Quote:Of course "Muhammad" has a meaning ("the praised one"), but it is also a proper name just like you might have a name with a meaning behind it.

Then what you need is to establish evidence that such a name was in use prior to islam. I know of no such evidence.

Because if it wasn't a name then Mo's parents look a bit presumptuous in naming him that, don't they? Maybe some angel visited them, too. Xtians pull that trick and islam borrowed everything else.

In this one the xtians have it all over you because there are any number of examples of 'jesus' ( Y'shua) being used as a name.

Let me give you one other thing to think on. "Moses" is now a common jewish name. Before the OT story was written how many people do you suppose were named "moses?"

(February 1, 2015 at 6:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Then what you need is to establish evidence that such a name was in use prior to islam. I know of no such evidence.

I have no evidence for that either, but that doesn't necessarily mean that "Muhammad" couldn't have been used as a proper name. There's no good reason to think why it can't be so, is there?

Muhammad's children were all given the same name, too, which shows that it was a proper name and not just assigned to Muhammad only:
Faṭimah bint Muḥammad
Ibrahim ibn Muhammad
Qasim ibn Muhammad
Zainab bint Muhammad
Umm Kulthum bint Muhammad
Ruqayyah bint Muhammad

So the name "Muhammad" has an honorary meaning and it was used as a proper name as well, such as the ones above.

(February 1, 2015 at 6:05 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I'm still not claiming that Mo is a prophet, so I'm still on the same side!

That wasn't what we were debating about, and you know that. I know you're not claiming that Muhammad is a prophet, but you claimed that his Prophethood was most likely attributed to him by someone else (unknown).

(February 1, 2015 at 6:05 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I keep presenting possible scenarios (maybe even contradicting ones), but none requiring any god talking to a man in a cave.

Again, same response as above. Don't think you're so sneaky and you can divert the argument now.

(February 1, 2015 at 6:05 pm)pocaracas Wrote: And if the source is, as I find often, someone already trustworthy by all or most? And if it was... dead? Like Mo himself was dead and some of his family took over the business.... and you then get some hadiths or parts of the qur'an where the reports of the claims of such relatives of Mo got recorded.
Would they question that source?
Kinda difficult, huh?

Then there has to be an explanation as to why it's more likely that some of his family would do that (i.e. attach a Prophetic role to Muhammad), as opposed to Muhammad himself claiming to be a Prophet.

(February 1, 2015 at 6:05 pm)pocaracas Wrote: "Command from on high" could be from Moses, from Jesus, from the previous leader of the tribe... who knows what he meant?!

But you yourself said that Sebeos is biased towards God, so what makes you think that the words "Command from on high" is more likely a reference to Moses or Jesus (or someone else) than God?

(February 1, 2015 at 6:05 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Very well.... do you think it likely that Mehmet was an actual prophet (even if only claiming to be so) instead of just a preacher of the law of Moses (as is well patent in Sebeos' account)?

Yes, and I do believe that he was an actual prophet. But, once again, that's not the issue that we've been discussing so far.

I was defending the view that Muhammad claimed himself to be a Prophet (which you said was possible), but you were defending the view that someone else claimed Muhammad to be a Prophet.

And if the latter view started off as a rumor, and no one knows how those start, as you said here:

(January 29, 2015 at 7:47 am)pocaracas Wrote: If, on the other hand, we're dealing with a rumor, and who knows how those start, then it is far far easier for an individual to take it from rumor to fact, if that person is in a position of some power.

Then it's not possible for a person to take it from rumor to fact since he himself doesn't know whether the rumor is really true or not (before he turned it into 'fact').

(February 2, 2015 at 2:33 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 6:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Then what you need is to establish evidence that such a name was in use prior to islam. I know of no such evidence.

I have no evidence for that either, but that doesn't necessarily mean that "Muhammad" couldn't have been used as a proper name. There's no good reason to think why it can't be so, is there?

Muhammad's children were all given the same name, too, which shows that it was a proper name and not just assigned to Muhammad only:
Faṭimah bint Muḥammad
Ibrahim ibn Muhammad
Qasim ibn Muhammad
Zainab bint Muhammad
Umm Kulthum bint Muhammad
Ruqayyah bint Muhammad

So the name "Muhammad" has an honorary meaning and it was used as a proper name as well, such as the ones above.

Those almost sound like family names, or even titles.
Do "ibn" and "bint" mean anything?

(February 2, 2015 at 2:33 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 6:05 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I'm still not claiming that Mo is a prophet, so I'm still on the same side!

That wasn't what we were debating about, and you know that. I know you're not claiming that Muhammad is a prophet, but you claimed that his Prophethood was most likely attributed to him by someone else (unknown).

(February 1, 2015 at 6:05 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I keep presenting possible scenarios (maybe even contradicting ones), but none requiring any god talking to a man in a cave.

Again, same response as above. Don't think you're so sneaky and you can divert the argument now.

Even atheists can do some fallacies here and there...
Keeps you on your toes!

Let's return to the subject at hand, then.

(February 2, 2015 at 2:33 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 6:05 pm)pocaracas Wrote: And if the source is, as I find often, someone already trustworthy by all or most? And if it was... dead? Like Mo himself was dead and some of his family took over the business.... and you then get some hadiths or parts of the qur'an where the reports of the claims of such relatives of Mo got recorded.
Would they question that source?
Kinda difficult, huh?

Then there has to be an explanation as to why it's more likely that some of his family would do that (i.e. attach a Prophetic role to Muhammad), as opposed to Muhammad himself claiming to be a Prophet.

Because it's far easier to call the guy for his bullshit when he makes the claim that a god is speaking to him directly, than it is to call the bullshit when someone else makes that claim about a dead guy, who all respect.

And remember that this sort of claim need not be made in the form of a speech. It can be forwarded around a campfire, as a story... make-belief, at first, then imaginations run free and a rumor gets picked up by many who then recount it as true, eventually diluting the line between the initial story and the legend.

(February 2, 2015 at 2:33 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 6:05 pm)pocaracas Wrote: "Command from on high" could be from Moses, from Jesus, from the previous leader of the tribe... who knows what he meant?!

But you yourself said that Sebeos is biased towards God, so what makes you think that the words "Command from on high" is more likely a reference to Moses or Jesus (or someone else) than God?

Could even be the pope... there was a pope on Earth, at that time, wasn't there?
And Sebeos was a bishop, right? Or was he not catholic?... I can't find anything on that...

(February 2, 2015 at 2:33 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 6:05 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Very well.... do you think it likely that Mehmet was an actual prophet (even if only claiming to be so) instead of just a preacher of the law of Moses (as is well patent in Sebeos' account)?

Yes, and I do believe that he was an actual prophet. But, once again, that's not the issue that we've been discussing so far.

I was defending the view that Muhammad claimed himself to be a Prophet (which you said was possible), but you were defending the view that someone else claimed Muhammad to be a Prophet.

And if the latter view started off as a rumor, and no one knows how those start, as you said here:

(January 29, 2015 at 7:47 am)pocaracas Wrote: If, on the other hand, we're dealing with a rumor, and who knows how those start, then it is far far easier for an individual to take it from rumor to fact, if that person is in a position of some power.

Then it's not possible for a person to take it from rumor to fact since he himself doesn't know whether the rumor is really true or not (before he turned it into 'fact').

Also, before Sebeos, you have even earlier accounts of Mohamad, according to your source:

Quote:... and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., Ḥimṣ)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Muḥammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] [...] and we saw everywhe[re...] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them.

Military leader and nothing else.
And do note "The purpose of jotting this note in the book of Gospels appears to be commemorative as the author appears to have realized how momentous the events of his time were."
Commemorative writing... and yet... no mention of the great leader's prophet-hood? very very strange.

Quote: there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muḥammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Mḥmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed.

And yet another fully military leader mention by an orthodox (jacobite) guy... probably another priest or monk, as these would know how to write.

Only some 40 years after Mehmet's death would Sebeos get word of him and write about him... plenty of time for the rumor to kick in and spread.

It's the lack of evidence from those two allegedly eye-witnesses of the battles, or close enough... versus the retelling of a tale by Sebeos, that lend more credence to those two, than Sebeos.
That those two failed to mention any claims of a direct channel to god is more significant than Sebeos' very passing mention of a "command from on high". Would you agree?

More on why it's more likely that it was someone else who made the claim of prophethood!

• Liars reference themselves less when making deceptive statements. They write or talk more about others, often using the third person to distance and disassociate themselves from their life.
  
• Liars tend to be more negative because, on a subconscious level, they feel guilty about lying.
  
• Liars typically explain events in simple terms, since our brains struggle to build a complex lie. Judgment and evaluation are complex things for our brains to compute.
  
• Even though liars keep descriptions simple, they tend to use longer and more convoluted sentence structure, inserting unnecessary words and irrelevant but factual-sounding details in order to pad the lie.
  

Extra material:


Human nature!

(February 2, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Those almost sound like family names, or even titles.
Do "ibn" and "bint" mean anything??

The "ibn" and "bint" mean "son" and "daughter" (respectively). It was a common way that the Arabs used to name their children, i.e. by placing either of those words between the first and last names.

(February 2, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Even atheists can do some fallacies here and there...
Keeps you on your toes! :p

Fallacy? I don't think so. I'm suspecting that it was more likely an intentional diversion after you realized that your alternate explanation isn't convincing enough and lacks consistency.

(February 2, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Because it's far easier to call the guy for his bullshit when he makes the claim that a god is speaking to him directly, than it is to call the bullshit when someone else makes that claim about a dead guy, who all respect.

The problem with that is, how could that person make a supernatural claim about some dead guy without first convincing people that he has divine and/or psychic abilities? How else can he claim to know such things that no one else knows?

And if he is so trustworthy that no one would even question him, what prevented him from claiming himself to be a prophet?

(February 2, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Could even be the pope... there was a pope on Earth, at that time, wasn't there?
And Sebeos was a bishop, right? Or was he not catholic?... I can't find anything on that...

It seems that you are reluctant to give an honest and direct answer to that, so you gave a response that doesn't really answer the question.

Again:
If you said that Sebeos is biased towards God, then what makes you think that the words "Command from on high" is more likely a reference to Moses or Jesus or the pope (or someone else) than God?

(February 2, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: It's the lack of evidence from those two allegedly eye-witnesses of the battles, or close enough... versus the retelling of a tale by Sebeos, that lend more credence to those two, than Sebeos.
That those two failed to mention any claims of a direct channel to god is more significant than Sebeos' very passing mention of a "command from on high". Would you agree?

No, because those eye-witnesses in the first two only witnessed a battle going on between the Arabs and some other people. They probably didn't know about Muhammad's prophethood, and even if they did know that he claimed to be a Prophet, they might not want to believe in the truth of that claim since they themselves were Christians most likely.

And the main subject of those two accounts is not Muhammad, but rather just a narration of an event that they witnessed.
Sebeos's main subject, on the other hand, is Muhammad/Mahmet, and that's why it contains additional information about Muhammad unlike the other two.

Quote:Muhammad's children were all given the same name, too, which shows that it was a proper name and not just assigned to Muhammad only:
Faṭimah bint Muḥammad
Ibrahim ibn Muhammad
Qasim ibn Muhammad
Zainab bint Muhammad
Umm Kulthum bint Muhammad
Ruqayyah bint Muhammad

Rayaan, Rayaan, Rayaan....were I writing the story after the fact I would make sure that his kids had the same name as him, too.

That does not solve the problem of why his parents would be presumptuous enough to name their kid "The Praised One" before there was any "praised one" to be named after.

Were that the only problem maybe it could be glossed over. But it is not the only problem. I really think you should read the book.

But the meaning of his name ("the praised one") is still not an accurate description of his life because although he was praised, he was almost equally mocked and insulted:

Quote:The Holy Prophet (saw) was repeatedly mocked by the believers. The Holy Qur’an points out that his opponents claimed he was "a madman" (Ch.15:V.7) and that "there is madness in him" (Ch.23:V.71). Indeed, many of the disbelievers thought that he was "a victim of deception" (Ch.17:V.48) and treated him as a liar. Furthermore, he was labelled a "poet" and "a fabricator" by the disbelievers (Ch.16:V.102).

But the blasphemous statements did not stop there. Not only did they make personal attacks on the Holy Prophet (saw), they also insulted the Holy Qur’an, calling it a book of "confused dreams." Indeed, the Holy Qur’an itself points to the fact that they saw its instructions as "mere stories of the ancients" (Ch.16:V.25).

http://www.reviewofreligions.org/5002/wh...-in-islam/


There were also instances when he told his followers not to over-praise him because only Allah is the One who is most worthy of praise. That's why we say "Alhamdullillah" (meaning "All praise belongs to God").

"All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds."

- Surah 1:02

Oh, Rayaan come on. ALL heroic figures have enemies who oppose them. It is a standard element of the myth. If they had no enemies how could they be heroes?

Well, I guess it's not worth my time to explain any of this to you since you seem to be fiercely biased to believe that the whole thing is a myth.

Nothing can really convince such people.

(February 2, 2015 at 4:43 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Those almost sound like family names, or even titles.
Do "ibn" and "bint" mean anything??

The "ibn" and "bint" mean "son" and "daughter" (respectively). It was a common way that the Arabs used to name their children, i.e. by placing either of those words between the first and last names.

So, all those names only mean "son of" or "daughter of" Mohamed?
Meh...

(February 2, 2015 at 4:43 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Even atheists can do some fallacies here and there...
Keeps you on your toes! :p

Fallacy? I don't think so. I'm suspecting that it was more likely an intentional diversion after you realized that your alternate explanation isn't convincing enough and lacks consistency.

My explanation is evolving... I seem to recall telling you about that!

(February 2, 2015 at 4:43 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Because it's far easier to call the guy for his bullshit when he makes the claim that a god is speaking to him directly, than it is to call the bullshit when someone else makes that claim about a dead guy, who all respect.

The problem with that is, how could that person make a supernatural claim about some dead guy without first convincing people that he has divine and/or psychic abilities? How else can he claim to know such things that no one else knows?

And if he is so trustworthy that no one would even question him, what prevented him from claiming himself to be a prophet?

Rumor... maybe...
Did you see the list on my second post? That gives you all the info you need.

(February 2, 2015 at 4:43 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Could even be the pope... there was a pope on Earth, at that time, wasn't there?
And Sebeos was a bishop, right? Or was he not catholic?... I can't find anything on that...

It seems that you are reluctant to give an honest and direct answer to that, so you gave a response that doesn't really answer the question.

Again:
If you said that Sebeos is biased towards God, then what makes you think that the words "Command from on high" is more likely a reference to Moses or Jesus or the pope (or someone else) than God?

You really want an honest answer?
Yes, it does seem to refer to a god. But let's look at what comes before that expression, shall we?...
"as if by God's command", which is the main lead to assigning god to that "command from on high".
It's almost "as if" this was not a certain thing.... "as if" the story was not entirely believed... "as if" the story was made up after Mehmet's death and spread until it arrived at Sebeos' place, still in its infancy... "as if" the people telling the story weren't sure.

Unless "as if", in arabic doesn't mean the same it does in english...

(February 2, 2015 at 4:43 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 5:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: It's the lack of evidence from those two allegedly eye-witnesses of the battles, or close enough... versus the retelling of a tale by Sebeos, that lend more credence to those two, than Sebeos.
That those two failed to mention any claims of a direct channel to god is more significant than Sebeos' very passing mention of a "command from on high". Would you agree?

No, because those eye-witnesses in the first two only witnessed a battle going on between the Arabs and some other people. They probably didn't know about Muhammad's prophethood, and even if they did know that he claimed to be a Prophet, they might not want to believe in the truth of that claim since they themselves were Christians most likely.

The man was so believable to all arabs, but lowly christians couldn't believe him?...
Double standard... -.-'

(February 2, 2015 at 4:43 pm)Rayaan Wrote: And the main subject of those two accounts is not Muhammad, but rather just a narration of an event that they witnessed.
Sebeos's main subject, on the other hand, is Muhammad/Mahmet, and that's why it contains additional information about Muhammad unlike the other two.

About Sebeos, "He maintains that the account of Arab conquests derives from the fugitives who had been eyewitnesses thereof."
Can you see how the rumor may have spread?