(January 23, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 6:50 am)pocaracas Wrote: Really?
Right off the bat, the extraordinary claim that some allah made people have extraordinary memory so they could remember things from the far past without any contamination?
And, in spite of that, lots of similar sayings, but later deemed false, crept up...

Yes, the hadiths are not 100% reliable because it depended mainly on the memory of people, so falsehoods can creep up despite people having a good memory.

(January 23, 2015 at 6:50 am)pocaracas Wrote: And it seems the main vessel for authenticity is the header of the hadith which contains the chain of people who remembered the thing, am I right?

Yes.

I'm getting the hang of this!

(January 23, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 6:50 am)pocaracas Wrote: What kept people from attributing whatever they made up to some supposedly known person from the past? And how to discern who's truthful and who isn't?

Like your own Bayesian reasoning, if there were so many people attributing the same thing (i.e. Prophethood) to a single person named Muhammad, and if there is a high level of consistency between them regarding the issue, then most likely they are being truthful.

Depends on what their interest was when they made such claims...
I can't even begin to guess at it...
It also depends on when these claims were made. If they were made tens of years after Abd-Al-Malik's introduction of the madrassas and spreading of the religion, then... yeah... it is expected that many people will have the same basis, the same belief.
On that PDF, I saw many mentions of people getting information from a teacher... who also got his information from some other teacher... who got it from another... and it goes on and on... Teachers, I guess, imply a madrassa. So, we're talking about generations of teachers... too long for the claims to be reliable, no matter who is claimed to have uttered it before it came to the "committee" that was in charge of recording them all for posterity.

And about the rules this committee used, the way I see it, it seems that, at most, they would get internal consistency of all the hadiths...

(January 23, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Just like you have no hard evidence, I have no hard evidence either.

And don't you forget it!

(January 23, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 6:50 am)pocaracas Wrote: So my lack of belief doesn't prevent me from accepting the possibility that some tribal leader attained, somehow (brilliant battle strategy, iron fist ruler, etc), a legendary status.

And what do you think that such a legendary leader was fighting for? Was it for the sake of political supremacy, religious, or both?

Errr... territory, land. That's the main usual suspect.
I'll just go ahead and take one more guess: maybe the land where his tribe was established became very poor and lacking in fauna and flora, perhaps the desert was creeping in... I don't know, I'd have to look it up. And they decided to take land from some other people who had decent land, decent food, decent animals.

Once you're the ruler of a good patch of land, good enough to give out some bits to your fellow fighters, you have to establish a political rule, in order to keep the newly conquered people in order...
Although, it seems that they mostly killed off all the men and kept the women and children(?), which would make it easier to keep people content.
Only a few years later would actual politics be required...

(January 23, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 6:50 am)pocaracas Wrote: I'm trying to tell you that the prophetic role was probably added to the person by someone in between the legendary leader and Abd-Al-Malik.

So you accept one of the 3 possibilities:
1. Muhammad himself claimed to be a Prophet of God and he really is a Prophet of God (as all Muslims believe)
2. Muhammad himself claimed to be a Prophet of God but the claim is untrue.
3. Someone else added the Prophetic role to Muhammad.

I know you don't accept number 1 because you already said that you don't believe in the supernatural bits.

That leaves you now with either number 2 or 3 as a possible answer. But you said that you accept number 3 only. So, now you have to explain why number 3 is more likely to be true than number 2.
Why is it more likely that someone else attached the Prophetic role to Muhammad as opposed Muhammad himself attaching Prophethood to himself?

I'm not asking for evidence. Just asking for a Bayesian explanation to that, which you so love to use.

Well, yes, number 1 is too much to accept on mere say so... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... I'm sure you've heard that, before.

Number 2 is possible, but the lack of contemporary writings and other evidence for it kind of lends little credence to it.

Why do I think number 3 is more likely? Because, the earliest evidence of such a claim comes many years... decades, even... after his "agreed upon date of" death. Also, remember that need for political ruling after having conquered the land... that seems to have come after his death, as well, with the caliphate.
In a way, it's a bit like the Teacher of Righteousness may have been the real person to whom the christ prophethood was later attached... some even go as far as claiming there were several such teachers of righteousness.

(January 23, 2015 at 6:35 pm)pocaracas Wrote: It also depends on when these claims were made. If they were made tens of years after Abd-Al-Malik's introduction of the madrassas and spreading of the religion, then... yeah... it is expected that many people will have the same basis, the same belief.

The claims were made both during and after Muhammad's death. These claims (about his Prophethood) were preserved in peoples' memories at first, and then were eventually written down about a hundred years later, starting from Ibn Ishaq's biographies. Many other corroborating information about Muhammad are recorded in Bukhari's hadiths which were compiled another hundred years later.

Nevertheless, the claims about it are abundant and they all unanimously refer to one and the same thing: the Prophetic role of Muhammad.

(January 23, 2015 at 6:35 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Errr... territory, land. That's the main usual suspect.
I'll just go ahead and take one more guess: maybe the land where his tribe was established became very poor and lacking in fauna and flora, perhaps the desert was creeping in... I don't know, I'd have to look it up. And they decided to take land from some other people who had decent land, decent food, decent animals.

Yeah, good job, keep the guesses coming. I find them absolutely enthralling.

(January 23, 2015 at 6:35 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Why do I think number 3 is more likely? Because, the earliest evidence of such a claim comes many years... decades, even... after his "agreed upon date of" death.

But at least the earliest evidences did arrive many years later. Better late than never, right? The evidence for your claim, on the other hand, that someone else attached Prophethood to Muhammad, doesn't came later, earlier, nor ever. You have no problem accepting that someone (totally unknown to you) falsely added a Prophetic role to Muhammad, while there are no writings at all to support that, let alone contemporary writings. And yet you have a problem believing that Muhammad claimed himself to be a Prophet, even though there are writings about such a claim being made, albeit many years later. I strongly find that to be more of an intellectual dishonesty than mere fallacious reasoning.

I highlighted the two parts of your quote for a reason. Why?

Because if you're going to judge what is more likely by the availability of evidence, then you have automatically refuted your own argument, since you, admittedly, have no evidence at all.

Way to be consistent.

(January 23, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 6:35 pm)pocaracas Wrote: It also depends on when these claims were made. If they were made tens of years after Abd-Al-Malik's introduction of the madrassas and spreading of the religion, then... yeah... it is expected that many people will have the same basis, the same belief.

The claims were made both during and after Muhammad's death. These claims (about his Prophethood) were preserved in peoples' memories at first, and then were eventually written down about a hundred years later, starting from Ibn Ishaq's biographies. Many other corroborating information about Muhammad are recorded in Bukhari's hadiths which were compiled another hundred years later.

Nevertheless, the claims about it are abundant and they all unanimously refer to one and the same thing: the Prophetic role of Muhammad.

Indeed, there are abundant equal claims well after the implementation of the madrassas...
The "when" is not lending any credence to those claims. But if the claims are not credible, than why would they be made?
Develop the religion further? increase the basis for the belief? incorporate local notions into the religion?...
I keep having to guess these things, because nothing could be written about them, or the claims would be immediately debunked... as they weren't...

(January 23, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 6:35 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Errr... territory, land. That's the main usual suspect.
I'll just go ahead and take one more guess: maybe the land where his tribe was established became very poor and lacking in fauna and flora, perhaps the desert was creeping in... I don't know, I'd have to look it up. And they decided to take land from some other people who had decent land, decent food, decent animals.

Yeah, good job, keep the guesses coming. I find them absolutely enthralling.

I try, I try!

Here's something interesting, albeit permeated by muslim bias: http://www.al-islam.org/restatement-hist...abia-islam

Quote:Since Arabia did not have a government, and since the Arabs were anarchists by instinct, they were locked up in ceaseless warfare. War was a permanent institution of the Arabian society. The desert could support only a limited number of people, and the state of inter-tribal war maintained a rigid control over the growth of population. But the Arabs themselves did not see war in this light.

To them, war was a pastime or rather a dangerous sport, or a species of tribal drama, waged by professionals, according to old and gallant codes, while the “audience” cheered. Eternal peace held no appeal for them, and war provided an escape from drudgery and from the monotony of life in the desert.

They, therefore, courted the excitement of the clash of arms. War gave them an opportunity to display their skills at archery, fencing and horsemanship, and also, in war, they could distinguish themselves by their heroism and at the same time win glory and honor for their tribes. In many cases, the Arabs fought for the sake of fighting, whether or not there was a cause belli.
[...]
All Arabs were notorious for certain characteristics such as arrogance, conceit, boastfulness, vindictiveness and excessive love of plunder. Their arrogance was partly responsible for their failure to establish a state of their own. They lacked political discipline, and until the rise of Islam, never acknowledged any authority as paramount in Arabia.

So, you (muslims) expect the rest of the world to accept that a people filled with such righteous characteristics as " arrogance, conceit, boastfulness, vindictiveness and excessive love of plunder" to bring up unbiased perfect memories of what someone long-dead said, and we should accept those memories as trustworthy...

My new guess is that many of the muslim sayings (qur'an, hadiths) were initially fabricated for the purpose of bringing all these people into some form of lawfulness. Around the time of Abd-Al-Malik... remember, the when is important.
Later on, other hadiths surfaced... not quite fabricated with a purpose, but rather, like today's believers in their personal relationship with their favorite divinity, they were convinced of their own delusions, probably fed by their parents and other tribesfolk.
It is for these hadiths that the science of the hadith seems to become important, in discerning the ones compatible with the initial fabrication, from the rest... even so, it seems some inconsistencies crept up: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/...weird

(January 23, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 6:35 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Why do I think number 3 is more likely? Because, the earliest evidence of such a claim comes many years... decades, even... after his "agreed upon date of" death.

But at least the earliest evidences did arrive many years later. Better late than never, right? The evidence for your claim, on the other hand, that someone else attached Prophethood to Muhammad, doesn't came later, earlier, nor ever. You have no problem accepting that someone (totally unknown to you) falsely added a Prophetic role to Muhammad, while there are no writings at all to support that, let alone contemporary writings. And yet you have a problem believing that Muhammad claimed himself to be a Prophet, even though there are writings about such a claim being made, albeit many years later. I strongly find that to be more of an intellectual dishonesty than mere fallacious reasoning.

I highlighted the two parts of your quote for a reason. Why?

Because if you're going to judge what is more likely by the availability of evidence, then you have automatically refuted your own argument, since you, admittedly, have no evidence at all.

Way to be consistent.

I see your point.
And you're right... I guess... There is no evidence for my guess that prophethood was a later addition. And there are claims that the man himself was a prophet and claimed to be so.
Trouble is, the earliest mentions of Muhamad present him solely as a tribal or army leader, no prophethood whatsoever is present there... and this is from the link you gave earlier.
Absence of evidence hinting to absence of prophethood soon after Mo's death. That's why I'm leaning towards the later addition of prophethood to the legendary hero/leader.

Arabs seem to have had a history of untrustworthiness... do you think it's expectable that they became trustworthy within a hundred years of Mo's appearance in the scene?
Or is it more likely that they remained equally untrustworthy and, in particular, these new leaders with their own agendas, took it to a new height by copying part of what the romans did with christianity in their empire?

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: Indeed, there are abundant equal claims well after the implementation of the madrassas...
The "when" is not lending any credence to those claims. But if the claims are not credible, than why would they be made?
Develop the religion further? increase the basis for the belief? incorporate local notions into the religion?...
I keep having to guess these things, because nothing could be written about them, or the claims would be immediately debunked... as they weren't...

Well, just for argument's sake, even supposing that all those claims/hadiths were posterior fabrications, let's now see what your own argument is ...

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: My new guess is that many of the muslim sayings (qur'an, hadiths) were initially fabricated for the purpose of bringing all these people into some form of lawfulness. Around the time of Abd-Al-Malik... remember, the when is important.

And how does the "when" of those claims make them any less or more credible to you if you believe that they were all fabricated?

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: Trouble is, the earliest mentions of Muhamad present him solely as a tribal or army leader, no prophethood whatsoever is present there... and this is from the link you gave earlier.

You know you're lying because the link does mention his prophethood ... like over here:

Quote:One of the most interesting accounts of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos who was a bishop of the House of Bagratunis. From this chronicle, there are indications that he lived through many of the events he relates. He maintains that the account of Arab conquests derives from the fugitives who had been eyewitnesses thereof. He concludes with Mu‘awiya's ascendancy in the Arab civil war (656-61 CE), which suggests that he was writing soon after this date. Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present us with a theory for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing.[31] As for Muhammad, he has the following to say:

At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Muḥammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Ismael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.

And over here:

Quote:

---

Anonymous Arab-Sassanian Coin From Kirmān, 70 AH / 689 CE.

Obverse field: Typical late Arab-Sassanian bust without the name of governor. Instead it is occupied by Middle Persian legend MHMT PGTAMI Y DAT ("Muhammad is the Messenger of God").

An Arab-Sassanian coin of the Umayyad governer of Basra Khālid ibn ʿAbd Allāh, Bīshāpūr, 71 AH / 690-91 CE.

The legend reads bism Allāh Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ("In the name of God, Muhammad is the Messenger of God").

Tombstone Of ʿAbāssa Bint Juraij, 71 AH / 691 CE.

... ahl al-Islām muṣībatahum bi al-nabī Muḥammad ṣallā-Allāhu alayhi wa-sallam... wa tashhadu lā ilāha illā-allāh waḥdahu lā sharīka lahu wa anna Muḥammadan ‘abduhu wa rasūlahu, ṣallā-Allāhu alayhi wa-sallam.

The greatest calamity of the people of Islām is that which has fallen them on the death of Prophet Muhammad, may God grant him peace.... [she died] confessing that there is no god but God alone without partner and that Muhammad is His servant and His apostle, may God grant him peace.

Transitional Arab-Sassanian Coin Of Governor ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ibn ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Āmir, 72 AH / 691-92 CE.

Reverse field: The legend in Middle Persian reads - YZDT’ -I BR’ ‘LH ’HRN YZDT’ L‘YT’ MḤMT’ PTGMBI Y YZDT’ ("One God, but He, another god does not exist. Muhammad is the Messenger of God").

Anonymous Arab-Sassanian Coinage Of Syrian Origin Under ʿAbd al-Malik, 72 AH / 691 CE.

Obverse field: Written in Arabic to downwards to the right of the bust: Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ("Muhammad is the Messenger of God").

The Arabic Islamic Inscriptions On The Dome Of The Rock In Jerusalem, 72 AH / 692 CE.

Outer Octagonal Arcade

Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam... Muhammad rasūl Allāh inna allāha wa malā'ikatahu yusallūna ʿala al-nabīyi yā ayyuhā al-ladhīna āmanū ṣallū ʿalayhi wa sallimū taslīman... Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi wa malā'ikatahu wa rusulu wa al-taslīman ʿalayhi wa raḥmat Allāh... Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi wa taqabbal shafāʿatahu yawm al-qiyamah... Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi.

Muhammad is the Messenger of God, may God grant him peace... Muhammad is the Messenger of God. Verily God and His Angels bless the Prophet; O you who believe, bless him and salute him with a salutation!... Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him and the angels and His prophets, and peace be on him, and may God have mercy... Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him. May He accept his intercession on the Day of Judgment [on behalf of his people]... Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him.

Inner Octagonal Arcade

Muḥammad ʿabd-Allāhi wa rasūluhu inna allāha wa malā'ikatahu yusallūna ʿala al-nabīyi yā ayyuhā al-ladhīna āmanū ṣallū ‘alayhi wa sallimū taslīman ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam ʿalayhi wa raḥmat Allāh.

Muhammad is the servant of God and His Messenger. Verily God and His Angels bless the Prophet; O you who believe, bless him and salute him with a salutation! The blessing of God be on him and peace be on him, and may God have mercy.

---

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: Arabs seem to have had a history of untrustworthiness... do you think it's expectable that they became trustworthy within a hundred years of Mo's appearance in the scene?

Yes, because the people in Arabia were much different after Muhammad came to the scene. He changed almost everything that was negative about them - their politics, ethics, manners, religion, etc. - with his own great character.

And this has been attested by non-Muslim historians as well:

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers, which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislation, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then-inhabited world; and more than that he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls." - Alphonse de Lamartine, Histoire de la Turquie (1854)

"His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad" - William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca (1953)

(January 24, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: Indeed, there are abundant equal claims well after the implementation of the madrassas...
The "when" is not lending any credence to those claims. But if the claims are not credible, than why would they be made?
Develop the religion further? increase the basis for the belief? incorporate local notions into the religion?...
I keep having to guess these things, because nothing could be written about them, or the claims would be immediately debunked... as they weren't...

Well, just for argument's sake, even supposing that all those claims/hadiths were posterior fabrications, let's now see what your own argument is ...

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: My new guess is that many of the muslim sayings (qur'an, hadiths) were initially fabricated for the purpose of bringing all these people into some form of lawfulness. Around the time of Abd-Al-Malik... remember, the when is important.

And how does the "when" of those claims make them any less or more credible to you if you believe that they were all fabricated?

The "when" of those claims lends credence to the guess that they were fabricated.
Like a scientific theory, which gets new evidence brought in... and this new evidence keeps corroborating the theory, or, at least, doesn't provide anything that goes against it.

(January 24, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: Trouble is, the earliest mentions of Muhamad present him solely as a tribal or army leader, no prophethood whatsoever is present there... and this is from the link you gave earlier.

You know you're lying because the link does mention his prophethood ... like over here:

Am I lying? really?
I did say "earliest"... but let's see....

(January 24, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

Quote:One of the most interesting accounts of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos who was a bishop of the House of Bagratunis. From this chronicle, there are indications that he lived through many of the events he relates. He maintains that the account of Arab conquests derives from the fugitives who had been eyewitnesses thereof. He concludes with Mu‘awiya's ascendancy in the Arab civil war (656-61 CE), which suggests that he was writing soon after this date. Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present us with a theory for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing.[31] As for Muhammad, he has the following to say:

At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Muḥammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Ismael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.

I must be reading this wrong...
I see a preacher, knowledgeable of Moses, not a prophet, nor any actual hint of it...
I see a leader giving out rules for his people to follow.
I see nothing that mentions Mo as a prophet in there...

(January 24, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Rayaan Wrote: And over here:

Quote:

---

Anonymous Arab-Sassanian Coin From Kirmān, 70 AH / 689 CE.

Obverse field: Typical late Arab-Sassanian bust without the name of governor. Instead it is occupied by Middle Persian legend MHMT PGTAMI Y DAT ("Muhammad is the Messenger of God").

An Arab-Sassanian coin of the Umayyad governer of Basra Khālid ibn ʿAbd Allāh, Bīshāpūr, 71 AH / 690-91 CE.

The legend reads bism Allāh Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ("In the name of God, Muhammad is the Messenger of God").

Tombstone Of ʿAbāssa Bint Juraij, 71 AH / 691 CE.

... ahl al-Islām muṣībatahum bi al-nabī Muḥammad ṣallā-Allāhu alayhi wa-sallam... wa tashhadu lā ilāha illā-allāh waḥdahu lā sharīka lahu wa anna Muḥammadan ‘abduhu wa rasūlahu, ṣallā-Allāhu alayhi wa-sallam.

The greatest calamity of the people of Islām is that which has fallen them on the death of Prophet Muhammad, may God grant him peace.... [she died] confessing that there is no god but God alone without partner and that Muhammad is His servant and His apostle, may God grant him peace.

Transitional Arab-Sassanian Coin Of Governor ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ibn ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Āmir, 72 AH / 691-92 CE.

Reverse field: The legend in Middle Persian reads - YZDT’ -I BR’ ‘LH ’HRN YZDT’ L‘YT’ MḤMT’ PTGMBI Y YZDT’ ("One God, but He, another god does not exist. Muhammad is the Messenger of God").

Anonymous Arab-Sassanian Coinage Of Syrian Origin Under ʿAbd al-Malik, 72 AH / 691 CE.

Obverse field: Written in Arabic to downwards to the right of the bust: Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ("Muhammad is the Messenger of God").

The Arabic Islamic Inscriptions On The Dome Of The Rock In Jerusalem, 72 AH / 692 CE.

Outer Octagonal Arcade

Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam... Muhammad rasūl Allāh inna allāha wa malā'ikatahu yusallūna ʿala al-nabīyi yā ayyuhā al-ladhīna āmanū ṣallū ʿalayhi wa sallimū taslīman... Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi wa malā'ikatahu wa rusulu wa al-taslīman ʿalayhi wa raḥmat Allāh... Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi wa taqabbal shafāʿatahu yawm al-qiyamah... Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi.

Muhammad is the Messenger of God, may God grant him peace... Muhammad is the Messenger of God. Verily God and His Angels bless the Prophet; O you who believe, bless him and salute him with a salutation!... Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him and the angels and His prophets, and peace be on him, and may God have mercy... Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him. May He accept his intercession on the Day of Judgment [on behalf of his people]... Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him.

Inner Octagonal Arcade

Muḥammad ʿabd-Allāhi wa rasūluhu inna allāha wa malā'ikatahu yusallūna ʿala al-nabīyi yā ayyuhā al-ladhīna āmanū ṣallū ‘alayhi wa sallimū taslīman ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam ʿalayhi wa raḥmat Allāh.

Muhammad is the servant of God and His Messenger. Verily God and His Angels bless the Prophet; O you who believe, bless him and salute him with a salutation! The blessing of God be on him and peace be on him, and may God have mercy.

---

Is it me, or are all those after Abd al-Malik? What have I been saying all along about this guy?

Here, you missed this one:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History...achm1.html
And here's the caption:
In 66 AH / 685-686 CE, the year after ʿAbd al-Malik accession (Ramaḍān 65 AH / April- May 685 CE), the Zubayrid governor of Bīshāpūr, ʿAbd al-Malik ibn ʿAbd Allāh [b. ʿĀmir], issued a silver drachm that bore the short shahāda: bism Allāh Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ("In the name of God, Muḥammad is the Messenger of God"). The issue was repeated in 67 AH / 686-687 CE. This is the earliest occurance of the name "Muḥammad" in a dated Muslim text.

(January 24, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: Arabs seem to have had a history of untrustworthiness... do you think it's expectable that they became trustworthy within a hundred years of Mo's appearance in the scene?

Yes, because the people in Arabia were much different after Muhammad came to the scene. He changed almost everything that was negative about them - their politics, ethics, manners, religion, etc. - with his own great character.

And this has been attested by non-Muslim historians as well:

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers, which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislation, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then-inhabited world; and more than that he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls." - Alphonse de Lamartine, Histoire de la Turquie (1854)

"His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad" - William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca (1953)

Those two are a bit far removed from the time period we're dealing with, don't you think?

Alphonse de Lamartine seems to have been less historian than you make him out to be... "was a French writer, poet and politician who was instrumental in the foundation of the Second Republic and the continuation of the Tricolore as the flag of France."

William Montgomery Watt was indeed a historian, but also "Watt was a priest of the Scottish Episcopal Church, and was Arabic specialist to the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem from 1943–46." and "Watt believed that the Qur'an was divinely inspired, though not infallibly true."

Are there any roman or christian or jewish or persian writings from before Abd al-Malik mentioning Muhammad and his prophethood? Those would be nice.

(January 25, 2015 at 7:37 am)pocaracas Wrote: Are there any roman or christian or jewish or persian writings from before Abd al-Malik mentioning Muhammad and his prophethood? Those would be nice.

No, I didn't find any.

But, shamefully, what you fail to understand - which is the main error you've been making over and over again - is that the absence of evidence by itself is not an indication of an absence of his prophethood. As you wrote earlier.

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: Absence of evidence hinting to absence of prophethood soon after Mo's death. That's why I'm leaning towards the later addition of prophethood to the legendary hero/leader.

And that, right there, falls under the convenient and oft-repeated argument from ignorance.

Quote:An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Quote:If you move in the same circles that I do then you’ve probably heard the following phrase many times, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In and of itself this is totally true. In fact, it is just a special case of a well-known logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance.

https://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2013/...l-edition/

Quote:One kind of argument from ignorance is based on negative evidence. It assumes that if the hypothesis of interest were true, then experiments made to test it would show positive results. If a drug were toxic, tests of toxicity of reveal this. Whether or not this argument is valid depends on whether the tests would indeed show positive results, and with what probability.

[...]

2. The more evidence found that is compatible with the conclusions of these arguments, the more acceptable they seem to be.

C) Acme Flu Medicine is not toxic because no toxic effects were observed in 50 tests.
D) Acme Flu Medicine is not toxic because no toxic effects were observed in 1 test.

C seems more compelling than D.

3. Negative arguments are acceptable, but they are generally less acceptable than positive arguments.

E) Acme Flu Medicine is toxic because a toxic effect was observed (positive argument)
F) Acme Flu Medicine is not toxic because no toxic effect was observed (negative argument, the argument from ignorance)

Argument E seems more convincing than argument F, but F is somewhat convincing as well.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/aq2/fallacies_as..._evidence/


Positive evidence for Muhammad claiming himself to be a Prophet = oral traditions, posthumous writings, Quran, and hadiths <- (fits with numbers 2 and 3 in the quote above).
Positive evidence that Muhammad never claimed to be a Prophet = Nothing <- (no match with numbers 2 and 3)

So at least I do have a positive argument for Muhammad's prophethood, and yours is a negative argument (argument from ignorance), which makes my position more convincing and more likely to be true than yours. Thus, Bayesian probability is on my side, not yours.

That pretty much settles the debate for me. The logic presented is clear, simple, and undeniable.

You're using the claims of the quran and the hadiths to prove the claims of the quran and hadiths Rayaan. Does that logic seem clear, simple, and undeniable to you? "Oral tradition" is simply an inflation of the quran and hadiths, as you say thats where the quran and haiths come from(there's your evidence of something from nothing btw, you're welcome..lol). "Posthumous writings" sounds, to me, like fan-fic - they exist..... but I find them to be as unreliable and uncompelling as the posthumous writings regarding christ (and as uncomplleing as you do..likely for the same reason, eh)? They also beg the larger question by even being called "post-humous writings" - worthless. Additionally, a "negative argument" is not an argument from ignorance by default......wtf? In short, you seem to have temporarily forgotten how this was done and you don't have a "positive argument", you have a reassertion of the articles of your faith.....but I don't believe your claims (almost as a rule, sadly...I used to give you more credit, but that's been squandered), or in your faith...so how useful is that going to be? I know, I know, not all of this is immediatel;y relevant to the discussion you're having with Poca...but, imo, Poca gave you far too much liberty and you still failed to deliver......

"If the stories about Mo were true, then the stories about Mo would be true". meh. Sure, sure, but since the question is "are the stories about Mo true?".......you might see the impasse?

What can I add to what Rythm already said?...

Just hiding all to keep it there!

(January 25, 2015 at 8:55 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 25, 2015 at 7:37 am)pocaracas Wrote: Are there any roman or christian or jewish or persian writings from before Abd al-Malik mentioning Muhammad and his prophethood? Those would be nice.

No, I didn't find any.

But, shamefully, what you fail to understand - which is the main error you've been making over and over again - is that the absence of evidence by itself is not an indication of an absence of his prophethood. As you wrote earlier.

---

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: Absence of evidence hinting to absence of prophethood soon after Mo's death. That's why I'm leaning towards the later addition of prophethood to the legendary hero/leader.

And that, right there, falls under the convenient and oft-repeated argument from ignorance.

Quote:An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Quote:If you move in the same circles that I do then you’ve probably heard the following phrase many times, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In and of itself this is totally true. In fact, it is just a special case of a well-known logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance.

https://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2013/...l-edition/

Quote:One kind of argument from ignorance is based on negative evidence. It assumes that if the hypothesis of interest were true, then experiments made to test it would show positive results. If a drug were toxic, tests of toxicity of reveal this. Whether or not this argument is valid depends on whether the tests would indeed show positive results, and with what probability.

[...]

2. The more evidence found that is compatible with the conclusions of these arguments, the more acceptable they seem to be.

C) Acme Flu Medicine is not toxic because no toxic effects were observed in 50 tests.
D) Acme Flu Medicine is not toxic because no toxic effects were observed in 1 test.

C seems more compelling than D.

3. Negative arguments are acceptable, but they are generally less acceptable than positive arguments.

E) Acme Flu Medicine is toxic because a toxic effect was observed (positive argument)
F) Acme Flu Medicine is not toxic because no toxic effect was observed (negative argument, the argument from ignorance)

Argument E seems more convincing than argument F, but F is somewhat convincing as well.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/aq2/fallacies_as..._evidence/


Positive evidence for Muhammad claiming himself to be a Prophet = oral traditions, posthumous writings, Quran, and hadiths <- (fits with numbers 2 and 3 in the quote above).
Positive evidence that Muhammad never claimed to be a Prophet = Nothing <- (no match with numbers 2 and 3)

So at least I do have a positive argument for Muhammad's prophethood, and yours is a negative argument (argument from ignorance), which makes my position more convincing and more likely to be true than yours. Thus, Bayesian probability is on my side, not yours.

That pretty much settles the debate for me. The logic presented is clear, simple, and undeniable.

---

You may not remember, but here's my very first reply to minimalist's video of Robert Spencer:

(January 13, 2015 at 1:02 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Min... that's a lot of "absence of evidence"...

So... I guess I've always been thoroughly aware that this is an argument from absence of evidence.
And, as we've often said in our posts since, there is no hard evidence for either position.
I can't prove that Mohammad's prophethood was attached to him posthumously, much less can I tell you who did that.
What we can say is that no evidence of claims of prophethood have ever surfaced which date to before Abd al-Malik.
Although, the way they appear, immediately on coins, suggests that prophethood was attached to Mo sometime before Abd al-Malik, and the people in Abd al-Malik's region would already be somewhat aware of this tradition.
Hence the possibility that the man was a legendary hero/leader, to whom it would be easy to attach such an extra qualifier and gather popular consensus.

Of course, it is also possible that Mo himself claimed to be a prophet of god. It is possible that all claims of prophethood and all stories of his interaction with god or the archangel are true.
But this then forces the question: WHY is there no mention of such prophethood for such a long time?
You answer it with an oral tradition in the tribe and are done with it...
And then the wiki shows me, inconsistently, some guy, who later became caliph, being one of Mo's scribes. Doesn't add up, does it?
And the desert climate is perfect for preserving ancient things... so, if many things were written at the time, at least a scrap should still exist...
Maybe it's still hidden... maybe it has surfaced, but the things in it would throw Mo's prophethood in question by the people at large, and it conveniently "disappeared".... maybe there just isn't anything to find.... and we'd be back to the question of why is there nothing when such an extraordinary occasion, such a divine intervention, should be made easily available to all mankind, not just the standard "god's chosen people". Once more hinting at man-made myth to justify (perhaps even post-hoc) the conquest of new territory, the slaying of entire towns, the acquisition of a ton of slaves and "wives"....

So, to wrap up: you have no evidence for your positive claim. I have no evidence for my alternative explanation of the available evidence.
My version has the benefit of being entirely naturalistic and leaves lots of leeway for any new evidence that surfaces, while yours requires magic in a Universe where no magic is observable.
By this logic, then, I'd say that my version has a higher likelihood than yours of being close to reality. (cue back to Bayesian probability )

(January 24, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: Indeed, there are abundant equal claims well after the implementation of the madrassas...
The "when" is not lending any credence to those claims. But if the claims are not credible, than why would they be made?
Develop the religion further? increase the basis for the belief? incorporate local notions into the religion?...
I keep having to guess these things, because nothing could be written about them, or the claims would be immediately debunked... as they weren't...

Well, just for argument's sake, even supposing that all those claims/hadiths were posterior fabrications, let's now see what your own argument is ...

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: My new guess is that many of the muslim sayings (qur'an, hadiths) were initially fabricated for the purpose of bringing all these people into some form of lawfulness. Around the time of Abd-Al-Malik... remember, the when is important.

And how does the "when" of those claims make them any less or more credible to you if you believe that they were all fabricated?

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: Trouble is, the earliest mentions of Muhamad present him solely as a tribal or army leader, no prophethood whatsoever is present there... and this is from the link you gave earlier.

You know you're lying because the link does mention his prophethood ... like over here:

Quote:One of the most interesting accounts of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos who was a bishop of the House of Bagratunis. From this chronicle, there are indications that he lived through many of the events he relates. He maintains that the account of Arab conquests derives from the fugitives who had been eyewitnesses thereof. He concludes with Mu‘awiya's ascendancy in the Arab civil war (656-61 CE), which suggests that he was writing soon after this date. Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present us with a theory for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing.[31] As for Muhammad, he has the following to say:

At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Muḥammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Ismael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.

And over here:

Quote:

---

Anonymous Arab-Sassanian Coin From Kirmān, 70 AH / 689 CE.

Obverse field: Typical late Arab-Sassanian bust without the name of governor. Instead it is occupied by Middle Persian legend MHMT PGTAMI Y DAT ("Muhammad is the Messenger of God").

An Arab-Sassanian coin of the Umayyad governer of Basra Khālid ibn ʿAbd Allāh, Bīshāpūr, 71 AH / 690-91 CE.

The legend reads bism Allāh Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ("In the name of God, Muhammad is the Messenger of God").

Tombstone Of ʿAbāssa Bint Juraij, 71 AH / 691 CE.

... ahl al-Islām muṣībatahum bi al-nabī Muḥammad ṣallā-Allāhu alayhi wa-sallam... wa tashhadu lā ilāha illā-allāh waḥdahu lā sharīka lahu wa anna Muḥammadan ‘abduhu wa rasūlahu, ṣallā-Allāhu alayhi wa-sallam.

The greatest calamity of the people of Islām is that which has fallen them on the death of Prophet Muhammad, may God grant him peace.... [she died] confessing that there is no god but God alone without partner and that Muhammad is His servant and His apostle, may God grant him peace.

Transitional Arab-Sassanian Coin Of Governor ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Ibn ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Āmir, 72 AH / 691-92 CE.

Reverse field: The legend in Middle Persian reads - YZDT’ -I BR’ ‘LH ’HRN YZDT’ L‘YT’ MḤMT’ PTGMBI Y YZDT’ ("One God, but He, another god does not exist. Muhammad is the Messenger of God").

Anonymous Arab-Sassanian Coinage Of Syrian Origin Under ʿAbd al-Malik, 72 AH / 691 CE.

Obverse field: Written in Arabic to downwards to the right of the bust: Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ("Muhammad is the Messenger of God").

The Arabic Islamic Inscriptions On The Dome Of The Rock In Jerusalem, 72 AH / 692 CE.

Outer Octagonal Arcade

Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam... Muhammad rasūl Allāh inna allāha wa malā'ikatahu yusallūna ʿala al-nabīyi yā ayyuhā al-ladhīna āmanū ṣallū ʿalayhi wa sallimū taslīman... Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi wa malā'ikatahu wa rusulu wa al-taslīman ʿalayhi wa raḥmat Allāh... Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi wa taqabbal shafāʿatahu yawm al-qiyamah... Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi.

Muhammad is the Messenger of God, may God grant him peace... Muhammad is the Messenger of God. Verily God and His Angels bless the Prophet; O you who believe, bless him and salute him with a salutation!... Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him and the angels and His prophets, and peace be on him, and may God have mercy... Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him. May He accept his intercession on the Day of Judgment [on behalf of his people]... Muhammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him.

Inner Octagonal Arcade

Muḥammad ʿabd-Allāhi wa rasūluhu inna allāha wa malā'ikatahu yusallūna ʿala al-nabīyi yā ayyuhā al-ladhīna āmanū ṣallū ‘alayhi wa sallimū taslīman ṣallā-Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam ʿalayhi wa raḥmat Allāh.

Muhammad is the servant of God and His Messenger. Verily God and His Angels bless the Prophet; O you who believe, bless him and salute him with a salutation! The blessing of God be on him and peace be on him, and may God have mercy.

---

(January 24, 2015 at 8:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: Arabs seem to have had a history of untrustworthiness... do you think it's expectable that they became trustworthy within a hundred years of Mo's appearance in the scene?

Yes, because the people in Arabia were much different after Muhammad came to the scene. He changed almost everything that was negative about them - their politics, ethics, manners, religion, etc. - with his own great character.

And this has been attested by non-Muslim historians as well:

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers, which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislation, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then-inhabited world; and more than that he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls." - Alphonse de Lamartine, Histoire de la Turquie (1854)

"His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad" - William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca (1953)

You, like Christians and Jews and even prior polytheists in human history still miss what religion is at it's core. It is hero worship. It is merely humans projecting their own desire for order.

The motif of all three books of Abraham are the same, "I the God, or in combo with a man god or a prophet am going to clean up society and make it civil". The problem with this monotheistic idea in all three is that the social order the heros of the books instruct the followers to do sets up a social pecking order. It puts outside tribes at best as mere house guests, not equals. All three do this. That causes division in reality and all one has to do to know that is to turn on the news.

Now when you pine over Mo, I am sorry but it is just as absurd when fans of Jesus do the same. Both the Koran and bible contain very barbaric stories that pit humans against each other upon the gods wishes and or commands. And neither books ever treated girls or women as anything more than property like goats and baby factories and payments between families.

And not to mention the absurd idea that if you eat pork or wipe your ass with the wrong hand will make you evil.

Holy books do nothing but divide humans, they even divide humans within the same religion. Mo did not do anything but con himself into believing he was talking to a god AT BEST, but just like Jesus, (if he existed) merely would have been a mere man convincing others to buy his new product.

There is no such thing as a god or a prophet, there are simply desperate humans that make up religions as a gap answer to avoid facing their finite reality.