Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Cat Stevens New Album
Today at 03:27 PM

Tommy Robinson is a refor...
Today at 01:49 PM

The myth of Muslim Spain
by zeca
Today at 01:19 PM

Do you know this book ?
Today at 03:30 AM

Charlottesville: one dead...
Today at 03:29 AM

London Tube train Explosi...
Yesterday at 07:33 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 05:08 PM

German nationalist party ...
Yesterday at 02:29 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
September 19, 2017, 06:30 PM

Arabs without God - new e...
by zeca
September 19, 2017, 05:14 PM

المياة النقية%%%%
by akay
September 19, 2017, 04:26 PM

UKIP's Anne-Marie Waters ...
by zeca
September 19, 2017, 04:07 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?

 (Read 4811 times)
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #30 - April 29, 2016, 03:00 PM

    And eh... it's a decent strategy for sina to take the sources at face value and show how it can be devastating for Islamic theology. Sure, its not gonna apply to all Muslims, but it's a perfectly valid move to assume one of your opponents presuppositions and shows how it blows up the rest of their belief structure by implication.


    Had I read your message before posting mine, I wouldn't have wasted my time with long-winded reply. I envy the brevity of your post.

    Regards, Joseph
  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #31 - April 29, 2016, 07:18 PM

    Philosophy and debate are tools and have a place. Just the same I cannot find anywhere in my posts saying, winning the debate is winning the truth, nor where I declared a winner: That was your assumption, I merely borrowed the verdict from Common Sense Atheism as objection to your viewpoint. That unwashed masses need brilliant person such as yourself to protect them: Whereas your intellectual class will do just fine even against sophisticated argument. If you haven’t got the message, then I’ll be a little clearer: It may not be who you are, but I read a sense of superiority.  However at least we agree debate doesn’t equal truth, and everyone makes post-debate victory spin.


    I based "winning" on "Seems atheists have no one capable of challenging him." and "none are qualified to debate Lane Craig. I’ll leave it at that." you are propping up Craig and his views so this did create a false sense that being unchallenged means something. However I accept your clarification so no problem

    Quote
    Your hang up on formality comes off all-or-nothing.


    No it is literalism that creates this dynamic which forces an all or nothing view.

    Quote
    . Nonetheless difficult to understand where your outrage to Ali’s essay comes from: No great crime against logic occurred. You’re irritated an incorrect formula was used to dispute what you believe is myth.


    It is still a false dilemma. That is my point.

    Quote
    So what, isn’t that what atheists harp on about, religionists need to examine their belief, and does it matter how the examination comes about? I don’t know if Ali intentionally used fallacy as form of sophisticated argument. If he did, it was clever. The negative was stated, now the hadith believer must give positive explanation, and that in of itself will have problems.


    That was not his goal. Read his conclusion.

    "It is not difficult to see that Muhammad suffered from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. In fact TLE was just one of his ailments. The prophet suffered from other mental disorders and physical complications. I will speak about them in future. The real miracle is in the fact that a billion people follow a sick man for so long.  "

    Quote
    Lastly, not of importance but it was raised as incidental, and I’ll treat it likewise. I’m willing to venture your thoughts on science and philosophy had Carroll in mind. He overreached by putting “science to Immortality of the soul, which is not a scientific question” That is silly.


    The soul has not been demonstrated to exist yet people still maintain that souls exist and the NDE are the real. Carroll addresses points regarding both. It is still scientific as people claim to gain knowledge (information) from NDE which is still gaining "information" thus according to the claim. Such claims can be evaluated and measured. Although a direct study would be unethical.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/


  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #32 - April 30, 2016, 07:10 PM

    Quote
    The soul has not been demonstrated to exist yet people still maintain that souls exist and the NDE are the real.

     

    Nor do I expect science to ever demonstrate existence of soul.  As for NDE, for me its mere curiosity, nothing more. Same for people claiming to seen Heaven. The person may be genuine, but he may be genuinely wrong.

    However anything is possible. Its possible God does not exist, and scientists are right, we’re nothing but a collection of atoms. Strangeness of humans is just an illusion, nothing special. In finality the collection of what makes us, is really no different than pig fart (forgive my crude language). Everything is just matter, and will return to the earth and void we came from. I can accept that for myself, but not for my children and grandchildren when I look at their face.

    Death and the eternal void is not the worst thing that could happen to me. Death of my children and grandchildren; they never live again, would be worst thing that could happen to me. In there I believe everyone will at least partially agree. However because of them, it would be impossible to live my days filled with such dreadful thought and existence. In that godless world I would not waste another moment in putting end to my life, rather than continue in. Cowardly and selfish act perhaps, but true.

    I know to you and others here, all that I’ve said is lame, mere emotionalism verifying your views on God believers and crutch. Nonetheless I’m willing to venture for at least the majority of atheists here, science had little to do with your decision. You had your own reasons and charted your own course. Even if someone were to mathematical proof a connection of material to the immaterial it would not convince you otherwise.

    Please understand in no way did I intend an emotional appeal, or to lecture.

    Regards, Joseph
  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #33 - May 02, 2016, 09:29 AM

     

    Nor do I expect science to ever demonstrate existence of soul.  As for NDE, for me its mere curiosity, nothing more. Same for people claiming to seen Heaven. The person may be genuine, but he may be genuinely wrong. 


    I was not attacking your belief in NDE or lack of. Claiming NDE's happen, people gain information, etc, are claims science can address.

    Quote
    However anything is possible. Its possible God does not exist, and scientists are right, we’re nothing but a collection of atoms. Strangeness of humans is just an illusion, nothing special. In finality the collection of what makes us, is really no different than pig fart (forgive my crude language). Everything is just matter, and will return to the earth and void we came from. I can accept that for myself, but not for my children and grandchildren when I look at their face.

    Death and the eternal void is not the worst thing that could happen to me. Death of my children and grandchildren; they never live again, would be worst thing that could happen to me. In there I believe everyone will at least partially agree. However because of them, it would be impossible to live my days filled with such dreadful thought and existence. In that godless world I would not waste another moment in putting end to my life, rather than continue in. Cowardly and selfish act perhaps, but true.



    I had no intention to draw out such a reply. I was just clarifying Carrol's views, not putting pressure on your to defend your views in general, just those regarding Carrol.

    Quote
    I know to you and others here, all that I’ve said is lame, mere emotionalism verifying your views on God believers and crutch. Nonetheless I’m willing to venture for at least the majority of atheists here, science had little to do with your decision. You had your own reasons and charted your own course. Even if someone were to mathematical proof a connection of material to the immaterial it would not convince you otherwise. 


    You are making a conclusion based on a hypothetical as if that means anything. Ifs do not make arguments.

    Quote
    Please understand in no way did I intend an emotional appeal, or to lecture.


    I think you read more into my post than I had intended to communicate. Beyond the presupposition back with a hypothetical I have no issues to what you have said nor think it is relevant to the thread topic. Do not take an offense by I am just going to avoid going into a topic not part of the OP. If you wish to make a thread about your views feel free and I will comment there.

  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #34 - May 05, 2016, 03:50 PM

    Bogart, I’m not sure what you intended (if anything), but I was not about to answer one truism with another. Just the same you’re right, the issue is OT. And I should have ignored the incidental.

    I’ve had my say on Ali’s formula, doubtful anymore changes our position.

    Regards. Joseph
  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #35 - May 05, 2016, 04:18 PM

    .............
    I’ve had my say on Ali’s formula, doubtful anymore changes our position.

    Regards. Joseph

    Hello  Joseph  how are you doing? who is Ali and what is his formula?  let me hear this  concert first..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b0hFIf4Zaw

    and that  is Russian maestro Gergiev's orchestra performing  in  Palmyra..

    Palmyra.......Palmyra.... .  ..Palmyra.... Palmyra....

    Eh..err west and their Christ..and their Christianity...   Rabid Dogs roaming and eating flesh of those who can not fight....  

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #36 - May 05, 2016, 06:50 PM

    Greetings Yeezevee,

    I have no idea on actually identity of Ali, and neither do I care. If his/her identity is a concern, then you have hit a dead end here.

    Regards, Joseph
  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #37 - October 01, 2016, 05:36 PM

    Impossible to say. First we must ask:

    1. Was Muhammed a real tangible person? Some of the more awkward situations probably indicate some of the story at least is true, ie Satanic Verses, where he associated partners with Allah for several months.
    2. Were there multiple prophets/Muhammed's? For me the Mekkan and Medinan individuals seem very different. There were also others claiming prophethood around the same time.
    3. How much were the haddith tampered with even if he was 1 person? Either through Chinese whispers or embelishment or plain story writing? Obviously rationally we have to assume stories passed down over 200 years were not very accurate
    4. Were fits/epilypsia seen to mean someone had a conenction with the Gods and hence embelish the credibility of Muhammed?

    Whether he did or not i don't think he concocted his ideas in his dreams, he was merely a fraudulant soothsayer looking to retell stories.
  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #38 - October 02, 2016, 12:08 PM

    Impossible to say. First we must ask:

    1. Was Muhammed a real tangible person?

     
    [s] Some of the more awkward situations probably indicate some of the story at least is true, ie Satanic Verses, where he associated partners with Allah for several months.
    2. Were there multiple prophets/Muhammed's? For me the Mekkan and Medinan individuals seem very different. There were also others claiming prophethood around the same time.
    3. How much were the haddith tampered with even if he was 1 person? Either through Chinese whispers or embelishment or plain story writing? Obviously rationally we have to assume stories passed down over 200 years were not very accurate
    4. Were fits/epilypsia seen to mean someone had a conenction with the Gods and hence embelish the credibility of Muhammed?

    Whether he did or not i don't think he concocted his ideas in his dreams, he was merely a fraudulant soothsayer looking to retell stories.[/s]
     

    Ask those foolish people who considers "Muhammad was a real person " to provide Muhammad's  life story from Quran verses.

    If they can not provide proof then rest of your post becomes irrelevant on  'Muhammad"

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #39 - October 04, 2016, 12:11 PM

    I tend to think the negative stories of 'Muhammed' (was that his actual name or is it the Ancient Arabic/Syriac word for Messiah) maybe true. Such as the Satanic Verses, which destroys much of his credibility. The convenient revelations, such as the Quran stating:

    Muhammed only could have more than 4 wives.  “…for you only, not for the rest of the believers.” (Qur’an 33:50)

    Qur'an 66:1-2—O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths and Allah is your Protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise.

    Here's Tafsir Jalalayn commenting on this verse:

    O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Māriya — when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa, who had been away, but who upon returning [and finding out] became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own bed — by saying, ‘She is unlawful for me!’, seeking, by making her unlawful [for you], to please your wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful, having forgiven you this prohibition.

    For further confirmation, we have the following hadith:

    Sunan An-Nasa'i 3411—It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you" [66:1] until the end of the verse.

    Ofcourse it could be one of the later author's had the same issue with wives and slave women. There could have been a Quran or collection of Arabic Monotheism before Muhammed and he added bits to it and then they later claimed it was all his work.
  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #40 - October 04, 2016, 12:25 PM

    I tend to think the negative stories of 'Muhammed' (was that his actual name or is it the Ancient Arabic/Syriac word for Messiah) maybe true.
    Such as the Satanic Verses, which destroys much of his credibility. The convenient revelations, such as the Quran stating:

    Muhammed only could have more than 4 wives.  “…for you only, not for the rest of the believers.” (Qur’an 33:50)

    Qur'an 66:1-2—O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths and Allah is your Protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise.

    Here's Tafsir Jalalayn commenting on this verse:

    O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Māriya — when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa, who had been away, but who upon returning [and finding out] became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own bed — by saying, ‘She is unlawful for me!’, seeking, by making her unlawful [for you], to please your wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful, having forgiven you this prohibition.

    For further confirmation, we have the following hadith:

    Sunan An-Nasa'i 3411—It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you" [66:1] until the end of the verse.

    Ofcourse it could be one of the later author's had the same issue with wives and slave women. There could have been a Quran or collection of Arabic Monotheism before Muhammed and he added bits to it and then they later claimed it was all his work.

    where is the proof of that Muhammad was actual person  and Quran was revealed to him  dear RevertedRevert?  If you assume"Muhammad" was real person without proof then you can assume,imagine dream any thing.,  and if you do not have proof then rest of your post is not relevant

    Did you know the "Muhammad "  was hardly used in Quran?  at the best three times?   .. The meaning word "Muhammad"  is "Leader" ..nothing more nothing less..  

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #41 - October 04, 2016, 08:02 PM

    The earliest none Islamic sources are as early as 2 years after his given death, references:

    Doctrina Jacobi (July 634)

    [Jacob, himself a convert, wrote to encourage Christian faith in Jews of Carthage, forcibly converted in 632, in a tract that was completed before "the thirteenth of July in the seventh indiction," i.e. 634, when Jacob left Carthage. In it his cousin Justus appears telling how he heard of the killing of a member of the imperial guard, or candidatus, in a letter from his brother Abraham in Caesarea, in which the following appears.]

    When the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men's blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible. (Doctrina Jacobi V.16, 209. [p. 57])

    Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. ca. 639)

    [In a synodical letter without date, Sophronius gives an extensive list of heretics and asks, in the valedictions, that the following may be granted by God to "our Christ-loving and most gentle emperors":]

    a strong and vigorous sceptre to break the pride of all the barbarians, and especially of the Saracens who, on account of our sins, have now risen up against us unexpectedly and ravage all with cruel and feral design, with impious and godless audacity. More than ever, therefore, we entreat your Holiness to make urgent petitions to Christ so that he, receiving these favourably from you, may quickly quell their mad insolence and deliver these vile creatures, as before, to be the footstool of our God-given emperors. (Ep. synodica, PG 87, 3197D-3200A [p. 69])

    [The following comments are dated to December of 634.]

    We, however, because of our innumerable sins and serious misdemeanours, are unable to see these things, and are prevented from entering Bethlehem by way of the road. Unwillingly, indeed, contrary to our wishes, we are required to stay at home, not bound closely by bodily bonds, but bound by fear of the Saracens. (Christmas Sermon, 506 [p. 70])

    At once that of the Philistines, so now the army of the godless Saracens has captured the divine Bethlehem and bars our passage there, threatening slaughter and destruction if we leave this holy city and dare to approach our beloved and sacred Bethlehem. (Christmas Sermon, 507 [p. 70])

    If we were to live as is dear and pleasing to God, we would rejoice over the fall of the Saracen enemy and observe their near ruin and witness their final demise. For their blood-loving blade will enter their hearts, their bow will be broken and their arrows will be fixed in them. (Christmas Sermon, 515 [p. 71])

    [This dates to the 6th of December in 636 or 637.]

    But the present circumstances are forcing me to think differently about our way of life, for why are [so many] wars being fought among us? Why do barbarian raids abound? Why are the troops of the Saracens attacking us? Why has there been so much destruction and plunder? Why are there incessant outpourings of human blood? Why are the birds of the sky devouring human bodies? Why have churches been pulled down? Why is the cross mocked? Why is Christ, who is the dispenser of all good things and the provider of this joyousness of ours, blasphemed by pagan mouths (ethnikois tois stomasi) so that he justly cries out to us: "Because of you my name is blasphemed among the pagans," and this is the worst of all the terrible things that are happening to us. That is why the vengeful and God-hating Saracens, the abomination of desolation clearly foretold to us by the prophets, overrun the places which are not allowed to them, plunder cities, devastate fields, burn down villages, set on fire the holy churches, overturn the sacred monasteries, oppose the Byzantine armies arrayed against them, and in fighting raise up the trophies [of war] and add victory to victory. Moreover, they are raised up more and more against us and increase their blasphemy of Christ and the church, and utter wicked blasphemies against God. Those God-fighters boast of prevailing over all, assiduously and unrestrainably imitating their leader, who is the devil, and emulating his vanity because of which he has been expelled from heaven and been assigned to the gloomy shades. Yet these vile ones would not have accomplished this nor seized such a degree of power as to do and utter lawlessly all these things, unless we had first insulted the gift [of baptism] and first defiled the purification, and in this way grieved Christ, the giver of gifts, and prompted him to be angry with us, good though he is and though he takes no pleasure in evil, being the fount of kindness and not wishing to behold the ruin and destruction of men. We are ourselves, in truth, responsible for all these things and no word will be found for our defence. What word or place will be given us for our defence when we have taken all these gifts from him, befouled them and defiled everything with our vile actions? (Holy Baptism, 166-167 [pp. 72-73])

    [In a work originally composed by John Moschus (d. 619), but expanded by Sophronius (d. ca. 639), actually found only in an addition of the Georgian translation, the following entry appears, concerning a construction dated by tradition at 638, i.e., soon after the capture of Jerusalem ca. 637. It appears in a portion concerning Sophronius as recounted on the authority of his contemporary, the archdeacon Theodore, and may have been written down ca. 670.]

    the godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha). (Pratum spirituale, 100-102 [p. 63])

    AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa‘dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Mụhammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Ṃhmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.

    AG 947, indiction IX: The Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it; the Arabs climbed mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in [the monasteries of] Kedar and Benōthō. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest

    Seberos, around 660:

    At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], 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.
  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #42 - October 04, 2016, 11:02 PM

    The earliest none Islamic sources are as early as 2 years after his given death, references:

    Doctrina Jacobi (July 634)

    ................ I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. ........ (Doctrina Jacobi V.16, 209. [p. 57])

    Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. ca. 639)

    Well  dear  RevertedRevert   that  Jacobi guy who talked to some Christian/Jewish guy who must be describing a rogue that was wandering as Muhammad .,   "A... Muhammad "  .."A ..LEADER ".. A leader of bandits and thugs

    Quote
    [In a synodical letter without date, Sophronius gives an extensive list of heretics and asks, in the valedictions, that the following may be granted by God to "our Christ-loving and most gentle emperors":]

    a strong and vigorous sceptre to break the pride of all the barbarians, and especially of the Saracens who, on account of our sins, have now risen up against us unexpectedly and ravage all with cruel and feral design, with impious and godless audacity. More than ever, therefore, we entreat your Holiness to make urgent petitions to Christ so that he, receiving these favourably from you, may quickly quell their mad insolence and deliver these vile creatures, as before, to be the footstool of our God-given emperors. (Ep. synodica, PG 87, 3197D-3200A [p. 69])

    [The following comments are dated to December of 634.]

    We, however, because of our innumerable sins and serious misdemeanours, are unable to see these things, and are prevented from entering Bethlehem by way of the road. Unwillingly, indeed, contrary to our wishes, we are required to stay at home, not bound closely by bodily bonds, but bound by fear of the Saracens. (Christmas Sermon, 506 [p. 70])

    At once that of the Philistines, so now the army of the godless Saracens has captured the divine Bethlehem and bars our passage there, threatening slaughter and destruction if we leave this holy city and dare to approach our beloved and sacred Bethlehem. (Christmas Sermon, 507 [p. 70])

    If we were to live as is dear and pleasing to God, we would rejoice over the fall of the Saracen enemy and observe their near ruin and witness their final demise. For their blood-loving blade will enter their hearts, their bow will be broken and their arrows will be fixed in them. (Christmas Sermon, 515 [p. 71])


    ALL THAT IS NOTHING TO DO  WITH ORIGINAL MUHAMMAD PREACHER

    Quote
    [This dates to the 6th of December in 636 or 637.]

    But the present circumstances are forcing me to think differently about our way of life, for why are [so many] wars being fought among us? Why do barbarian raids abound? Why are the troops of the Saracens attacking us? Why has there been so much destruction and plunder? Why are there incessant outpourings of human blood? Why are the birds of the sky devouring human bodies? Why have churches been pulled down? Why is the cross mocked? Why is Christ, who is the dispenser of all good things and the provider of this joyousness of ours, blasphemed by pagan mouths (ethnikois tois stomasi) so that he justly cries out to us: "Because of you my name is blasphemed among the pagans," and this is the worst of all the terrible things that are happening to us. That is why the vengeful and God-hating Saracens, the abomination of desolation clearly foretold to us by the prophets, overrun the places which are not allowed to them, plunder cities, devastate fields, burn down villages, set on fire the holy churches, overturn the sacred monasteries, oppose the Byzantine armies arrayed against them, and in fighting raise up the trophies [of war] and add victory to victory. Moreover, they are raised up more and more against us and increase their blasphemy of Christ and the church, and utter wicked blasphemies against God. Those God-fighters boast of prevailing over all, assiduously and unrestrainably imitating their leader, who is the devil, and emulating his vanity because of which he has been expelled from heaven and been assigned to the gloomy shades. Yet these vile ones would not have accomplished this nor seized such a degree of power as to do and utter lawlessly all these things, unless we had first insulted the gift [of baptism] and first defiled the purification, and in this way grieved Christ, the giver of gifts, and prompted him to be angry with us, good though he is and though he takes no pleasure in evil, being the fount of kindness and not wishing to behold the ruin and destruction of men. We are ourselves, in truth, responsible for all these things and no word will be found for our defence. What word or place will be given us for our defence when we have taken all these gifts from him, befouled them and defiled everything with our vile actions? (Holy Baptism, 166-167 [pp. 72-73])

    [In a work originally composed by John Moschus (d. 619), but expanded by Sophronius (d. ca. 639), actually found only in an addition of the Georgian translation, the following entry appears, concerning a construction dated by tradition at 638, i.e., soon after the capture of Jerusalem ca. 637. It appears in a portion concerning Sophronius as recounted on the authority of his contemporary, the archdeacon Theodore, and may have been written down ca. 670.]

    the godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha). (Pratum spirituale, 100-102 [p. 63])


    AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa‘dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Mụhammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Ṃhmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.

    AG 947, indiction IX: The Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it; the Arabs climbed mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in [the monasteries of] Kedar and Benōthō. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest

    Now In that quotes ., it says " On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa‘dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Mụhammad"

    THE LAST MUHAMMAD.. A LEADER..... DIED IN THE YEAR 632 CE., So   634 CE  MUHAMMAD WAS ANOTHER LEADER ANOTHER IMPOSTOR   dear RevertedRevert  


    Quote
    Seberos, around 660:

    At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], 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.


    Nothing to do with   "Muhammad "  that is described in Quran....

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #43 - October 05, 2016, 12:29 AM

    Let me add few links here that "HISTORICITY OF MUHAMMAD" was discussed here as well as in other forums..

    Quote

     

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Was Muhammed an Epileptic ?
     Reply #44 - October 05, 2016, 01:20 PM

    To Rev and Yeez,

    Can´t the historical truth be somewhere in the middle of your two positions?

    Probably there was a leader of the Saracens since definitely the Saracens took over the land. Was he called Mo at the time? Indications are there that he was, but no certainty.

    Did "the leader" die in 632 AD? Seems very probable that he did not. Or maybe there were several "Mo´s" during these first decennia, and conflated to one at a later date (a bit like the Maria-Magdalena´s in NT)?

    What we can deduce from these ancient texts is that proto-Islam seems to be a Messianic sect and is viewed as such by the contemporaries, which is what Gallez postulates....
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »