seedhi Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 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' date=' even amongst the Mullahs, even if in minority.[/quote']May I also add that the "western academicians" are nowhere unanimous in their interpretation as well. May I ask you to read pages 44-45 (as in the pdf) of a guide to Muhammad's life, the relevant pages being authored by a "western academic". http://www.urirubin.com/downloads/articles/Muhammad-CCM.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 May I also add that the "western academicians" are nowhere unanimous in their interpretation as well. May I ask you to read pages 44-45 (as in the pdf) of a guide to Muhammad's life, the relevant pages being authored by a "western academic". http://www.urirubin.com/downloads/articles/Muhammad-CCM.pdf The author says that a Lunar eclipse could have been a catalyst for the verse - fair enough. That would hardly be construed as a miracle, because there seem to have been several Lunar eclipses during the period, according to the text. The following paragraph makes it clear that the author also believes that the verse is metaphorical : From this eschatological function of inshaqqa it may be inferred that the splitting of the moon in the moon passage also bears eschatological connotation, although here it is only a figurative preview of the imminent literal splitting of the moon as well of the entire heavens. The passage says that a Lunar eclipse was a catalyst for the verse, the 'sign' is to be interpreted as a wonder of nature rather than a 'miracle' in the traditional sense, as he explains Muhammad cannot perform any, and that the literal splitting of the moon associated with the end of time is a future event. If that's the conclusion to be drawn from the passage, I have no issues because it does not call for any unlikely natural phenomenon which could mimic the splitting of the Moon. Having said that, it is quite possible few western academicians might hold a different view - it is not a Mullahcracy where the Mullahs in power will suppress any alternate point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 The author says that a Lunar eclipse could have been a catalyst for the verse - fair enough. That would hardly be construed as a miracle, because there seem to have been several Lunar eclipses during the period, according to the text. The following paragraph makes it clear that the author also believes that the verse is metaphorical : The passage says that a Lunar eclipse was a catalyst for the verse, the 'sign' is to be interpreted as a wonder of nature rather than a 'miracle' in the traditional sense, as he explains Muhammad cannot perform any, and that the literal splitting of the moon associated with the end of time is a future event. If that's the conclusion to be drawn from the passage, I have no issues because it does not call for any unlikely natural phenomenon which could mimic the splitting of the Moon. Having said that, it is quite possible few western academicians might hold a different view - it is not a Mullahcracy where the Mullahs in power will suppress any alternate point of view.You were claiming that the event described is supposed to be in the future, whereas the author clearly believes that the event described occurred (a lunar eclipse), and it was sought to be used by Muhammad to convince the meccans, using the event as a sign of imminent advent of The Hour of judgment. This is what the author says, The juxtaposition of The Hour and the splitting of the moon indicates that the lunar eclipse is taken as a warning of the oncoming eschatological cataclysm. This flies in the face of your assumption that Muhammad could not have claimed that The Hour is imminent. Anyway at least one western academic interprets the verse as follows: 1. There was a natural phenomenon, a lunar eclipse. 2. Muhammad tried to use it as a warning sign to the meccans of the imminence of the hour of judgment. 3. The meccans rejected the sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Huh? He clearly says it's a 'figurative preview' of a future and literal splitting of the Moon associated with the end of time. Not sure, how much clearer it can be that the author is interpreting the verse as a metaphor for a future event - 'figurative preview' ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Huh? He clearly says it's a 'figurative preview' of a future and literal splitting of the Moon associated with the end of time. Not sure' date=' how much clearer it can be that the author is interpreting the verse as a metaphor for a future event - '[b']figurative preview' !You are misreading the author. He writes: From this eschatological function of inshaqqa it may be inferred that the splitting of the moon in the moon passage also bears eschatological connotation, although here it is only a figurative preview of the imminent literal splitting of the moon as well of the entire heavens.What he means is that there is a historical connotation (referring to the actual lunar eclipse) as well as an eschatological connotation which refers to the end of time. The author makes it clear that as far as the historical context is concerned the verse refers to an actual lunar eclipse, which is then juxtaposed with The Hour to signal its imminent advent. The very first line of page 44 is: The splitting of the moon seems to allude to a partial lunar eclipse one of several that could be seen im Mecca .. Further, on page 50, the author writes: Despite the wide accepted perception of the moon passage as alluding to a historical splitting apart of the moon above the mountains of Mecca, further texts reveal attempts at depriving the event of its claimed place in history. This is evinced by some linguistic explanations that insist on reading the form inshaqqa as denoting the future, thus preserving the pure eschatological context of the passage. ................. These interpretations reflect efforts to get around what would be considered the irrationality of the literal splitting in its supposed historical setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I am sorry, I am done here. Can't be bothered trying to explain what 'although here it is only a figurative preview' means. But as I've said that it is possible that a few western academicians might hold a different view, given they are not a part of a Mullah controlled institution where they have to follow a dogma. So, really you don't have to twist the meaning of what this particular author has written to show that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 BTW, here are some accounts of the Moon splitting not being an actual event from the 700s, the time when the Hadiths were compiled making the two versions equally old (page 50) : http://books.google.com/books?id=o58K2t344YQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cambridge+companion+to+muhammad&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=Omg4Tb_0FsKC8gbY1bGzCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I was just reading a bit more on this and apparently a lot of accounts state the following : 1. The event lasted for several hours => it could not have been a mirage. 2. It was witnessed by caravans and travelers who confirmed it in the morning when they arrived => it could not have been a local phenomenon or hypnosis/magic. 3. It was an 'on demand' demonstration => it was not a random act of nature. There is no 'on demand' natural phenomenon which can satisfy these conditions, but for the fact that Muhammad actually did split the Moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriterion Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 You claiming the vast humanity among the Muslim world which follows the works of these scholars is dumb is where the matter regarding "intellect" should end. I mean really WTF ! no idea what you are trying to say here. you are saying the overnight journey to Al-Aqsa on horse with wings doesn't already settle this issue of clinical status of Muhammads mind ? If that wasnt enough there is always his claim of being Gods very last messenger. If that is still not good enough we have his ability to converse with celestial beings. yes, but clinically psychotic people are not physically unable to function. they are unable to even wipe themselves after using the toilet. that is the reason why pysch wards exist in hospitals. there are no exceptions! muhammad somehow was this all-powerful warlord who led outnumbered troops to war. not possible. just ask any doctor. I have not ignored your questions. I have provided some sort of response to most of them but I have promised you more than once that I will get back to answering them in their gory detail once we settle the main thorny issue of the status of Hadith and the Quran. This is because all these questions that you ask invaraibly tend to come back to this core issue. So to avoid this circular discussion Iam concentrating solely on the authenticity of Quran and whether or not it can be taken as containing words from none other than God himself ( i.e it has no errors ) . Here I would like to draw your attention to post#528 ( and the preceding 2-3 posts ) where you agreed that you cannot prove certain things from Quran. Let me quote that for your convenience then please address your remarks about the following: 1) your assertion that semen issues from the testicles 2) that the quran is wrong for saying the sun sets in the West 3) that a metal wall is some high tech impossibility for ancient times. Bukhari was 16 yrs old when he started the Hadith collection process and to make matters worse ... he was from a very far off alien land - Uzbekistan . Iam sure you will tell me how it is possible for a young no-name foreigner to have become a all powerrfull Mullah capable of superceding the resident mullahs at Mecca and then completely altering the meaning of verse 54:1(amongst many others) which was supposedly a future event until then. And ofcourse he never encountered any resistance from anybody while he went about completely altering the meaning of verses in the Quran because of the very mature , liberal and easy going nature of the Muslims who were very welcoming of those who told them that they were wrong and had been wrong for about 200 yrs in matters regarding Gods word. I mean is there a shortage of excuses to feed the denial beast ? if Bukhari was a "no-name" nobody, why do you quote him so much? he's irrelevant. i'm more important than Bukhari, no? If you had read the debate any more than glancing thru random posts here and there ... you would have found out that my stand is not based on "just because it is in the past tense". But in the highly unlikely and improbable event that you would be interested in finding out what these are then .. Amongst them would be translations and interpretations from no less than half a dozen reputed Islamic scholars. But then ofcourse you would be knowing more about Islam than all of them wouldn't you ? he might actually, because Bukhari and those other scholars are "no-namers" as you stated above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriterion Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I was just reading a bit more on this and apparently a lot of accounts state the following : 1. The event lasted for several hours => it could not have been a mirage. 2. It was witnessed by caravans and travelers who confirmed it in the morning when they arrived => it could not have been a local phenomenon or hypnosis/magic. 3. It was an 'on demand' demonstration => it was not a random act of nature. There is no 'on demand' natural phenomenon which can satisfy these conditions, but for the fact that Muhammad actually did split the Moon. Outsider, could you please cite a source for those confirming the moon splitting? I hesistate to believe it since it could just be some islamic historian fabricating it to hype things up. if there are truly independent third party, credible sources...then i may have to rethink my stance. *********** as far as the past tense issue...its pretty clear what "the Hour" means in Abrahamic lingo and that many texts are written without regard to verb tenses. But Boss won't accept that because...well I don't know. I've told him repeatedly that the New Testement Book of Revelation is written entirely in past tense to refer to the Final Judgement before Christ and all I go was total avoidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Outsider, could you please cite a source for those confirming the moon splitting? I hesistate to believe it since it could just be some islamic historian fabricating it to hype things up. if there are truly independent third party, credible sources...then i may have to rethink my stance. *********** as far as the past tense issue...its pretty clear what "the Hour" means in Abrahamic lingo and that many texts are written without regard to verb tenses. But Boss won't accept that because...well I don't know. I've told him repeatedly that the New Testement Book of Revelation is written entirely in past tense to refer to the Final Judgement before Christ and all I go was total avoidance. It was a sarcastic post trying to say that if we are to believe the Hadiths on Moon splitting, the only option we will be left with is that Muhammad did indeed split the Moon given the restrictions applied from the description of the phenomenon. The sources are just various Hadiths I glanced through on that day. For 3. there is a description on Page 48 of : http://books.google.com/books?id=o58K2t344YQC&pg=PA48&dq=hour+moon+split&hl=en&ei=XeA-TfzMEYH78AaoqJHlCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=hour%20moon%20split&f=false where it says 'Muhammad's Meccan adversaries asked him to show them a sign, and thereupon the Moon was split in two halves'. This implied the phenomenon was 'on demand' according to the Hadith For 2. it says in : http://books.google.com/books?id=DjSBsAvMAvwC&pg=PT505&dq=hour+moon+split+caravan&hl=en&ei=M-I-TemjEoP78Aaw1qHJCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false 'The caravans arriving the following morning from Yemen and other places announced that they had seen such a happening'. This implies that the phenomenon was not local. For 1 : http://books.google.com/books?id=ZsJK_tPzh7YC&pg=PA1083&dq=hour+moon+split+%22several+hours%22+prophet&hl=en&ei=B-Q-Tb-vGML58Abygv3BCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hour%20moon%20split%20%22several%20hours%22%20prophet&f=false '....if the All-Wise Creator had left the Moon in two pieces for several hours, so that everyone could see it and record it.......'. This implies that the phenomenon lasted for a long time. Knowing all that we do about science and natural phenomenon, it leaves us with only two possibilities : 1. Muhammad did indeed split the Moon - for there is no other 'on demand' natural non local phenomenon lasting several hours consistent with the above accounts. 2. The Moon splitting and associated Hadiths are fables. Yeah, regarding past tense and the literary interpretation of the verse in historic context, I agree it's a purely metaphorical verse which does not need any extraordinary phenomenon to explain, if you read my posts on the previous page or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 But what happened to your claim of "I only trust works of western scholars" ? Huh? Seems like you've completely missed the point. I am not trusting any of these works - my stance is simple. The verse in the Quran does not require any supernatural or rare natural phenomenon. It simply signifies the end of time at the Hour of Judgment. You and seedhi are the ones arguing that how can so many Hadiths and Mullahs be wrong, so you are the ones trusting them. Well if you trust them show me one on demand, natural, non local phenomenon, lasting several hours using which people might have been fooled with, that the Moon was split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 this is what you said earlier in this thread. you later went ahead and posted those links and are now saying you simply dont trust them. So what do you trust ? Only stuff that suits your opinion ? I don't see the contradiction at all. The reason I posted those links from Hadiths was not because I trust them, but because you and seedhi claim them as authorities over western academicians. The purpose was to show you that if you were to trust the Hadiths you would have to believe that Muhammad actually split the Moon, something we know is not possible. That leaves just two choices - the Hadiths are wrong or Muhammad split the Moon. Take your pick. Remember you are the one using Hadiths as an authority, not me. I don't have to show that because I know there cant be any such natural phenomena and have stated that earlier in the thread. This is the verse that I'am using to prove that Quran is NOT work of God(something that you agree too BTW but dunno why you are questioning my stand .... but whatever ) . Didn't you state earlier in the thread that it might have been some natural phenomenon or illusion that Muhammad might have used to make people believe that he split the Moon? Now tell me which natural phenomenon or illusion can be consistent with the accounts from the Hadith? Yet a vast majority of Muslims stoutly believe that such a thing happened. Kriterion agrees too that the official version is what I'am presenting ( took me many months to get that out but thats another story ) . But since the denial mechanism has kicked in the latest excuse being used is that somewhere along the line after Muhammad passed away the zealous Mullahs having twisted the verse to suit their agenda and embellish. Well the onus of proving that such a U-turn did occur is on those who make that claim ( i.e Kriterion and you if that is your stance because Iam not sure where you stand ). I've already shown that both versions existed concurrently throughout history. Now if you are going to choose version 1 over version 2, just because X number of Mullahs believe 1 and Y believe 2, and X>Y it's entirely your choice. That's exactly what brainwashing is - to take the word of religious Mullahs without doing a critical analysis of your own, or at least trust authorities in literature and history who by far seem to be very clear about the meaning of the verse. This is not a spiritual discussion where the weight of Mullahs is supposed to carry a great deal of weight. It's about analyzing a piece of historic literature, for which western academicians are much more qualified than Mullahs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The link that you used : http://books.google.com/books?id=o58...0split&f=false is not from the Hadith it is a Cambridge university work i.e the people who you claim do "critical analysis" and ofcourse are western and supposedly neutral. LOL! I know which book the link is from. The information it is discussing is from the Hadiths. The book is saying that there are certain Hadiths (gives references to them on the page) which say that Muhammad did it on behest of the Meccans. Two pages later it also gives references and accounts from sources which believe that such an event never took place. The author is not picking any sides here. It is a compilation of various accounts surrounding the 'incident'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Jesus ! Lot of people think that Lord Krishna at a tender age was able to lift a mountain! So what if muslims believe that Moon was split by Allah or Prophet. Much ado about nothing , I say ! What say you , BB ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 What Iam interested in is when did this supposedly firm belief that 54:1 = Future only event got twisted into a Event from Muhammads time and who were the culprits and how were they allowed to get away with this crime ( Iam pretty sure that it is some sort of crime to mangle "Gods work"). Some time between Muhammad's death and the compilation of the Hadiths. The 'culprits' were the establishment Mullahs who wanted to add embellishments to Muhammad's standing as a prophet, which is much easier done when you can ascribe some supernatural phenomenon to him and claim that you witnessed it. Get away with it? These were the guys in power - who would they get away from? This is a very significant event (and would have been recorded somewhere) because you are now telling people who that all the while they had it wrong in their understanding of the Quran. So please feel free to produce some material that sheds light on this aspect. I've already shown you that the alternate view has concurrently existed throughout. For once just think through this logically : 1. If Muhammad did indeed mean the verse as it has been commonly interpreted by the establishment Mullahs, how was he able to get away with it? 2. We know he did not split the Moon. 3. We also know there is no on demand natural phenomenon Muhammad could have used to fool people. 4. How was he able to get away with such a blatant lie, where not only his companions but also his adversaries believed it? 5. Simplest explanation - Muhammad meant the verse as purely metaphorical and the establishment Mullahs constructed a story around it years later for their benefit, when no one would be around to refute them. BTW elsewhere in the Quran it claims that it is one of the most clearest books. Doesn't sound like it going by this discussion but Iam going to let that slide. Well, I don't make or subscribe to that claim so it's pointless if you try to convince me that it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roshanrocks Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 what has all of the above got to do witht he 70 jawans that were killed :hitler: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 There is no evidence that such a thing has happened. Occam's razor. Muhammad got away with this claim in the same manner that he got away claiming these other things : 1. That he has been sent by God and that he is the "Last Messenger" ( he kept quite or was not aware of this for the first 40 yrs of his life ) 2. That he could speak to Angels 3. That he undertook a overnight journey on a horse with wings to Al-Aqsa and from there to Heaven where he spoke with other prophets and God and came back. All this happened in one night. 4. That the heavens are rife with rivers of wine and an endless supply of women. 5. That most inhabitants of hell were women. 6. That it would require God more than 20 yrs to "send" his book. Now unless you want to claim that these things ( and there is plenty more ) are actually true events that have been scientifically substantiated ( and most importratnly Muhammad offered proof's for those around him ) unlike the moon splitting one there is no other option but to say that his companions were in with him for whatever reasons. This is how Godmen operate even in this day and age. Its just about how many people you can convince and believe me there is no shortage of people who want to believe in the supernatural and divine. Irrelevant. None of these involved mimicking a phenomenon on demand of his adversaries, which would be seen for several hours over at least hundreds of miles and be acknowledged by both his companions and opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Rhetorical. Not at all. Occam's razor is a pretty well accepted paradigm of problem solving - getting to the most probable explanation with a minimum of assumptions. As I've explained earlier, 54:1 being metaphorical requires a bare minimum of assumptions. Also important is the methodology used by Bukhari while documenting the Hadith. It is pretty rigorous and absolutely nobody disputes his works. He himself classified the Hadiths as strong or weak depending on the chain of transmission and whether he could get more than one separate chain narrating the event. The moon splitting one happens to be a Sahih hadith. The same Hadiths also say that the splitting of Moon lasted for several hours, was observed by people hundreds of miles away, and was produced 'on demand' by Muhammad. That leaves only 2 possibilities : 1. The Hadiths are not a reliable piece of information. 2. The above really happened as described in the Hadiths. Please take your pick. But if you want to insist that it was altered somewhere along the line then you need to produce any of the earlier interpretations. I already have - I mentioned a few posts back that the Cambridge book link discusses the other interpretation from the same time 2 pages later. You said you can't read it, I can't do much about that. Hence if 54:1 is a future event the rest of the chapter makes no sense. On the contrary, the remaining chapter makes sense only if the event as taken to be from the future. All the rest of the chapter talks about is the Hour of Judgment and the punishment awaiting disbelievers, at the end of time. PS: inb4 you start claiming that that entire chapter was suitably edited/embellished to prop up Muhammad. That was seedhi's claim. Maybe you can start a side conversation with him on it. Shifting goal posts are we ?. Not at all. Splitting of the Moon was a live on demand demonstration. The equivalent of it would be that Muhammad brought an angel to show to his followers. Nothing like that happened. He claimed he spoke to an angel, he claimed he was God's messenger, he claimed he took an overnight journey on a winged horse etc. He never demonstrated any of these things on demand to others. But he did demonstrate the splitting of the Moon according to the Hadiths you trust so much. Completely different situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 To BB: Pls read the pdf I posted in post #607, it is of chapter of the Cambridge book which has subsequently been referred to in this thread. The professor of Islamic studies who wrote the chapter explains that the verse arises out of a historical/natural event namely a lunar eclipse. This event was (ab)used by Muhammad to warn the meccans of an oncoming cataclysm, because of their non-acceptance of Muhammad's prophethood. The meccans at that time rejected these "warnings". As it is written down in the Koran, the verse describes it as a supernatural event. Considering this and the hadiths together, it seems that this supernaturalistic interpretation was prevalent during the time the verse was written down. The "on demand" aspect is also incorporated to buttress the supernatural nature of the event. Historically of course Muhammad spent a considerable amount (several years) of time trying to convert the meccans and they in turn used to demand evidence of his prophethood in form of miracles. The eclipse provided him an opportunity to use it as a tool to delude people. It was not as if they demanded and the next minute there was an eclipse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts