RE: It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.
January 25, 2015 at 7:37 am
(This post was last modified: January 25, 2015 at 7:38 am by pocaracas.)
(January 24, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Rayaan Wrote:The "when" of those claims lends credence to the guess that they were fabricated.(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?
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:Am I lying? really?(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:
I did say "earliest"... but let's see....
(January 24, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Rayaan Wrote:I must be reading this wrong...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 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:Is it me, or are all those after Abd al-Malik? What have I been saying all along about this guy?
Quote:
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.
