RE: It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.
February 2, 2015 at 4:43 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 4:48 pm by Rayaan.)
(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.
