was called the auto da fe. According to Wiki,they were very colourful events.Almost everyone had a jolly good time.The exception seems to have been the guest of honour.He was seldom jolly,what with being burned alive and all.Seems the ingrates were often unmoved at having their souls saved. Probably too busy screaming in agony.

Rayaan.. I am still waiting for you to refute turan dursun's article. You said "he has quoted several hadiths and he distorted some of their meanings by changing the words and/or by deleting parts of the original text of the hadiths". That is a serious accusation, and so far you were unable to prove it. My guess is you mislead by people whom turan dursun really pissed off by telling the truth. He used trusted hadiths among muslim world to prove his assertions. So that no one can say his sources are corrupted or lie..(well, you said that but it seems you are unable to prove it. That makes your assertion baseless)

Quote:The first original scripts of the Quran were written on small stones, pieces of leather and wood, bones and similar things. All of them were burnt!
The second original of the Quran verses were gathered together during the time when Abu Bakr was the Caliph. They were burnt, too!
The third original one consisted of “yazmas” (manuscripts) copied during the time when Othman was the Caliph. They do not exist anywhere in the world!(which is the main subject of this topic)
The investigations and conveyances have shown that the verses in today’s Quran are neither exactly the same as the ones which are claimed to have been “dictated by Muhammad to his scribes”, nor does the present Quran contain “all” of the verses that existed in the original one. Caliph Mervan explains his reasons for burning the original copy as follows;
“All that was written in the original Quran was conveyed into the “Mushafs” (later copies of the Quran) by Othman, so there was no need for the original one. If it had not been burnt, some suspicions would have arisen and the doubts around the “Mushafs” would not have ceased. I was afraid of that, so I had the original scripts burnt.” (Ref.: ıb Ebi Davud, Leiden 1937, pub., p.243-Suphi e's-Salih Mebahis Fi ulum-il Kuran).

http://www.turandursun.net/index.php?opt...38&lang=en
Apart from its contradictions, quran is an unraliable source, and probably changed several times over its history.Not to mention the dialect and the alphabet of the original scripts has changed and made the them vulnerable to misinterpretations.

(January 24, 2011 at 9:11 pm)annatar Wrote: Rayaan.. I am still waiting for you to refute turan dursun's article.

You'll see my reply whenever I'm ready. I'm still learning also. I usually work at a slower pace but I didn't forget about that.