70 jawans killed in biggest Maoists/Naxal attack ever in India

[The Outsider]

Haha...you think I will be dishonest in quoting from the Quran, for which a million links are available on the net? But then you also think there exists an unknown natural phenomenon which looks like the Moon has been split and part of it travels across the mountain, so not surprising. Might as well go the whole distance and believe that Muhammad did split the Moon. The reason I did not put the entire verse was because the last bit is irrelevant to our discussion. Your interpretation of it is wrong(not for the first time, I may add) - implying it refers to future miracles. It is talking about the purpose behind sending those past miracles which were ignored. This translation gives you a better idea :

And never did We send those signs for any other purpose than to convey a warning.

Oh and this is only part of the verse, before you think I've committed another 'shameful' act.

[seedhi]

^^As I said I am not going to continue this discussion any further. This discussion has only proved that not only are you wrong in your interpretation (which is OK, people can have differing opinions) but more importantly you are dishonest and deliberately misquote and misrepresent to suit your opinions. Honesty is the minimum requirement for a meaningful debate and therefore it is useless to continue this discussion with you.

[The Outsider]

Nice escape route there - indignation. Blame someone for being dishonest, because he quoted the relevant excerpts of a verse rather than the entire thing. Wrong in interpretation? Yeah, sure because you agree with Mullahs and I agree with western academicians. Or maybe because you believe in yet undiscovered natural phenomenon which can make the Moon look like being split into two and fly across a mountain.

[seedhi]

Nice escape route there - indignation. Blame someone for being dishonest, because he quoted the relevant excerpts of a verse rather than the entire thing. Wrong in interpretation? Yeah, sure because you agree with Mullahs and I agree with western academicians. Or maybe because you believe in yet undiscovered natural phenomenon which can make the Moon look like being split into two and fly across a mountain.

A dishonest person like you who relies on misquoting and misrepresentation is not worth debating. Keep believing whatever you want to but all you have managed to prove is your own lack of integrity here. Keep believing that the Koran is exactly as spoken by Muhammad (in this case you agree with the Mullahs), a practical impossibility if you look at the history of the compilation of Koran. Keep up your dishonesty. But try fooling someone else.

[The Outsider]

A dishonest person like you who relies on misquoting and misrepresentation is not worth debating. Keep believing whatever you want to but all you have managed to prove is your own lack of integrity here.

And what you are proving here is that you are a liar. Accurately quoting the relevant part of a verse is considered a misquote by whom exactly? No one with any brains, I know of.

Keep believing that the Koran is exactly as spoken by Muhammad (in this case you agree with the Mullahs), a practical impossibility if you look at the history of the compilation of Koran. Keep up your dishonesty. But try fooling someone else.

More lies. Please quote where I said that the Quran is exactly as spoken by Muhammad. But no surprises that someone who believes in a natural phenomenon that can mimic Moon splitting can also construe a statement that there is more chances of embellishment in Hadith than the Quran, as someone saying Quran is as spoken by Muhammad.

[seedhi]

And what you are proving here is that you are a liar. Accurately quoting the relevant part of a verse is considered a misquote by whom exactly? No one with any brains' date=' I know of.[/quote']The second part of the verse provides an exception to the first half. That is why you only quoted the first half, thus misrepresenting the verse to suit your hypothesis. This is lying and being dishonest.

More lies. Please quote where I said that the Quran is exactly as spoken by Muhammad. But no surprises that someone who believes in a natural phenomenon that can mimic Moon splitting can also construe a statement that there is more chances of embellishment in Hadith than the Quran, as someone saying Quran is as spoken by Muhammad.

When I asked you why you do not allow for the possibility that the Koran was embellished as well, you said that the Koran was less likely to be embellished than the Hadith and therefore you consider it unlikely. This goes to show your faulty logic as well. If, for example, the probability of embellishment in the Koran is 70% and in the Hadith is 80%, that only means that embellishment in Hadith is more likely than Koran. That does say that embellishment in the Koran is unlikely in itself. I do not wish to continue this discussion further. So I will just summarize what I believe are the possibilities. I believe that it is extremely likely that the Koran was embellished considering, among others, the fact that the oldest complete Koran in existence is from around 200 years from Muhammads death. Also, the Hadiths themselves are quite frank in stating the difficulties in the compilation. I believe that there is a possibility that the whole "splitting of moon" was a fabrication introduced into the Koran, Hadith (i.e. no such event or phenomenon occurred). I believe that there is also a possibility of some strange natural phenomenon or hallucination that became folklore and was incorporated into the Koran, Hadith. I believe that in either possibility, the meaning of the "splitting of the moon" refers to a "miracle" purportedly observed (and rejected as magic) by the meccans.

[The Outsider]

The second part of the verse provides an exception to the first half. That is why you only quoted the first half, thus misrepresenting the verse to suit your hypothesis. This is lying and being dishonest.

No, it does not. You are thinking it does because you are misinterpreting the verse as I've already explained above. That part is talking about the reasons/means in which previous signs were sent and not about any future signs as you are interpreting. It is very convenient to not have the brains to interpret or read about something and blame others for being dishonest, isn't it? This despite, my giving you an alternate and much clearer translation of that part :

And never did We send those signs for any other purpose than to convey a warning.

Here are some more translations from the same link :

We send the signs only by way of warning, and if people reject the sign after receiving it, they are doomed.

We send not portents save to warn.

These mean to you that future miracles are possible, when two lines earlier the author clearly says there won't be any future miracles? All the line is doing is giving a reason why earlier signs were sent, something irrelevant to our discussion.

When I asked you why you do not allow for the possibility that the Koran was embellished as well, you said that the Koran was less likely to be embellished than the Hadith and therefore you consider it unlikely. This goes to show your faulty logic as well. If, for example, the probability of embellishment in the Koran is 70% and in the Hadith is 80%, that only means that embellishment in Hadith is more likely than Koran. That does say that embellishment in the Koran is unlikely in itself.

I clearly said embellishment of the Quran is possible, but less likely than the Hadith and I am looking for the most probable explanation which satisfies all parameters. How does that imply that Quran is exactly as spoken by Muhammad, as you claimed I said. Another lie.

I do not wish to continue this discussion further. So I will just summarize what I believe are the possibilities. I believe that it is extremely likely that the Koran was embellished considering, among others, the fact that the oldest complete Koran in existence is from around 200 years from Muhammads death. Also, the Hadiths themselves are quite frank in stating the difficulties in the compilation. I believe that there is a possibility that the whole "splitting of moon" was a fabrication introduced into the Koran, Hadith (i.e. no such event or phenomenon occurred). I believe that there is also a possibility of some strange natural phenomenon or hallucination that became folklore and was incorporated into the Koran, Hadith. I believe that in either possibility, the meaning of the "splitting of the moon" refers to a "miracle" purportedly observed (and rejected as magic) by the meccans.

Yeah sure, it's also possible that there really is a God who spoke to a guy named Muhammad in a cave in Arabia through an angel to reveal his message to the world. The exercise in such discussions, which seems to elude you, is not simply to find what is possible and what is not. Anything is possible. It is to find the most probable scenario. Please do let us know when you or anyone comes across this strange natural phenomenon which can mimic the splitting of the Moon and carry one part over a mountain.

[seedhi]

No' date=' it does not. You are thinking it does because you are misinterpreting the verse as I've already explained above. That part is talking about the reasons/means in which previous signs were sent and not about any future signs as you are interpreting. It is very convenient to not have the brains to interpret or read about something and blame others for being dishonest, isn't it? This despite, my giving you an alternate and much clearer translation of that part :[/quote']If I have a different interpretation of a verse that yours, as many people do, that does not imply I am dishonest. What is dishonesty is to post a truncated verse and then claim that it supports your point of view. What you could have done is to post the whole verse and then make your claim that the latter half has whatever meaning you interpret it to be. But you didnt. You posted half of the verse, omitting an exception to its meaning presented in the latter part. Instead of posting the whole verse along with your interpretation you posted a truncated verse in inverted commas as if it was the whole thing. That is dishonesty and misrepresentation.

I clearly said embellishment of the Quran is possible, but less likely than the Hadith and I am looking for the most probable explanation which satisfies all parameters. How does that imply that Quran is exactly as spoken by Muhammad, as you claimed I said. Another lie.

Let A be the event that the Koran was embellished to add the "splitting of the moon". Let B be the event that the Hadiths were concocted to add the "splitting of the moon" story. Let Pr(.) denote probabilities. You claim that Pr(B) > Pr(A). Let us assume that for the moment. What I want to know is how it implies that Pr(A intersection B) < Pr(A' intersection B), where A' is the complement of A. i.e. why is it less probable (according to you) that both Koran and Hadith were embellished than only the Hadith being embellished. My claim is that the A is positively correlated with B, i.e. if the Hadith is embellished about a particular incident, then the Koran is more likely than not to be embellished as well. My hypothesis is that Pr(A | B) > Pr(A' | B) and this implies that Pr(A intersection B) > Pr(A' intersection B).

Yeah sure, it's also possible that there really is a God who spoke to a guy named Muhammad in a cave in Arabia through an angel to reveal his message to the world. The exercise in such discussions, which seems to elude you, is not simply to find what is possible and what is not. Anything is possible. It is to find the most probable scenario. Please do let us know when you or anyone comes across this strange natural phenomenon which can mimic the splitting of the Moon and carry one part over a mountain.

I of course cannot reproduce exactly what they saw. Here are a few illusions caused by refraction in atmosphere. Two images of a ship on the horizon. A double sun. Mountains floating over the horizon in the desert. This is an account I found on the internet of a seemingly well educated person who believes he saw an illusion of two moons over Syracuse.

Tom Bassett of Syracuse recently wrote in to share an unusual UFO sighting that's left me scratching my head. I haven't been able to find an astronomical explanation on the Internet. I'm sure it's some kind of illusion, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Here's Tom's e-mail: "This may not qualify as a weird airborne sighting as it may be explainable. But anyway... "While working years ago with WAVES (Western Area Volunteer Emergency Service)out of the Fairmount area, we were returning in the ambulance after having delivered a patient to Community General Hospital. It was dark except for a large moon evident in the southeast. When nearing the intersection of Onondaga Road (NYS 173) and Howlett Hill Road we noted a replication of the moon to the northwest, a 'wrong' place. Now we had two moons, the wrong one being in the direction of Fairmount and/or Onondaga Lake. "I speculate the following. There was an apparent cloud bank to the northwest (the sky was clear where we were) and the night was still, no wind. It appeared that perhaps the lake surface was acting as a mirror, reflecting the image of the moon to the lower surface of the cloud bank, thus making it visible to us." That sounds good to me, although I couldn't find any references of double moon illusions like that through Google. The closest thing I found was a 2003 e-mail about Mars being so close to earth that it appears to be a second moon. The e-mail keeps getting re-circulated to seem recent and has been discredited by Snopes. Any amateur astronomers or meteorologists out there have an insight?

Here is the link http://blog.syracuse.com/strangecny/2008/01/two_moons_spotted_over_syracus.html .

[The Outsider]

If I have a different interpretation of a verse that yours, as many people do, that does not imply I am dishonest. What is dishonesty is to post a truncated verse and then claim that it supports your point of view. What you could have done is to post the whole verse and then make your claim that the latter half has whatever meaning you interpret it to be. But you didnt. You posted half of the verse, omitting an exception to its meaning presented in the latter part. Instead of posting the whole verse along with your interpretation you posted a truncated verse in inverted commas as if it was the whole thing. That is dishonesty and misrepresentation.

Well, excuse me, if I overestimated your ability to interpret a simple enough part of a verse which has no relevance to our discussion. You could have easily said that the remaining part of the verse has been omitted in my quote and given your interpretation on it, rather than accusing me of deliberately omitting something for which there are a million links on the internet. Or you could have simply asked me why I did not quote the full verse.

Let A be the event that the Koran was embellished to add the "splitting of the moon". Let B be the event that the Hadiths were concocted to add the "splitting of the moon" story. Let Pr(.) denote probabilities. You claim that Pr(B) > Pr(A). Let us assume that for the moment. What I want to know is how it implies that Pr(A intersection B) Pr(A' | B) and this implies that Pr(A intersection B) > Pr(A' intersection B).

I've already explained this earlier. You give 10 people a poem to rote and recite. From their collective recitations try to reproduce the original. You will find different people making mistakes at different places, and few occasions of the majority making the same mistake. Based on the majority accuracy, form your reproduction. Compare this exercise with the different chains from which Hadiths were collected, and no centralized system of collection of these stories. Each Hadith compiler free to embellish without cross correlating and checking with any other source.

I of course cannot reproduce exactly what they saw. Here are a few illusions caused by refraction in atmosphere. This is an account I found on the internet of a seemingly well educated person who believes he saw an illusion of two moons over Syracuse. Here is the link http://blog.syracuse.com/strangecny/2008/01/two_moons_spotted_over_syracus.html .

Of course, I am aware that illusions can be caused in the atmosphere. Till we see one which can mimic a moon being split into two and one part fly over the mountain, the very premise of your hypothesis has no grounding. This has to be visible to and believed by thousands of people at the very least. Moreover, it also has to be visible in India at the same time as Arabia - for you cannot selectively believe the split moon story. You will also have to explain what the king of Malabar saw.

[seedhi]

Well' date=' excuse me, if I overestimated your ability to interpret a simple enough part of a verse which has no relevance to our discussion. You could have easily said that the remaining part of the verse has been omitted in my quote and given your interpretation on it, [b']rather than accusing me of deliberately omitting something for which there are a million links on the internet. Or you could have simply asked me why I did not quote the full verse.

Obviously you deliberately omitted the last part of the verse. It wasnt accidental on your part. Your intention is also clear, to misrepresent the verse to fit your hypothesis.

I've already explained this earlier. You give 10 people a poem to rote and recite. From their collective recitations try to reproduce the original. You will find different people making mistakes at different places, and few occasions of the majority making the same mistake. Based on the majority accuracy, form your reproduction. Compare this exercise with the different chains from which Hadiths were collected, and no centralized system of collection of these stories. Each Hadith compiler free to embellish without cross correlating and checking with any other source.

That this particular process of compilation occurred has no proof, except from the Hadiths themselves. There are no copies of the Koran available from the time this said compilation was done. And if you go by the Hadiths, they themselves have mentioned that the process of compilation was extremely fraught with errors. The earliest copy of the Koran available is 200 years from the death of Muhammad, the same time as the copies of the Hadiths date from. Who is to say the Koran wasnt altered or fabricated or embellished if the Hadiths were as well.

Of course, I am aware that illusions can be caused in the atmosphere. Till we see one which can mimic a moon being split into two and one part fly over the mountain, the very premise of your hypothesis has no grounding. This has to be visible to and believed by thousands of people at the very least. Moreover, it also has to be visible in India at the same time as Arabia - for you cannot selectively believe the split moon story. You will also have to explain what the king of Malabar saw.

What?!! All I am saying is that this could have been an illusion caused by an atmospheric phenomenon which was seen by Muhammad, his companions and the meccans. Where does the King of Malabar come in? We are talking of the "splitting" in the Koran/Hadiths. Nowhere is any King of Malabar mentioned. As to the moon illusion. Here is one photo of the setting moon I found on wikipedia. Looks like the moon is split.

[The Outsider]

Obviously you deliberately omitted the last part of the verse. It wasnt accidental on your part. Your intention is also clear, to misrepresent the verse to fit your hypothesis.

I deliberately omitted the last part of the verse because it has no relevance to our discussion. Not because I thought I would cleverly be able to hide something which is available on a million links. This seems to be a personality disorder with you - trying to look for the most convoluted explanation to fit your prejudices rather than the most probable explanation.

That this particular process of compilation occurred has no proof, except from the Hadiths themselves. There are no copies of the Koran available from the time this said compilation was done. And if you go by the Hadiths, they themselves have mentioned that the process of compilation was extremely fraught with errors. The earliest copy of the Koran available is 200 years from the death of Muhammad, the same time as the copies of the Hadiths date from. Who is to say the Koran wasnt altered or fabricated or embellished if the Hadiths were as well.

Again, why are you needlessly trying to put words in my mouth - where have I said the compilation of the Quran was error free? On the contrary, I have said there is every possibility of the Quran having errors in it. I am guessing you are used to having this conversation with people who might throw a fit when you mention that the Quran may have been altered, and that is why you are repeatedly going on and on about it. Of course the Quran could have been altered. If you have any neutral, refereed sources from western academicians which state that the probability of embellishment in the Quran is greater than the Hadith, please do provide the references.

What?!! All I am saying is that this could have been an illusion caused by an atmospheric phenomenon which was seen by Muhammad, his companions and the meccans. Where does the King of Malabar come in? We are talking of the "splitting" in the Koran/Hadiths. Nowhere is any King of Malabar mentioned.

There is a tradition that the King of Malabar saw the same incident, sent his son to Arabia. Point being the King of Malabar claimed to also have seen the Moon splitting. Was he lying?

As to the moon illusion. Here is one photo of the setting moon I found on wikipedia. Looks like the moon is split.

No, it doesn't. Just looks like you are getting desperate. And remember the two parts have to recede so much that one part appears on one side of the mountain and the other on the other side of it.

[coffee_rules]

The splitting of the moon was in the future as per this interpretation. Very funny tho... vfEHBItWJI8&feature=watch_response

[seedhi]

I deliberately omitted the last part of the verse because it has no relevance to our discussion. Not because I thought I would cleverly be able to hide something which is available on a million links. This seems to be a personality disorder with you - trying to look for the most convoluted explanation to fit your prejudices rather than the most probable explanation.

It was deliberate, it was a misrepresentation. That amounts to dishonesty in my view.

Again, why are you needlessly trying to put words in my mouth - where have I said the compilation of the Quran was error free? On the contrary, I have said there is every possibility of the Quran having errors in it. I am guessing you are used to having this conversation with people who might throw a fit when you mention that the Quran may have been altered, and that is why you are repeatedly going on and on about it. Of course the Quran could have been altered.

So the Koran could have been altered to include the "splitting of the moon" event right? This is precisely my hypothesis.

If you have any neutral, refereed sources from western academicians which state that the probability of embellishment in the Quran is greater than the Hadith, please do provide the references.

I have not claimed this anywhere. All I am saying that if the Hadiths are embellished regarding some incident, then it is more likely than not the Koran is also embellished regarding that incident. This is common sense. Positive correlation.

There is a tradition that the King of Malabar saw the same incident, sent his son to Arabia. Point being the King of Malabar claimed to also have seen the Moon splitting. Was he lying?

Where did you find this tradition, in any Hadith, Koran etc, pls provide a link? If its not in Koran/Hadith, there is no relevance to the verse mentioned in the Koran.

No, it doesn't. Just looks like you are getting desperate. And remember the two parts have to recede so much that one part appears on one side of the mountain and the other on the other side of it.

This is one of the Hadiths about the "splitting"

'Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported that the moon was split up in two parts during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). The mountain covered one of its parts and one part of it was above the mountain and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Bear witness to this.

Now, in this photo below, if there were a mountain covering the lower half, it would correspond to this hadith. Also, I posted an experience of a person who observed two moons far apart over Syracuse. Did you read it? If the moon that day was a half or a crescent, it might look like the moon had split. Obviously I cannot find the exact same phenomenon that they saw.

[The Outsider]

So the Koran could have been altered to include the "splitting of the moon" event right? This is precisely my hypothesis.

Of course it could have. How many times do I have to stress I am not looking for every possible explanation, but the most probable explanation. If we are talking about possibilities, it's even possible that God did indeed split the Moon into two.

I have not claimed this anywhere. All I am saying that if the Hadiths are embellished regarding some incident, then it is more likely than not the Koran is also embellished regarding that incident. This is common sense. Positive correlation.

Is it more probable that the Quran was embellished or whether the Hadiths were embellished?

Where did you find this tradition, in any Hadith, Koran etc, pls provide a link? If its not in Koran/Hadith, there is no relevance to the verse mentioned in the Koran.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/moon_split.htm I don't know if it's in a Hadith or not. But why should this account be taken as less authentic than the Hadiths?

This is one of the Hadiths about the "splitting" Now, in this photo below, if there were a mountain covering the lower half, it would correspond to this hadith.

Wouldn't any instance of the Moon partially blocked by the mountain explain that or am I missing something here? What about the accounts where it was first split, then one of the parts moved in the sky?

Also, I posted an experience of a person who observed two moons far apart over Syracuse. Did you read it? If the moon that day was a half or a crescent, it might look like the moon had split. Obviously I cannot find the exact same phenomenon that they saw.

Not only you, but the only time so many thousand people seem to have been confused by this natural phenomenon supposed to mimic Moon splitting, seems to be at that point in history. Now what are the odds that this hitherto unique natural phenomenon in history just happened by chance in Muhammad's lifetime, and Muhammad was out with his companions at that time, and Muhammad had the presence of mind to associate it with a miracle he performed to scare the Meccans, and Muhammad was able to come up with 50 odd verses impromptu relating it to the end of the world which would be coming soon? Since you were talking about probabilities above, you should be able to calculate it. Then compare it with the odds that some of his followers added in this story years later based on a similar Quranic verse to strengthen his hold as a prophet. And please let me know which you think is the more probable event.

[seedhi]

Of course it could have. How many times do I have to stress I am not looking for every possible explanation, but the most probable explanation. If we are talking about possibilities, it's even possible that God did indeed split the Moon into two.

Fine, we are trying to locate the most probable explanation.

Is it more probable that the Quran was embellished or whether the Hadiths were embellished?

Thats not the relevant question. The relevant question is which is more likely: only the Hadith was embellished and the Koran wasnt OR both the Koran and the Hadith were embellished. My contention is that it is more likely that both Koran and the Hadith were embellished regarding the moon splitting, rather than only the Hadith being embellished. Reason: positive correlation. If an event is mentioned in both the Koran and the Hadith, and the Hadith has been altered to include this event then it is more likely than not that the Koran was also altered to include the event. Another way to look at this whole issue is the following. Let me try to explain point by point. 1. The basic issue is the "intent" or "meaning" of the particular verse written in the Koran. 2. Now the Koran was definitely written down after Muhammad's death. Therefore the intent of the verse must match with the understanding of the person(s) who first wrote the Koran down (note that this may not be the intent of Muhammad himself). 3. Now we may assume that whenever the verse was first included into a written Koran, several people were involved in that process. At that time there must have been a consensus on the meaning of the verse. 4. It is highly unlikely that in the following years the consensus on the meaning of the verse was discarded or lost or altered and a new meaning emerged which is reflected in the Hadiths. 5. Therefore, the "intent" or "meaning" of the verse must match with the meaning in the Hadiths.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/moon_split.htm I don't know if it's in a Hadith or not. But why should this account be taken as less authentic than the Hadiths?

Or the Koran? By the way, this seems to be an obscure document with only one reference in some book. Doesnt seem to be well studied at all. Yet, I think it is probable that the Koran, the Hadith and this purported document have all fabricated the nonsense about splitting the moon.

Wouldn't any instance of the Moon partially blocked by the mountain explain that or am I missing something here? What about the accounts where it was first split, then one of the parts moved in the sky? Not only you, but the only time so many thousand people seem to have been confused by this natural phenomenon supposed to mimic Moon splitting, seems to be at that point in history. Now what are the odds that this hitherto unique natural phenomenon in history just happened by chance in Muhammad's lifetime, and Muhammad was out with his companions at that time, and Muhammad had the presence of mind to associate it with a miracle he performed to scare the Meccans, and Muhammad was able to come up with 50 odd verses impromptu relating it to the end of the world which would be coming soon? Since you were talking about probabilities above, you should be able to calculate it. Then compare it with the odds that some of his followers added in this story years later based on a similar Quranic verse to strengthen his hold as a prophet. And please let me know which you think is the more probable event.

Well there are any number of unique events in history that cannot be explained adequately. Black hole of Siberia is one. That doesnt mean that something supernatural happened. Mirages frequently occur in the desert, and something like that could have caused mass delusion. Anyway, its only one possibility. PS: I may be busy and not reply soon to your responses.

[The Outsider]

Thats not the relevant question. The relevant question is which is more likely: only the Hadith was embellished and the Koran wasnt OR both the Koran and the Hadith were embellished. My contention is that it is more likely that both Koran and the Hadith were embellished regarding the moon splitting, rather than only the Hadith being embellished. Reason: positive correlation. If an event is mentioned in both the Koran and the Hadith, and the Hadith has been altered to include this event then it is more likely than not that the Koran was also altered to include the event.

The event is mentioned in the Quran, but in a completely different context. That is my contention based on the way the verse and chapter are written. 'The Hour' refers to the the Hour of Judgment. Moreover, the Moon has a special significance in Islam. The Moon is used to measure time, as evidenced by the Lunar calender used by the Arabs. The splitting of the Moon signifies the end of time and correlates well with the Hour of Judgment. The later verses in the chapter make it clear that Muhammad is referring to the Hour of Judgment, when he talks about the punishments for the disbelievers. When you couple this with the fact that a natural phenomenon mimicking the splitting of the Moon is an extremely unlikely event at the least, it lends a lot of credence to the hypothesis that the verse and chapter were written metaphorically. The claim that Muhammad said that the Hour of Judgment is imminent does not sit well either for reasons explained earlier. Like, the absence of any accounts of such a huge event, Muhammad risking his credibility, Muhammad claiming later on that he will not be associated with any miracles. Also, 'imminent' for Muhammad has to be taken into the context that he believed the Earth was a few thousand years old or so. So, it's unlikely he would use the term imminent for an event way out in the future.

Another way to look at this whole issue is the following. Let me try to explain point by point. 1. The basic issue is the "intent" or "meaning" of the particular verse written in the Koran. 2. Now the Koran was definitely written down after Muhammad's death. Therefore the intent of the verse must match with the understanding of the person(s) who first wrote the Koran down (note that this may not be the intent of Muhammad himself). 3. Now we may assume that whenever the verse was first included into a written Koran, several people were involved in that process. At that time there must have been a consensus on the meaning of the verse. 4. It is highly unlikely that in the following years the consensus on the meaning of the verse was discarded or lost or altered and a new meaning emerged which is reflected in the Hadiths. 5. Therefore, the "intent" or "meaning" of the verse must match with the meaning in the Hadiths.

Not sure why point number 4 is unlikely. It is a fairly common theme that followers of some religious icon try to embellish his standing. More so after his death, when they try to keep a stranglehold on power.

Or the Koran? By the way, this seems to be an obscure document with only one reference in some book. Doesnt seem to be well studied at all. Yet, I think it is probable that the Koran, the Hadith and this purported document have all fabricated the nonsense about splitting the moon.

But the fact is that the verse and chapter in the Quran can be interpreted perfectly satisfactorily without invoking the physical splitting of the Moon. We can't say the same about other accounts in the Hadiths or this King of Malabar guy. Those accounts would necessarily require either that the story was made up or some unlikely natural phenomenon occurred. The verses in the Quran do not require such an imposition, they can easily be explained as the metaphorical end of time at the Hour of Judgment. And a lot of the Quran is metaphorical, so this particular aspect will not be really out of place in the book. Apply Occam's razor - can the verse and chapter in the Quran be satisfactorily explained using our knowledge of history and literature without the invocation of an unlikely natural phenomenon? Yes, it can be. Is the same possible with Hadiths? No.

Well there are any number of unique events in history that cannot be explained adequately. Black hole of Siberia is one. That doesnt mean that something supernatural happened. Mirages frequently occur in the desert, and something like that could have caused mass delusion. Anyway, its only one possibility.

Sure, mirages occur in the desert and I never said some supernatural event happened. Again, you've got to contextualize. These people were desert dwellers - they had been seeing mirages throughout their life. It would have to be one hell of a mirage that thousands of people fell for it, even the ones who were not followers of Muhammad. Moreover, there is no recorded instance of such a mirage before or after this event.

[seedhi]

The event is mentioned in the Quran' date=' but in a completely different context. [b']That is my contention based on the way the verse and chapter are written. 'The Hour' refers to the the Hour of Judgment. Moreover, the Moon has a special significance in Islam. The Moon is used to measure time, as evidenced by the Lunar calender used by the Arabs. The splitting of the Moon signifies the end of time and correlates well with the Hour of Judgment. The later verses in the chapter make it clear that Muhammad is referring to the Hour of Judgment, when he talks about the punishments for the disbelievers. When you couple this with the fact that a natural phenomenon mimicking the splitting of the Moon is an extremely unlikely event at the least, it lends a lot of credence to the hypothesis that the verse and chapter were written metaphorically. The claim that Muhammad said that the Hour of Judgment is imminent does not sit well either for reasons explained earlier. Like, the absence of any accounts of such a huge event, Muhammad risking his credibility, Muhammad claiming later on that he will not be associated with any miracles. Also, 'imminent' for Muhammad has to be taken into the context that he believed the Earth was a few thousand years old or so. So, it's unlikely he would use the term imminent for an event way out in the future. Not sure why point number 4 is unlikely. It is a fairly common theme that followers of some religious icon try to embellish his standing. More so after his death, when they try to keep a stranglehold on power. But the fact is that the verse and chapter in the Quran can be interpreted perfectly satisfactorily without invoking the physical splitting of the Moon. We can't say the same about other accounts in the Hadiths or this King of Malabar guy. Those accounts would necessarily require either that the story was made up or some unlikely natural phenomenon occurred. The verses in the Quran do not require such an imposition, they can easily be explained as the metaphorical end of time at the Hour of Judgment. And a lot of the Quran is metaphorical, so this particular aspect will not be really out of place in the book. Apply Occam's razor - can the verse and chapter in the Quran be satisfactorily explained using our knowledge of history and literature without the invocation of an unlikely natural phenomenon? Yes, it can be. Is the same possible with Hadiths? No.

Well, your contention claiming to be based on the way the verse is written is extremely tenuous. This assumes that thousands of Muslims,Arab scholars over the centuries failed to deduce the correct meaning of the verse. Even the more enlightened Sufi poets (who tended not to be literalist) interpreted the event as something that has already occurred. I am afraid your own application of Occam's razaor rules out your hypothesis. What is more likely - the fewer people who wrote the verse into a written Koran initially intended the verse to mean an actual event OR that the thousands of scholars in the later centuries were incorrect. It is much more likely that the "embellishment" was introduced into the Koran itself and then propagated from there including in the Hadiths. This does not require that thousands of scholars over the centuries were mistaken in their interpretation of the Koran.

[The Outsider]

Well, your contention claiming to be based on the way the verse is written is extremely tenuous. This assumes that thousands of Muslims,Arab scholars over the centuries failed to deduce the correct meaning of the verse. Even the more enlightened Sufi poets (who tended not to be literalist) interpreted the event as something that has already occurred. I am afraid your own application of Occam's razaor rules out your hypothesis. What is more likely - the fewer people who wrote the verse into a written Koran initially intended the verse to mean an actual event OR that the thousands of scholars in the later centuries were incorrect. It is much more likely that the "embellishment" was introduced into the Koran itself and then propagated from there including in the Hadiths. This does not require that thousands of scholars over the centuries were mistaken in their interpretation of the Koran.

Aaah...we are back to the same, 'X number of Mullahs agree with it, so it is more probable'. So what if independent and neutral western scholars don't agree with it because it does not fit in well with the literature and history of that time. BTW, the 'my contention' is not only mine, but of modern, western academicians. This is not a spiritual discussion. It is a straightforward discussion on the interpretation and origin of a verse in a piece of historic literature. There is absolutely no premise to take the word of Mullahs over people trained in literature and history at some of the best modern universities. Since you are back to regurgitating the same 'X Mullahs agree with the interpretation', I'll assume you have nothing new to add and wind up my summary : 1. The term 'The Hour' is used in the verse, universally referred to the Hour of Judgment in Abrahamic literature. 2. The Moon is used to measure time in Islam. 3. The splitting of the Moon signifies the end of time. 4. The end of time has numerous associations with the Hour of Judgment in Abrahamic literature. 5. As a consequence, no supernatural or some unlikely natural phenomenon is needed to explain the verse. 6. When some minimum variables satisfactorily explain a hypothesis, other variables are not introduced just for the sake of it.

[seedhi]

Let me just say that apart from Mullahs, many poets, writers, and other scholars also have interpreted the splitting of the moon as an actual one. It is a bit too much to trash all of them at one go. My conclusion: Assuming that all of them were not wrong (extremely unlikely), the only possibility is that the intention of the verse in the Koran is to portray an actual event. It is much more likely that the "embellishment" occurred in the Koran than in the minds of thousands of people who have studied it.

[The Outsider]

I would add the following caveat to your conclusion - the alternate explanation of the verse being metaphorical has existed at least since the 9th century, even amongst the Mullahs, even if in minority.