The Search for Muhammad has Ended
-
Salaam theNabster,
It is of course not without consideration I am saying what I did. I have no agenda but I like the truth probably just as much as you like.
I have actually not convinced myself concerning the existence or non-existence of Muhammad, but there is a lot that does not add up. It does not really matter since I have Quran and a way of interpreting it, even if I am curious about who wrote Quran.
Whether Ali wrote Quran or not is also figuratively speaking and as far as I am concerned I wrote "I think" based upon what I have seen and heard and logical considerations. Concerning hadith and hearsay this Ali has the most righteous wordings attributed to him.
As I wrote in the earlier post, the Persian empire did severely affect the faith system in the Middle-East and were involved in more than people care to admit. The greater part of the so-called Old Testament and also Book of Moses testify to a big Zoroastrian influence to an extent that the practice is in fact Zoroastrianism all out. I study the origin of Zoroastrianism myself and their practices.
The important thing with this is not whether it is authentic or not but how Persians had influence in the region on religious matters with their clergy because the Persians were not really Pagans all of them but they adhered to what is called Zoroastrianism which could be considered a monotheism. If you have dominance somewhere you also have dominance of religious matters.
It is not without research that I talked about Jesus whereabouts and it is true that much of the events of faith involving the tradition of the Abrahamic faiths are taking place in Mesopotamia (today's Iraq) and also Elam, but possibly westward too. Nineveh was there, Ur was there, Babylon was there.
I am not pushing a Shia ideology if you think that I am doing this. But I know Quran has been mistreated and not exactly kept in high regard through the years. Yemen is interesting from the Arabic perspective. However, history is not as officially relayed but very different. Persians WERE very influential in perverting modern Islam and it is not exactly that one can deny that in their right mind. I am not speaking positively in my previous post about Persians if that is what you think. I am speaking of a corrupting clergy with great influence due to the greatness of the old empire(s) Persia. It is denial to think they had no finger in this.
I think Persian rebels and clerics rallied the Arabs against Persia's weakened state due to political disputes and took the right to interpret Quran in a currently to me unknown way except through hypotheses. The alleged conquest of Persia happened early according to traditional reports. That Sunni hadith are written by men of Persian descent is a hint of that. Actually it was just a power struggle and hunt for loot and world domination.
The Persian Empire(s) are also known for adopting other languages than their own as offical language. Aramaic was made the Imperial language (Achemedian), probably for religious reasons. Later Arabic was made the Imperial language for religious reasons (as the caliphates of Islam). Still Persians were behind it. You all the time have to regard who control empires everywhere for they control religious spread and the clerics fabricate things for convenience.
Persia, despite their power, never really officially conquered the Arabian peninsula even if they probably could have.
Many people have to tone down on their Arab nationalism too.
The true story about the so-called "Islamic Golden Age" we probably have to search further for. I think it was just an endless fight for dominance and spoils and much unrighteousness, as usual. And the twisted Islam religion as a weapon of seducing the masses with an interpretation far from the original Arabic Quran is written in. I have doubts anyone ever even interpreted Quran as intended. It feels like someone stole the freshly compiled book and started wreaking havoc on it. It suits certain hadith involving Ali too.
How you draw the conclusion that one has to rule out Quran as a revelation because of Ali I do not understand though.
I am going to research more on Muhammad as a person at some point and how he fits linguistically in Quran. I am not ruling him out but I am also not absolutely sure about his existence.
Salaam
-
You are in doubt over the historicity of Muhmammad? This while even non-islamic historians agree he was beyond any doubt a historical figure?
Maybe you should change your name to Man of Doubt/Confusion?
Peace
-
Is it so?
Before you arrogantly accuse others with your usual venom and biggotry, and spew your legal vomit and political correctness in here, you should know that most of the "garbage" you read on these threads has been updated and put into a series of e-books. At the beginning of these e-books is a disclaimer page which clearly states that the books are simply compilations of what other researchers and academics have said regarding the issue, quoting articles, statements they made in seminars, passages from books (showing the reference at the end of each book), and that the compilers have not sought any material gain, nor do they hold any rights to the materials therein. In fact 90% of what is written can be downloaded for free off the net, albeit in Arabic, not in English. Therefore it is not the theory of Pazuzu, nor did Pazuzu ever, in any way shape and form, claim it as his own.
That's from a legal perspective. As for what you actually think of the research itself, and the credibility of the subject, this is something each individual reader will have to decide for himself. And in the end, your opinion and the soles of my shoes are about equal.
Have a nice day.
Does anybody no where one can access these e-books??
Please and thank you
-
Please leave Jesus out of this. The subject of "Jesus" cannot be done any justice, unless it is kept in a seperate thread.
I can't post in 3 threads at the same time.I have one more post to make in the "Pharaoh of Moses" thread, and then I will permanently sign out from there, and focus my attention here.
Does anybody also know
-
What other 2 threads he was referring to?
-
If he still somewhat active and available to take questions and discuss ideas?
-
If not does anyone know what happened to him and why?
Thanks
-
-
Does anybody no where one can access these e-books??
Are you interested to read Pazuzu's e-books?
If you want to get the copy of his e-books, I suggest you to send PM (Personal Message) to Pazuzu.
Don't hesitate to contact him via PM. I think brother Pazuzu is very kind and helpful.
If you have difficulty to contact him, then please let me know, perhaps I could help you to connect with him. )
Salaam.
-
Are you interested to read Pazuzu's e-books?
If you want to get the copy of his e-books, I suggest you to send PM (Personal Message) to Pazuzu.
Don't hesitate to contact him via PM. I think brother Pazuzu is very kind and helpful.
If you have difficulty to contact him, then please let me know, perhaps I could help you to connect with him. )
Salaam.
I assumed he was no longer active.
Sorry, you're right. I will try to contact him via PM.Thanks
-
Pazuzu has indeed made amost commendable and self-less work in questions touching any aspects of the Qur'an that touch the historical. That work was and is vary necessary because a lot of confusion and folklore has taken the place of the truth and and burdened the real doctrine of Qur'an with details that are meaningless and tinge the Qur'an with notions aliens to it and its meaning subordinating it to historical would be events that distract from the understanding of the real divine order.
Do contact him via e-mail. As Java says, he is most helpful, and I most certainly miss him.
Salaam
-
You are in doubt over the historicity of Muhmammad? This while even non-islamic historians agree he was beyond any doubt a historical figure?
Maybe you should change your name to Man of Doubt/Confusion?
Peace
He may be real, but I consider that it was an impostor who took the name Muhammad based on an interpretation of Quran. The stories of an unrighteous and violent man is obviously not of a righteous prophet. The "non-islamic" scholars also mainly portray a cruel conqueror even if they may confirm he existed.
Quran is not addressing a prophet called Muhammad as far as I have deciphered it but it is giving an instruction on how to teach its model of spirituality, which no one has been able to teach for over thousand years because they simply have not been able to decipher it as intended by its Author.
Be safe
Amenuel -
He may be real, but I consider that it was an impostor who took the name Muhammad based on an interpretation of Quran. The stories of an unrighteous and violent man is obviously not of a righteous prophet. The "non-islamic" scholars also mainly portray a cruel conqueror even if they may confirm he existed.
I believe an impostor who went by the name "Muammad ibn `Abd Allh" who died in Madinah was part of the hijacking of The Reading(Quran). The tomb in Madinah is not of the real messenger but an impostor. Bukhari & Co could not have achieved such mega deception without the help of an impostor.
-
Do you have any evidence to back up what you said in your last post brother invalid?
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace,
I now think the very theory presented here is of an erroneous nature for a couple of reasons
- The Quran makes a specific distinction between the Bani Israel and the Arabyu
Meaning we can tell from the Word of our Lord that these are two very different groups of peoples.
What this theory supports is quite the opposite, although. This theory supports the notion that these two distinct people are virtually the same, and that all the stories from Ibrahim to Muhammad were about these specific people. I don't think I am wrong in assuming so about this theory.
- The Quran repeats multiple times that Muhammad was the first messenger to these people who have received the Scripture in Arabic.
This theory holds that Yemen was the centerstage of biblical events, raising the Arabs as Bani Israel.
But the Quran repeatedly tells us that these people( the Arabs) never had a messenger sent to them before Muhammad, the seal of the prophets.
I think these two counts gape a hole in the OP's theory.
Can the OP provide his/her view on these contradictions tot he theory presented by his/her research? - The Quran makes a specific distinction between the Bani Israel and the Arabyu
-
.
The eloquent tongue (lissan 3arabi) of the Quran is the most ancient tongue on the planet. It was the tongue spoken by Adam (the first homo-sapien race). It is made up of three-letter roots whose meanings are derived directly from natural phenomena. For example. If you ask any European or American what the word "Adam" means, he will say "it's the name of the first human being". They see it as a proper noun which doesn't have a meaning. In "Arabic" the word "adam" is derived from the 3-letter root "adm", from which comes the word "adeem". When we say "adeem al- ardh", it means the soil or skin of the earth which is good and convenient for cultivation. So ADAM. is the being that was created from the skin of the earth (the surface clay), and who is ripe and fit to be the vicegerent , and worthy of receiving the divine message.There is not a single language on the face of this planet that will give you this meaning. Only "arabic" can.
.Arabic as the mother tongue, the language of heaven etc is simply arabist propaganda and wishful thinking.
To demonstrate why your last sentence (quoted above) is completely fanciful I will offer you an alternative explanation of the etymology of "Adam" (who was not arabic or semitic).
In languages the most basic words have single phonemes (consisting of 1 or 2 letter written forms). These most basic words signify important early concepts in proto-languages.
It so happens that "AD" means name or designation in Turkic.
http//tureng.com/en/turkish-english/ad
And Ad-*m would be "My name".
Given that the most significant distinguishing feature of humans (who through evolution of primates) was the gift of God to think and name things, this is highly significant.
The first mention of Adam is 231 and the first thing Adam is mentioned with respect to is names.
"And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said "Tell me the names of these if ye are right." "
The oldest languages on earth have an agglutinative structure (like Sumerian, and Turkic) as opposed to conjugated nominative-accusative (Indo-European) later languages. Semitic is very likely a synthetic contructed language group and not natural (like Esperanto, Klingon) and were invented by a priestly class as a closed language limited to religious elites for a purpose and only later gained currency as common spoken languages.
Ancient languages like Basque (still spoken) and Etruscan (extinct) are also agglutinative and show especially in the Etruscans who predate Rome that agglutinative languages were more widespread in Europe even but were extinguished by increasing Indo-European ingress from Indo-Aryan migrations.
Adam was the first named human, and the one who knew names. That is what distinguished him. All creatures come from clay. I hope you can appreciate the difference.
-
Adam was the first named human, and the one who knew names. That is what distinguished him. All creatures come from clay. I hope you can appreciate the difference.
I doubt it. Adamwas the generic denominationn of thee population to whom God revealed Itself of the present human kind. That is, from te Qur'an. TheQujr'an de nnot say that adam was th first named human ad it speaks of adam in the dual in the plural and in the singular. It is not a proer ame, but the geeric denomiation of tht human kind. According to the Qur'an.
Of curse nybody is free of developping or holding any opinion or belief about it. But this one i prticular is ot substantiated by the Qur'an.
Salaam
-
I doubt it. Adamwas the generic denominationn of thee population to whom God revealed Itself of the present human kind
this is debateable, depends on how somebody understand it,,
human being is perfected through stages...
all humans agree to accept the trust ....
after that the first creation from the womb of earth is somehow revised to form another creation that would supposed to create from womb of women...now
the first perfected human being after taking trust by (whole humanity ) was it adam or a group of people
but i think some language experts need to ponder over grammer where God is reffering to adam is it plural noun or singular noun...
what i find adam is a person one single person.. i havnt see a word qoom/nation anywhere with adam...
but again
God knows best