Epigraphic Evidence of a Complete Pre-Uthmanic Quranic Manuscript

[L.Hu]

When did I ever accuse the Quran. Why should I accuse the Quran. Cutting a theifs hand was a good solution in the seventh century. But now its considered barbaric. Although we may deny this the concept of human rights does not exist directly in the Quran. Because the Quran was revauled to a people who probably would never have understod the concept. Human rights is a modern idea. So it is not amazing that a seventh century book would not contain the idea. Also it is dishonest on your part to accuse me of accuseing the Quran.

[Muslimtruthrevealed]

Assalaam Alaikum @L. Hu

Your statement "Some at this site have tried to show that the Quran is not advocating hand mutailation. I remain unconvinced at their attempts. So the Quranic punishment is hand cutting."

I have shown you clearly from the Quran that there is no 'cutting' of hands, period. Since you have not brought any rational or logical criteria, I will accept and confirm that the evidence you have been presented with will suffice.

If you have any other questions, I await your response.

[Roshan]

Thus for 50 years historians praised and payed lip service to Goldziher's finds but used Hadiths often in writing the story of Muhammad's life.

Peace:

Exactly why I wrote what I wrote concerning Matin Ling's book, which you curiously disagreed with.

Roshan

[L.Hu]

Sorry man. I may have sounded rude. Well even though I posted books by sceptics there are some western scholars who dissagre with Goldziher and Schacht. Like Sezgin and Abbot. But I like the sceptic side better. Well the reason I dissagred with you was that on the basis of conttent Tariq Ramadhan's and Karen Armstorngs bios have no simalarity. If you want to convert a non-muslim to Islam give them Armstorng's or Ramadhan's biography of Muhammad. Ling's book is a good book for making people leave Islam. Sorry if I was rude.

[Roshan]

Sorry man. I may have sounded rude. Well even though I posted books by sceptics there are some western scholars who dissagre with Goldziher and Schacht. Like Sezgin and Abbot. But I like the sceptic side better. Well the reason I dissagred with you was that on the basis of conttent Tariq Ramadhan's and Karen Armstorngs bios have no simalarity. If you want to convert a non-muslim to Islam give them Armstorng's or Ramadhan's biography of Muhammad. Ling's book is a good book for making people leave Islam. Sorry if I was rude.

Peace:

I don't remember you ever being rude. In fact, I am impressed with your library! These are exactly the books I am looking to read. Yes, Ling's book read like a Sunni fairytale. I could not stand it. There should be plenty of historical references to Muhammad (like the treaty of Muhammad).

Roshan

[L.Hu]

"I am impressed with your library!"
Thank you. If you want to know about more books ask. I have a ton of them.

[Roshan]

Have you reviewed any of them on amazon? If so, what name do you do under there (so I can persuse your reviews).

Roshan

[L.Hu]

Well I have not done any review on Amazon. But if you want I will review all the books I have mentioned. My name on Amazon is muhammad humayoun. So if you want me to review there I will. But if you want me to review here no problem. If you want me to review on Amazon or here should I give the books realability, methods, arguments, conclusion, readablity, and writing style. Or should I skip the last 2. Or do you not want me to talk about the books conclusion. I find no problem reviewing all those books. If you want I will review them. Remember muhammad humayoun. Just tell me if you want to review.

Lareb

[maxq]

bro L.Hu,
Ok so let me try to answer your questions, or at least give my opinion (since I have a breather for a day or two).

Umayyads as equal to prophets:
1) It is true that early Khulafaa were considered political as well as "religious" (I'd rather call it spiritual) authoritarians, I highly doubt they considered themselves equal to prophets. I mean "divine" (or transcendent) inspiration is a basic tenet of TaSawwuf (Sufiism). My own grandfather had allegedly written down the time of his natural death long before he died; how much of this is fact and how much is fiction, I don't know. It was prevalent in many other circles in Arabia and the Fertile crescent (exhibits are the apocalypses of various Christian and Jewish religious figures). Did all these people consider (or allege) themselves prophets or equals to prophets? Doubtful generally speaking; we do have exceptions in case of the person we have come to know as Muhammad, and others being Musailmah etc.
2) If indeed Umayyads considered themselves equals to prophets, then why would the Dome of the Rock read "You (God) bless Muhammad Your servant, Your prophet, and that You accept his intercession for his people, the blessing of God be upon him and peace be upon him and the mercy of God". This portion of the inscription does not belong to the amendment made by Mamum ur Rashid, and is the most likely the original inscription from the time of Abd al Malik bin Marwaan.
3) Was Quran considered secondary (or as equivalent to other edicts) at this point: Likely, since the concept of intercession by the prophet is NOT A QURANIC CONCEPT.

Cutting of the Hands
1) I agree with "Muslimtruthrevealed" but I will not say that you are accusing the Quran lol
2) Many such prescriptions seem to have been neglected or interepreted literally by the Khulafa. What I want from you is evidence that Muhammad (or whatever his name was) prescribed literally cutting the hands of habitual thieves (and I am not asking for a verse or hadith, but a historic record outside of the Islamic "history" corpus). It is strange that non-Islamic documentation of the era mentions ludicrous festivals, kissing of the black stone, murdering of people in villages, praying in a certain direction, alliance with the Jew, and yet no cutting of any hands is mentioned.

Quran: Any kind of Authority
1) First off, I think Quran is a wee bit older than its alleged span of "revelation". Bro Ayman on the forums thinks that Muhammad was born at least 20 years earlier than the historic record, but I feel it may be half a century before that. This is my hypothesis which I intend to research (hopefully in this lifetime lol)
2) I do not think that "muslims/mu'mins" during the times of Muhammd were following a religion. They came from several religions who had come under one corporeal recognition, the majority being Arabs (who were predominently Hagaraeans along with jewish, christian, mandaean, perhaps even pagan sub-groups etc). Strikingly, this is in agreement with Robert Hoylad’s implied conclusion in Seeing Islam as Others Saw it.
3) Quran would have, at that point, served as a commentary for each group on their respective beliefs (and perhaps to seek freedom by being rational and abandon "muhaggar" their dogma - along with some prescriptions) and did not have the position of a "religious" scripture. But that would mean it did have "reminding" authority: Exactly what the Quran claims itself to be. Again, my hypothesis which I intend to research.
4) It is only later that we see this group morph into Muslims (Saracins or Ishmailites being their old nicknames).
5) Extra-Quranic or Para-Quranic revelations are not a new allegation. In fact sunni and shia circles have this belief prevelant. However there has been considerable debate over this on the forums so I'd rather you search and study those threads... or better yet, try to talk with Bro Ayman, Arnold Yasin or some of the other learned people on this forum.


Hopefully this gives you some understanding of where I stand.


PS: I have made some revisons to better explain my position...

[L.Hu]

With all do respect. Thank you for your answer. I liked it. But I do dissagre with your Muhammad's birth thing. I mean you no disrespect but I think its far fected. Your hagarene thesis seems good but the person who helped create it no longer accepts it (Patrica Crone). Micheal Cook also denys it now. In one article she (Crone) says that we know more about Muhammad then any man before modern times. Also to the Khailifa thing one can accept a prophet and also consider oneself eqaul to them. The Khalifs would have thought that they were speacial figures equal to prophets. To the hand cutting thing, you ask for evidence outside of Islamic sources. You ask because you assume the Islamic tradition is not realible. Although since we are Quran alone and like Schacht's scepticism it is slowly being shown to have exgarrated things. Harald Motzki has shown Islamic records are quite reliable. And non muslim records are as unrealible as Muslim records. Because non muslim records record great slaughter and destruction at the conquests. But archeology shows muslims affected very little the middle eastern way of life. Wine was drunk and pigs were raised. No records of burning is found. No mass conversions took place. In fact some schoalars deny Muslims every conquered anything since such little evidence of violence exists. So in this regard non muslim sources are unrealible. Also in Hoyland's book he (Hoyland) often says that non muslim sources tell the same story as muslim sources. In fact the goal of his book is to attack revisonist history and ideas that deem muslim historiacal tradition wrong. Since according to him non muslim sources match muslim sources. Also in one book I read this idea is refuted. For example even though the gospels are not realible, if you rally on jewish sources jesus was the son of a prostitute. In regard to extra Quranic revaltions the Quran's we have are a small sampling of a massive unrecorded oral tradition. I like in regards to Islamic history one scholars view. Muhammad exsited. Abu Bakr exsited. Omar existed. Utham exsited. Ali exsited. Islam was born in the hijaz. Muhammad was born near the date specifed. But details concerniing these people is often dubius. Thus I reject Crone's old thesis. Anywhy she now rejects it. I like your ideas. But they are historical far fected. But still good ideas. If you research all opinons with a open mind you will find superior ideas. Still your ideas show you are intelligent. But you merely need to study the sceince of history, the limitions of archeologhy, and source critism, and redaction. After learning these you will realise why your present ideas are far fected. Still you are intelligent. Again thank you for your input. Have more thoughts present them.