Why are there no comparative history in Islam instead of Hadiths made by moslems?

  • Thread starter Thread starter footy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

footy

Guest
Now I open up one interesting mistery for all. Please be free to give opinions and facts. šŸ˜ƒ
 
40.png
footy:
Now I open up one interesting mistery for all. Please be free to give opinions and facts. šŸ˜ƒ
Click to expand...
Iā€™m sorry, but I have no idea what youā€™re talking about. Can you clarify?
 
In the early birth of Islamā€¦and the progress of Islam during the time of Muhammad, we donā€™t have any account instead of everything written in Sira or Hadiths. Thatā€™s my point. Is that clear enough?
 
Wellā€¦do we have stories of Muhammad in his time, written by non moslems? šŸ˜ƒ thatā€™s my point.
 
40.png
footy:
Wellā€¦do we have stories of Muhammad in his time, written by non moslems? šŸ˜ƒ thatā€™s my point.
Click to expand...
Hi footy welcome!

I dont know if non muslim at that time recorded about Muhammad or no. But we can read his biography in sira and his saying in hadith. Is you point to make sure that does he exist or no?
 
Hola Cyber.

What I want to ask to the muslims are: Do they know the reason why a very distinctive person like him - no people OUTSIDE his followers making an account? Like the Jews in Arabia? Or else?
 
Why? Isnā€™t it interesting? We have accounts on Jesus from the Jews that was really bad, but why we canā€™t have that kind of account for Muhammad? šŸ˜ƒ And why canā€™t or wonā€™t they answer? Are they afraid of revealing a gory truth? šŸ˜ƒ
 
40.png
footy:
Why? Isnā€™t it interesting? We have accounts on Jesus from the Jews that was really bad, but why we canā€™t have that kind of account for Muhammad? šŸ˜ƒ And why canā€™t or wonā€™t they answer? Are they afraid of revealing a gory truth? šŸ˜ƒ
Click to expand...
Jesusā€™ time and culture are not to be compared with Muhammadā€™s for several reasons. They lived in two different worlds. In this case, a major reason why very rare to no non-Islamic traditions exist about Muhammad (PBUH) is because the harsh desert region he lived and taught in had a mobile, transient bedouin and caravan culture where books were a luxury people could not afford to keep because they couldnā€™t carry with them on camel caravans or in search of water oases or pasture land.

Arabia was a wasteland of sand dunes, without any schools, libraries, monasteries, churches, synagogues or other types of non-essential/non-dwelling buildings. Youā€™ll see why people couldnā€™t afford to carry books around when they werenā€™t even assured of having the basic needs of survival (such as food and water) on a daily basis, and had to keep a sword in hand all the time to protect against theft of such precious resources in a lawless land ruled by no one.

Having a ā€œbook cultureā€ requires a settled, close-knit urban culture, like that of Jesusā€™ Roman Palestine. In Arabia on the other hand, all literary traditions had to be preserved orally, and this precisely why the bedouins were masters of oral recitation.

Even most of the relatively few Christians and Jews who lived in Arabia had no access to their own Scriptures in book form. Itā€™s recorded that the Jews of Medina had at least one copy of their Scripture, though we donā€™t know how complete it was. In the case of Christians, what few of them did possess written Scripture, it was probably only a select page or two from a Gospel. Why or how could Jews and Christians keep a record of Muhammad (PBUH), who they didnā€™t believe in, when even what they did believe in was tough to keep? This would have simply been fantastical luxury.

I should note that even the Muslim sources on Muhammadā€™s life, the Sirah and Hadith, were only compiled and written in cities well to the north of Arabia where Islam had spread after Muhammadā€™s death, and which had settled, urban cultures and things like libraries.
 
Oh geeā€¦ šŸ˜ƒ the Jews and Christians in Arabia were called People of The Books, because they had Talmud and Injeel. I wonder, can you tell me why they never made any recording concerning Muhammad? And where are they now? Do they still exist? If not, why? šŸ˜ƒ
 
40.png
footy:
Oh geeā€¦ šŸ˜ƒ the Jews and Christians in Arabia were called People of The Books, because they had Talmud and Injeel. I wonder, can you tell me why they never made any recording concerning Muhammad? And where are they now? Do they still exist? If not, why? šŸ˜ƒ
Click to expand...
theyā€™re dead footy!! :confused:
 
Hahahaā€¦dead? ALL? Tsunamy or other cause? šŸ˜ƒ Hahahaā€¦or was there holocaust? :rolleyes: Let us waiting for our muslim friends to answer. šŸ˜ƒ
 
Footy,

There really arenā€™t any reliable contemporary accounts of Jesus by Jews or anyone other than his followersā€“with the possible exception of a passage in Josephus that is usually regarded as a Christian interpolation. And then there are some very brief references in Roman sources that donā€™t appear to have any independent information (theyā€™re just summarizing what the Christians said). The Talmudic references may not be to Jesus at all, and at any rate the Talmud wasnā€™t compiled till several centuries after Jesusā€™ time.

Edwin
 
"**Additional Support **

Extra-biblical sources are another avenue worth pursuing when determining whether the New Testament texts speak reliably concerning historical issues. While less frequently used by scholars, a number of ancient secular sources mention various aspects of Jesusā€™ life, corroborating the picture presented by the Gospels.10 The writers of these sources include ancient historians such as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Thallus. Jewish sources such as Josephus and the Talmud add to our knowledge. Government officials such as Pliny the Younger and even Roman Caesars Trajan and Hadrian describe early Christian beliefs and practices. Greek historian and satirist Lucian and Syrian Mara Bar-Serapion provide other details. Several nonorthodox, Gnostic writings speak about Jesus in a more theological manner.11

Overall, at least seventeen non-Christian writings record more than fifty details concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus details concerning the earliest church. Most frequently reported is Jesusā€™ death, mentioned by twelve sources. Dated approximately 20 to 150 years after Jesusā€™ death, these secular sources are quite early by the standards of ancient historiography.

Altogether, these non-Christian sources mention that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, performed miracles, led disciples, and that many thought he was deity. These sources call him a good teacher or a philosopher and state that his message included conversion, denial of the gods, fellowship, and immortality. Further, they claim he was crucified for blasphemy but rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples, who were themselves transformed into bold preachers.12

ā€¦

10While it is true that secular references to Jesus are generally brief and sometimes derived from Christian sources, it does not follow that they should be largely ignored, as is often their fate.
11For specific details, see Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, MO.: College Press, 1996), esp. chap. 9. Compare R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1986); F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); Edwin Yamauchi, ā€œJesus outside the New Testament: What Is the Evidence?ā€ in Jesus under Fire, ed. Michael Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).
12For details, see Habermas, The Historical Jesus, chap. 11."

Excerpted from ā€˜Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliableā€™ by Gary Habermas apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html
 
 
40.png
footy:
Oh geeā€¦ šŸ˜ƒ the Jews and Christians in Arabia were called People of The Books, because they had Talmud and Injeel.
Click to expand...
This is not the meaning of the label ā€œPeople of the Bookā€. It doesnā€™t refer physical books. Note how ā€œthe Bookā€ is capitalized. In the Qurā€™an ā€œthe Bookā€ is a term for divine revelation in general, not a reference to specific Scriptures (except in a few contexts). Divine revelation doesnā€™t have to be recorded in a physical text. The Qurā€™an is primarly an oral recitation, and Jesusā€™ Gospel too was mostly an oral revelation.

And though the Qurā€™an calls Christians and Jews ā€œPeople of the Bookā€ because their faiths are based on what was once divine revelation, the Christians and Jews of Muhammadā€™s Arabia were subject to the bookless culture of survival no less than their Muslim and polytheist counterparts.
 
Honey bunny, there are some verses in Koran that mentioned Talmud and Injeel as Booksā€¦as a Muslim, you should know thatā€¦hehe
 
40.png
footy:
Why? Isnā€™t it interesting? We have accounts on Jesus from the Jews that was really bad, but why we canā€™t have that kind of account for Muhammad? šŸ˜ƒ And why canā€™t or wonā€™t they answer? Are they afraid of revealing a gory truth? šŸ˜ƒ
Click to expand...
Maybe the muslims killed or enslaved the non-muslims aroundā€¦

Actually, if I were a non-muslim and I saw Mohommed and his followers wielding scimitars, I would be too busy running than recording anything. Jesus, the Apostles, and the rest of the Church were far more approachable and therefore much easier to make records.The records wouldnā€™t be epic since the Apostles didnā€™t need to conquer cities but its worth mention I am sure.

Just my 2 centsā€¦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top