Posts: 69246
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
258
RE: It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.
February 1, 2015 at 6:46 pm
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?"
Posts: 4068
Threads: 162
Joined: September 14, 2010
Reputation:
95
RE: It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.
February 2, 2015 at 2:33 am
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 2:47 am by Rayaan.)
Posts: 19670
Threads: 178
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
91
RE: It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.
February 2, 2015 at 5:38 am
Posts: 19670
Threads: 178
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
91
RE: It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.
February 2, 2015 at 6:02 am
Posts: 4068
Threads: 162
Joined: September 14, 2010
Reputation:
95
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.
Posts: 69246
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
258
RE: It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.
February 2, 2015 at 4:52 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 4:53 pm by Minimalist.)
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.
Posts: 4068
Threads: 162
Joined: September 14, 2010
Reputation:
95
RE: It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.
February 2, 2015 at 5:37 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 5:50 pm by Rayaan.)
Posts: 69246
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
258
RE: It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.
February 2, 2015 at 5:54 pm
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?
Posts: 4068
Threads: 162
Joined: September 14, 2010
Reputation:
95
RE: It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.
February 2, 2015 at 6:09 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 6:10 pm by Rayaan.)
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.
Posts: 19670
Threads: 178
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
91
RE: It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.
February 2, 2015 at 6:11 pm
(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?
|
