Look where mohammad took his stories from.

[inJESUS]

by the way, am neither orientalist nor a missionary …no need for christianphobia…

 

[r.gonzales]

inJESUS:

Did i quote the hadith? nop, i quoted the quran care to refute that allah talked about satan talking to mohammad?

there’s no need to comment on those verses because the story of the satanic verses originates from weak and inauthentic hadeeths, not the Quranic verses you quoted. those are used by orientalists and missionary types in attempts to support these weak and spurious narrations, when in fact they don’t speak of this alleged incident whatsoever.

btw, an orientalist is loosely defined as one who studies the east, including islam and its peoples. no christianphobia going on here. just calling a duck a duck.

 

[inJESUS]

there’s no need to comment on those verses because the story of the satanic verses originates from weak and inauthentic hadeeths, not the Quranic verses you quoted

and what do these verses talk about? they even mention the 3 goddesses annd howsatan always tampers with the prophets…whats the purpose? i read the muslim comment, they refute nothing. The quran is very clear.

. those are used by orientalists and missionary types in attempts to support these weak and spurious narrations, when in fact they don’t speak of this alleged incident whatsoever.

they speak of idol godesses and THAT MOHAMMAD COMMITED SHIRK.

btw, an orientalist is loosely defined as one who studies the east, including islam and its peoples. no christianphobia going on here. just calling a duck a duck.

Well u mentioned christian missionaries as well but nevermind

 

[inJESUS]

If this story was told by people opposed to Islam then it would be fair to question whether they had invented this story as a way of discrediting Muhammad. But it is inconceivable that Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa’d, and Tabari would invent a story about Muhammad accepting idols.

There are references to the event found in Bukhari. Although the actual Satanic verses are not recorded by Bukhari, part of the event is related:

6.385 Narrated Ibn Abbas:
The Prophet performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat an-Najm, and all the Muslims and pagans and Jinns and human beings prostrated along with him.
What is of note here is that the Hadith states that after Muhammad spoke “The Star”, the pagans prostrated. This is exactly what the four biographers state. Remember, the pagans were totally opposed to Muhammad. They disliked him; he frequently insulted their faith. Yet here, something Muhammad said, caused them to prostrate with him and the Muslims, in “one accord”. Muhammad had said something persuasive to move them to bow in worship. Of course it was the Satanic verses. There is no allusion to anything else in the biographical material. Neither is anything specifically recorded in Sahih Hadith or the Quran that refers to other than the Satanic Verses event.

Note again how this Hadith lines up with the four biographies.

 

[r.gonzales]

it seems you don’t really understand what i posted above. the incident where prophet muhammad was reciting soorah an-najm by the ka’bah is true and did occur and the polytheist makkans did prostrate themselves at the end of soorah, as is confirmed by al-bukhaaree’s saheeh. the portion of the story regarding the the “satanic verses” is what is spurious and inauthentic, as the quotes above sufficiently show.

as for ibn ishaaq, at-tabaree, al-waaqidee and ibn sa’d, their biographies all contain a number of spurious reports and weak narrations. they merely reported these narrations and reports, they didn’t invent them themselves.

 

[inJESUS]

it seems you don’t really understand what i posted above. the incident where prophet muhammad was reciting soorah an-najm by the ka’bah is true and did occur and the polytheist makkans did prostrate themselves at the end of soorah, as is confirmed by al-bukhaaree’s saheeh.

what did pagans prostrate for? what is common between mohammad and paganism? all you did is explaining what i already wrote.

as for ibn ishaaq, at-tabaree, al-waaqidee and ibn sa’d, their biographies all contain a number of spurious reports and weak narrations. they merely reported these narrations and reports, they didn’t invent them themselves.

i dont care about hadith now. I early posted only from quran where allah says all prophets, which include, mohamad, were tampered by satan. Its very clear. If it werent the truth, then why did allah bother such a meaningless verse that demeans prophets including mohammad?

 

[Shenango]

inJESUS:

i dont care about hadith now. I early posted only from quran where allah says all prophets, which include, mohamad, were tampered by satan. Its very clear. If it werent the truth, then why did allah bother such a meaningless verse that demeans prophets including mohammad?

inJESUS,

I have not been responding to your posts in this thread because frankly, you are so ignorant about Islam and Muhammad (PBUH) that you have no right to discuss anything regarding them, much less make charges about them, as you have been disrespectfully doing.

But just in case you’re interested, read this extensive refutation of the “Satanic Verses” story that I personally authored before you bring such charges again.

 

[Cyber_Knight]

I think InJESUS did great posts here. You are totally wrong address it to her/him! Just refute her/his claim rather than ad hominem all the time. Are you afraid Gonzales and Shenango?

 

[discipleofJesus]

Shenango:

But just in case you’re interested, read this extensive refutation of the “Satanic Verses” story that I personally authored before you bring such charges again.

Silas’ response to ‘Islamic Awareness’ on ‘Muhammad and the Satanic Verses’ answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/sverses.htm pretty much refutes all your main arguments

Also, the Quranic verses that inJESUS referred to

“**Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed ** (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise;
That He may make that which the devil proposeth a temptation for those in whose hearts is a disease, and those whose hearts are hardened - Lo! the evil-doers are in open schism”
(Sura 22:52-53)

are clearly referring to the ‘Satanic Verses’ incident

 

[r.gonzales]

firstly, that rebuttal by silas is weak and doesn’t refute any of what shenango mentioned.

as for this…

inJESUS:

what did pagans prostrate for?

they prostrated at the command to prostrate, which occurs at the end of the the soorah, verse 62–a whole 42 verses after the mention of the three idols, al-laat, al-'uzzaa and manaah, which occurs in verses 19 and 20. here’s the portion of soorah an-najm which the polytheists prostrated along with the verses immediately preceding it: thus, in which of your Lord’s blessings do you doubt? this (muhammad) is a warner from the first warners. the time (judgement day) has drawn near. there is not besides Allah an averter for it. are you then amazed at this speech? and you laugh and do not cry, while you are haughty. so prostrate to Allah and worship Him.

you should try reading the soorah… you’ll find that it makes no sense to have those “satanic verses” inserted where they’re alleged to have been inserted, given the context in which those three idols were mentioned in the soorah. nor does it make sense for the polytheists to have prostrated due to the recitation of such alleged verses, especially since the command to prostrate is one that commands prostration and worship for Allah alone.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

inJESUS:

i dont care about hadith now. I early posted only from quran where allah says all prophets, which include, mohamad, were tampered by satan. Its very clear. If it werent the truth, then why did allah bother such a meaningless verse that demeans prophets including mohammad?

firstly, as i mentioned, the source of the story concerning the alleged “satanic verses” are the spurious narrations mentioned by some of the chroniclers in their biography of prophet muhammad. the verses you quote from the Quran are merely used as “evidence” to support the claims that the story actually happened. the vereses in and of themselves have no direct correlation to the alleged incident.

all the narrations containing mention of these alleged verses are weak and inacceptable due to their spurious nature, as has been clarified by many scholars of hadeeth—old and new. they also contradict, not only more authentic eyewitness accounts of what actually occurred with the polytheists prostrating upon hearing the command to prostrate found at the end of soorah an-najm, but they also contradict themselves as has been pointed out by m. m. ali in his book, “sirat al-nabi and the orientalists”.

which leads us to your last question here… let’s take a look at what Allah actually said in those two passages you quoted. ibn katheer states concerning 17:73-75, “Allah informs about the aiding of His messenger, may Allah’s greetings and His peace be upon him, his consolidation, his protection and his safety from from the evil of the evildoers and the plot of the wicked ones. and that He, exalted is He, is the One responsible for his affair and his help. and that He does not entrust it to anyone from His creation. rather He is his Ally, his Protector, his Helper, his Supporter, his Grantor of success, and the Endorser of His religion over whoever had enmity for him, opposed him, and defies him—in the east of the earth and its west.” it is also stated in tafseer al-muyassar, “the polytheists were almost close to diverting you – o messenger – from the Quran that Allah revealed to you, for you to invent against Us other than what We revealed to you and if you did what they wanted, they certainly would have taken you as a special beloved one.”

so as is clearly evident, you misinterpret these verses to be about satan trying to divert prophet muhammad away from what was revealed to him, when in reality this passage speaks of the polytheist makkans’ failed attempts to sway prophet muhammad from his mission and to get him to fabricate lies against Allah.

as for the passage from soorah al-hajj 52-53, then regarding this passage and what many of the exegetes mention of this story concerning the “satanic verses”, ibn katheer states what i quoted in one of the links i provided above, showing the spurious nature of the reports concerning it. thus, making evidently clear the error of the exegetes who do mention this spurious story in explaining these verses. as for the verses themselves, which should read, “We did not sent before you any messenger, nor prophet except that if he aspired, satan cast into his aspiration, then Allah obliterates what satan casts, thus Allah gives authority to His verses and Allah is All-knowing, Wise. * so that He makes what satan casts a tribulation for those in whose hearts is a disease and whose hearts have hardened. surely the oppressors are certainly in a far-reaching discord,” then as is stated in tafseer al-muyassar, these verses mean “We did not send before you – o messenger – any messenger, nor prophet except when he read Allah’s book, satan cast whispers and doubts upon its reading in order to divert the people from following what they read and recited. but Allah invalidates satan’s plot and his whispers cease and He strengthens His clear verses.” and with all the evidence proving that the alleged incident never happened – along with the fact that all the prophets and messengers were infallible in conveying what Allah revealed to them, it’s impossible for these verses to refer to the spurious event.

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

firstly, that rebuttal by silas is weak and doesn’t refute any of what shenango mentioned.

Not true, it is not weak and does pretty much refute all of Shenango’s main arguments.

I guess if others want to find out they should read both Shenango’s article and Silas’ article.

Here are some examples of Silas’ article refuting Shenango’s main arguments

Shenango stated in his article

Exposing The Fraud

The story of the “Satanic Verses”, though intriguing to ponder, is however, a fraud, and has been exposed as such for centuries through:

1. internal historical contradictions

1. internal textual contradictions

1. external inferences

Silas refutes claim 1. internal historical contradictions (see article for more evidence)

Response #3

This argument rests upon the chronological time of the revelation of 17:73 - 75. The early Muslim sources - Tabari and Ibn Sa’d, say these verses were revealed around the time the Satanic verses were spoken by Muhammad, not at the time of the Miraj.

Additionally, the Quran is haphazardly composed. Verses that Muhammad spoke in Medina were mixed in with verses that he spoke in Mecca. Frequently, Muhammad told that verses he spoke at one time were to be recited with verses revealed at a much earlier time. To this date, Islamic scholars have not been able to determine a unified chronological sequence of the revelation of the Quran’s chapters. While there are certain portions that can be put in some logical sequence, much of its chronology is indeterminate; the Quran is a hodgepodge of verses that have been spliced together. So, to base an argument on the supposed chronological order of the Quran is akin to building a house upon sinking sand. It cannot stand.

This complaint / denial argument has also been defeated by John Gilchrist in “Muhammad and the Religion of Islam”. Let me quote from page 120:

“The other argument is weak in that there is no concrete proof that the first part of Surah 53 refers to the miraj which followed the emigration to Abyssinia. As shown already, it almost certainly refers to one of Muhammad’s initial visions, limited by the Quran itself to the two he had when his ministry began. Unfortunately one finds that virtually all Muslim arguments of a factual nature against this story are equally weak.”
Gilchrist goes on to quote Bell on the composition of the Quranic verses of 22:51-53:

"The surah has in fact become quite disjointed. Verses 51 - 53 addressed to the prophet personally, are quite out of connection. (Bell, “The Quran Translated”, Volume 1, page 316.)

Silas refutes claim 2. internal textual contradictions (see article for more evidence)

Response #4

The Muslims who put together this argument did not bother to do their homework. Otherwise they would have read in Tabari that the Satanic verses were cancelled out by the critical verses of the goddesses. I have previously posted this out of Tabari:

"Thus God removed the sorrow from his messenger, reassured him about that which he had feared and cancelled the words which Satan had cast on his tongue, that their gods were the high flying cranes whose intercession was accepted with approval. He now revealed, following the mention of “al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other,” the words:
“Are yours the males and his the females? That indeed were an unfair division! They are but names which you have named, you and your fathers.”

to the words: “to whom he wills and accept”".

Consequently, the entire Muslim argument here falls apart. The Satanic verses were not initially revealed with the verses that cancel them. Unfortunately, this type of slipshod work is the state of the art of today’s Islamic “scholarship”.

cont…

 

[discipleofJesus]

…
Silas refutes claim 3. external inferences (see article for more evidence)

Response #6

It has been already established that Bukhari’s Hadith does contain an indirect reference to the event. Additionally, many other sources of Hadith also record the event. Just because the Sahih Hadith do not specifically mention it does not mean it never happened. The later collectors of Hadith could have been embarrassed, as Ibn Hisham was, and decided to leave the event out of their collections.

Another part of this Muslim argument says that the pagans were so overawed when they heard “The Star” chapter, that they bowed in prostration. However, these pagans had already heard Muhammad recite much of the Quran, and they rejected it. Further, if they were “overawed”, why did the persecution against the Muslims grow immediately worse? The evidence, i.e., the early Islamic sources tell us that they prostrated themselves because Muhammad allowed their worship. As the pagans told Muhammad:

“We recognize that it is God who gives life and death, who creates and who provides sustenance, but if these gods of ours intercede for us with him, and if you give them a share, we are with you.”

See the rest of the article by Silas for more evidence that pretty much refutes all of Shenango’s main arguments and more

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Just a simple question fm an ordinary people like me : WHY DOES THE PROPHET OF GOD CAST THE VERSES THAT IS NOT FROM GOD BUT SATAN?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Shenango:

Greetings Rodrigo,

Looks like what I meant to say sailed wide of everybody’s head on this thread.

Not true. I understood your implications perfectly.

Shenango:

I will discuss the issue of parallelisms in the Bible and the Qur’an for its own sake if you’d like, but to me the issue is moot.

Then I await your participation with eagerness.

Shenango:

What you all seemingly ignore is that the issue of parallelisms concludes essentially that Muhammad (PBUH) was a liar, hands down.

If that is the conclusion, so be it. That is what the Quran itself says was the allegations against Muhammad – that he authored the Quran.

I have pointed out the implications of the parallelism. Please read the parallelism thread before commenting. I’ve covered this already.

Shenango:

It’s like you guys forget that the Qur’an claims it’s fully a revelation of God, not the work of Muhammad (PBUH).

You have just committed the logical fallacy of the petition principii or circular argument. According to Muhammad the Quran is the revelation of God. According to the Quran Muhammad is merely the messenger and not the author.

Shenango:

It doesn’t matter to me what Muhammad (PBUH) knew, or who he met, or what Jewish and Christian priests might have taught him, or what his Companions knew. At the end of the day, the accusations that Muhammad (PBUH) borrowed from earlier Scriptures to compose the Qur’an is necessarily saying that Muhammad (PBUH) authored the Qur’an…and this is what is unacceptable to Muslims, and what makes the discussion of parallelisms moot in my view.

I am not concerned with what is acceptable or unacceptable to Muslims. If we all held that view we wouldn’t be making critical analysis of Islam, would we? We would merely be trying to outdo each other in heaping platitudes without exercising our reasoning.

Shenango:

But if Muhammad’s sincerity about the truth of his message as a revelation from God cannot be reasonably doubted, and it cannot in my view…then the whole discussion about parallelisms is a distraction and pointless waste of time.

That is your view. My view is that his sincerity can and I can prove it using the example of the parallelism.

Shenango:

And you will never convince me that at 2/3rds into his lifespan, Muhammad (PBUH) all of a sudden grew ambitious for power, women, wealth, land or any of the things skeptics claim motivated him to make up the world’s 2nd (soon to be 1st) largest religion by lying about receiving revelations from God, which he was actually composing himself from various sources he happened upon.

You are already pre-supposing that this is impossible without looking at the evidence. One could say you have closed your mind.

Shenango:

Typically, enduring a dozen assassination attempts (among the other multitude of hardships the Prophet (PBUH) underwent), while absolutely rejecting offers of power, money or women…or any of the other incentives that drive male ambition, is enough to prove that a man is sincere about a cause. That’s because nobody in his right mind would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for something he knows is a lie…unless he was crazy.

That is a possibility too.

Shenango:

Add to that the personal hardship that ‘creating’ a religion that covers every facet of life, such as Islam, out of scratch…accusations of insincerity become mind-boggling. Everything from carrying around a book the size of the New Testament all in his head, to making elaborate rites of Pilgrimage, prayer, fasting and distribution of alms to the poor…to his personal devotion…creating supplications for every imaginable scenario and spending half or more of his nights in prayer to God…according to his Companions until his legs turned blue and numb…to teaching on every topic imaginable from war ethics to table manners…and so much more…and observing all this…

You could say the same for other cult leaders.

Shenango:

Nearly everything that Muslims do or say in regards to their religion can be traced directly back to the Prophet (PBUH) himself, or the Qur’an. The entire burden of the soon-to-be largest religion in the world lays squarely on the shoulders of this man. How the heck could anyone possibly believe he just made all of this up? It’s not humanly possible, much less likely, for a normal human being to do all this, and while being threatened with death at every turn, in order to gain any kind of material possession. I don’t care what it is that is desired…there are easier, and less risky ways (which Muhammad (PBUH) turned down) to do it than to create the voluminous, gigantic theology that is Islam out of thin air.

You could say the same for other cult leaders.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Shenango:

In other words, unless you believe him to be crazy, there’s no reasonable (and I emphasize that word) way to make Muhammad (PBUH) out to be an insincere fraud, that is if you accept the sources we have about his life to be authentic (and which if you don’t, there’s not much to discuss really).

I believe him to be an very cunning man.

Shenango:

As I see it, there are only four options (not three, as Lewis posited) people who believe in absolute religious truth have to choose from when deciding about all these religious figures, such as Muhammad, Jesus (PBUT), Buddha, Lao Tzu, Joseph Smith Jr. etc. Either the figure is:

A) lying.

B) crazy.

C) misrepresented (their teachings/lives are not presented accurately, either though outright misrepresentation or corruption of sources).

D) true.

Now you will notice that Muslims, with good justification documented by Biblical criticism, pick option C when it comes to Jesus (PBUH), but that Christians always seem to go for the jugular with option A about Muhammad (PBUH), even though when it comes to the Prophet (PBUH), option A is the hardest of the four to prove. Why this is so always fascinates me.

I will prove option A) with the parallelism discussion.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

firstly, that rebuttal by silas is weak and doesn’t refute any of what shenango mentioned.

as for this…

they prostrated at the command to prostrate, which occurs at the end of the the soorah, verse 62–a whole 42 verses after the mention of the three idols, al-laat, al-'uzzaa and manaah, which occurs in verses 19 and 20. here’s the portion of soorah an-najm which the polytheists prostrated along with the verses immediately preceding it: thus, in which of your Lord’s blessings do you doubt? this (muhammad) is a warner from the first warners. the time (judgement day) has drawn near. there is not besides Allah an averter for it. are you then amazed at this speech? and you laugh and do not cry, while you are haughty. so prostrate to Allah and worship Him.

you should try reading the soorah… you’ll find that it makes no sense to have those “satanic verses” inserted where they’re alleged to have been inserted, given the context in which those three idols were mentioned in the soorah. nor does it make sense for the polytheists to have prostrated due to the recitation of such alleged verses, especially since the command to prostrate is one that commands prostration and worship for Allah alone.

con’t…

Please explain again how the pagans would obey the command of a God they don’t believe in?

 

[exoflare]

oat soda:

you forgot option F) diabolical inspiration. it is known that mohammed removed certain texts from the quran because they were inspired from devil, hence the satanic verses. muhammed was worried that some of the revelation he recieved wasn’t from God but from somewhere else. genies to muslims, or demons or fallen angels to christians.

I was going to mention that before I scrolled up and saw your post just now. Although I really doubt it played any role with Mohammed. With the early “revelations” I guess that’s debatable, but the later ones just start to become so out-of-convenience and self-serving to whatever his current situation presented him, like they were just concocted on the spot. Furthermore, a devil wouldn’t have made such trivial mistakes as mixing up the identity of Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary the sister of Aaron… anyhow I’ve already said too much. Back to your regularly scheduled debate.

 

[inJESUS]

exoflare:

I was going to mention that before I scrolled up and saw your post just now. Although I really doubt it played any role with Mohammed. With the early “revelations” I guess that’s debatable, but the later ones just start to become so out-of-convenience and self-serving to whatever his current situation presented him, like they were just concocted on the spot. Furthermore, a devil wouldn’t have made such trivial mistakes as mixing up the identity of Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary the sister of Aaron… anyhow I’ve already said too much. Back to your regularly scheduled debate.

the Christians of Najran already confronted mohammad about his mistake ; to get out of the situation, he claimed that this is how people of ancient times were called, that is, they are called after some pious man what a mistake

 

[inJESUS]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Please explain again how the pagans would obey the command of a God they don’t believe in?

exactly…what common is their between them? how was mohammad able to join them in his prayers when they already dont believe his allah?and why would they bow, knowing that mohammad’s allah condemned their paganism? it seems there must have been some common grounds