How much time do we really have?

[TimCallahan]

I will be back at some point in the future, just quite busy atm.

In the mean time I leave you with this, The Atheist! & May God bless all of those who are sincere, both in this life as well as in the next. Peace.

So, you leave us with this propagandistic piece of s*** and flee the thread. Great strategy, mikeb768! Next time, try honest argument. The following still remains true:

1) Muhammad did NOT split the moon in two.

2) The door-stop in the Vienna Fine Arts Museum bore the name Hemen-hetep, meaning "Hemen [the falcon god] is pleased [with this child]. It did NOT bear the name of Haman.

One last question: How old was A'isha when Muhammad first had sex with her?

 

[Craig B]

So, you leave us with this propagandistic piece of s*** and flee the thread. Great strategy, mikeb768! Next time, try honest argument. The following still remains true:

1) Muhammad did NOT split the moon in two.

2) The door-stop in the Vienna Fine Arts Museum bore the name Hemen-hetep, meaning "Hemen [the falcon god] is pleased [with this child]. It did NOT bear the name of Haman.

One last question: How old was A'isha when Muhammad first had sex with her?

Is that in the Quran? (The Moon-splitting stunt is there, 54:1-2.) In what way does it invalidate the supposed infallibility of the Quran what age A'isha was? Even if it is stated there, which it isn't. For all you know God approves of behaviour of this kind; it's certainly attested in the Hadiths, the Torah and the Talmud.

The sources are Bukhari Hadith

“It is reported from Aisha that she said: The Prophet entered into marriage with me when I was a girl of six … and at the time [of joining his household] I was a girl of nine years of age.”
“Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.”

Note that Muhammad is not the source of this information so MikeB768 will simply deny its veracity, as does this Muslim commentator http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

As to the authenticity of these reports, it may be noted that the compilers of the books of Hadith did not apply the same stringent tests when accepting reports relating to historical matters as they did before accepting reports relating to the practical teachings and laws of Islam. The reason is that the former type of report was regarded as merely of academic interest while the latter type of report had a direct bearing on the practical duties of a Muslim and on what was allowed to them and what was prohibited. Thus the occurrence of reports such as the above about the marriage of Aisha in books of Hadith, even in Bukhari, is not necessarily a proof of their credibility.

We have been discussing matters that indicate Muhammad made an error as shown in the Quran, in identifying the Biblical character Haman, and how modern Muslim apologists vainly try to deny this by preposterous manipulation of ancient inscriptions. But in this context, Hadith references to Aisha's age are quite irrelevant, will be denied, convincingly or not, by modernised or liberal Muslims, and worse: you will simply appear to be engaged in gratuitous vituperation and insult in a matter unconnected with current discourse. If we were discussing with Jewish religious apologists the divine mandate of the Torah, and I suddenly burst out, hey what is the minimum age for sex within marriage? Not relevant to the discussion. It's not in the Torah, and modern Jews rightly deny its relevance. (A favourite with the more bottom feeding antisemites, however.) See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110117210543AAsj0Qn. Oh, and have a look at the readers' "Best Answer"

Hm. Don't know why everyone gets all sensitive when it comes to Judaism ...
Most atheists on here get offended when you insult the Jewish god they don't even believe in.

Replace "Judaism" with "Islam" and such utterances could come straight from some of the contributors to these threads.

 

[TimCallahan]

Is that in the Quran? (The Moon-splitting stunt is there, 54:1-2.) In what way does it invalidate the supposed infallibility of the Quran what age A'isha was? Even if it is stated there, which it isn't. For all you know God approves of behaviour of this kind; it's certainly attested in the Hadiths, the Torah and the Talmud.

The splitting of the moon in the Qur'an is in the opening verse of Surah 54, Surah Al-Qamar. Here it is Q 54:1:

The Hour draws near; the moon is split in two.

The "Hour" referred to sounds like the last hour, i.e. the end of the world. Thus, a Muslim could believe in the veracity of the verse without having to believe the legend that Muhammad actually split the moon in two then stuck it back together, both feats accomplished by his word alone. I specifically asked mikeb768 if he believed that Muhammad had split the moon in two and then fused the two halves again. He emphatically affirmed that he did. Evidently, he accepts the hadiths as being on a par with the Qur'an itself.

The sources are Bukhari Hadith Note that Muhammad is not the source of this information so MikeB768 will simply deny its veracity, as does this Muslim commentator http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

Since, as I mentioned above, mikeb768 seems to accept the veracity of the hatdiths, he might well argue that it was okay for Muhammad to have sex with a nine year-old girl.

We have been discussing matters that indicate Muhammad made an error as shown in the Quran, in identifying the Biblical character Haman, and how modern Muslim apologists vainly try to deny this by preposterous manipulation of ancient inscriptions. But in this context, Hadith references to Aisha's age are quite irrelevant, will be denied, convincingly or not, by modernised or liberal Muslims, and worse: you will simply appear to be engaged in gratuitous vituperation and insult in a matter unconnected with current discourse. If we were discussing with Jewish religious apologists the divine mandate of the Torah, and I suddenly burst out, hey what is the minimum age for sex within marriage? Not relevant to the discussion. It's not in the Torah, and modern Jews rightly deny its relevance. (A favourite with the more bottom feeding antisemites, however.) See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110117210543AAsj0Qn. Oh, and have a look at the readers' "Best Answer" Replace "Judaism" with "Islam" and such utterances could come straight from some of the contributors to these threads.

Concerning the hilited area, see my comment above. I basically threw that barb out to test mikeb768, to see if he would affirm the hadiths in this matter as well as in the matter of the moon being split in two. However, you are right. There are hateful texts in the Jewish and Christian scriptures as well as in the Qur'an.

It will be interesting to see what response mikeb768 gives. For that matter, it will be interesting to see if he (?) returns at all.

 

[mikeb768]

So, you leave us with this propagandistic piece of s*** and flee the thread. Great strategy, mikeb768! Next time, try honest argument. The following still remains true:

1) Muhammad did NOT split the moon in two.

2) The door-stop in the Vienna Fine Arts Museum bore the name Hemen-hetep, meaning "Hemen [the falcon god] is pleased [with this child]. It did NOT bear the name of Haman.

One last question: How old was A'isha when Muhammad first had sex with her?

First they tell you “This Haman character was no doubt borrowed from the Book of Ester in the Bible”, Muhammad is a Liar.

Then you are told to believe “No, this Haman character is a Hoax, completely made up”.

As a last resort they say “This Hemen which was mentioned, is no doubt the falcon-god taken from Egyptian Mythology”.

*Maybe you have heard this before? That a really good indicator which shows that someone may not be as honest as they claim, is that their story keeps changing.


So what do the experts say?
Experts in Ancient Egyptian Inscriptions such as Walter Wreszinski and Hermann Ranke, seem to agree that the name "Haman" was indeed mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions, and that Haman is said to be "the head of stone quarry workers". The Global Egyptian Museum even provides an English translation, which to refers to a person by the name of "Hemen" who was identified as being the overseer of stonemasons.

Taken from the translation of the ancient Egyptian door jamb:
"the overseer of the stonemasons of Amun Hemen"
"the overseer of the stonemasons of Amun Hemen"

What does the Quran (a book which was recited into existence more than 1400 years ago) tell us?

[The Truth - A Powerful Reminder]

[Quran 28:38]
"And Pharaoh said, "O eminent ones, I have not known you to have a god other than me. Then ignite for me, O Haman, [a fire] upon the clay and make for me a tower that I may look at the God of Moses. And indeed, I do think he is among the liars."

[Quran 40:36-37]
“And Pharaoh said, "O Haman, construct for me a tower that I might reach the ways - The ways into the heavens - so that I may look at the deity of Moses; but indeed, I think he is a liar." And thus was made attractive to Pharaoh the evil of his deed, and he was averted from the

way. And the plan of Pharaoh was not except in ruin.”

Further reading: [Quran 28:6, 8, 38; 29:39; 40:24, 36-37]

"So who is more unjust than one who lies about God and denies the truth when it has come to him?"
[Quran 39:32]

Now ask yourself where did Muhammad get this information? Information which was previously lost to the world and only recently rediscovered.
Regarding the reputation of Muhammad. May God guide all of those who are sincere.​

 

[Craig B]

First they tell you “This Haman character was no doubt borrowed from the Book of Ester in the Bible”, Muhammad is a Liar.

No. He made a blunder through ignorance.

Then you are told to believe “No, this Haman character is a Hoax, completely made up”.

That is, the Book of Esther is a work of fiction, as is generally agreed.

As a last resort they say “This Hemen which was mentioned, is no doubt the falcon-god taken from Egyptian Mythology”.

It is not I who say it, but Ranke. He merely compiled a dictionary of ancient Egyptian names, and includes the explanation of this one as "(der Gott) Hmn ist gnädig" Let anyone look at this http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/katz/haman/islamic_awareness.html to be aware that mikeb768 is talking nonsense, and can not possibly have looked at these explanations that have been given here umpteen times. He's not rebutting them, merely ignoring them completely and accusing people of dishonesty.

*Maybe you have heard this before? That a really good indicator which shows that someone may not be as honest as they claim, is that their story keeps changing.

Simple nonsense.

So what do the experts say? Experts in Ancient Egyptian Inscriptions such as Walter Wreszinski and Hermann Ranke, seem to agree that the name "Haman" was indeed mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions

They compiled a dictionary of names and a list of inscriptions one of which refers to a person hmn-h whose name they render as containing that of a god, as was common in Egypt. They don't identify this person as being a chief minister of Pharaoh.

Haman is said to be "the head of stone quarry workers". The Global Egyptian Museum even provides an English translation, which to refers to a person by the name of "Hemen" who was identified as being the overseer of stonemasons.

Taken from the translation of the ancient Egyptian door jamb:
"the overseer of the stonemasons of Amun Hemen"
"the overseer of the stonemasons of Amun Hemen"

There is no "Haman". It seems to have been Bucaille who invented that by rendering "hmn-h" as Haman. There is no justification for such a reading, and Ranke's name list doesn't give it. It gives the god "Hemen" (the vowels are modern insertions) and translation (I copied it in German above) "(der Gott) Hmn ist gnädig". That word means gracious or merciful, according to Google Translate. Neither author knows a Haman. This was Bucaille's interpretation, and it's rubbish.

In addition, as your own quote above shows, this hmn-h was the overseer of stonemasons of a temple quarry. No reference to him as a chief minister of the realm. The whole thing is a fabrication of nonsense by Bucaille based on a name found among hundreds of others, and referring to an obscure individual called "the god hmn is gracious" who ran a temple stone works. The god is also known, and I have shown that there's a statuette of this god in the Louvre.

 

[devnull]

This was Bucaille's interpretation, and it's rubbish.

Good thing then that he isnt an egyptiologist.

In addition, as your own quote above shows, this hmn-h was the overseer of stonemasons of a temple quarry.

Of Amun, no less. Kind of like being the 3rd accountant in charge of payments for business unit 3, Spanish division.

No reference to him as a chief minister of the realm. The whole thing is a fabrication of nonsense by Bucaille based on a name found among hundreds of others, and referring to an obscure individual called "the god hmn is gracious" who ran a temple stone works. The god is also known, and I have shown that there's a statuette of this god in the Louvre.

I love the weasel words:

Experts in Ancient Egyptian Inscriptions such as Walter Wreszinski and Hermann Ranke, seem to agree that the name "Haman" was indeed mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions

Well, no, they agree that Hmn-h is mentioned on a door stop

Basically Bucaille was full of crap, no experts give this the time of day, and mike is wasting our time with this nonsense.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

So what do the experts say?
Experts in Ancient Egyptian Inscriptions such as Walter Wreszinski and Hermann Ranke, seem to agree that the name "Haman" was indeed mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions, and that Haman is said to be "the head of stone quarry workers".

Wrezsinski:

Ranke:

Footnote 2 reads "If abbreviated hmn-htp(·w) ?", which is supposed to mean that Ranke is not quite sure whether hmn-h is an abbreviated hmn-htp.
Entries 24 and 26 read "hmn-´: [...] '(the god) hmn is great'" and "hmn-htp(·w) [...] '(the god) hmn is merciful'" respectively.

Neither one of these is talking about any "Haman". It's just Islamic apologists who do that. And not "experts in Ancient Egyptian Inscriptions".

Please just stop making stuff up.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (major snip) . . . COLOR="DarkGreen"]Quran states that God would preserve the Pharaoh who lived during the time of Moses as a sign for later generations.[Quran 10:90-92] Link1, Link2 . . . (major snip) . . .

Going back to the OP, I decided to look at the videos in the two links. In the first, the mummy of Ramesses II is described as being preserved by being filled with salt, that could only come from it being immersed in the Red Sea. In this video then, Ramesses II is the pharaoh of the Exodus. In the second video, Merneptah is supposed to be the pharaoh of the Exodus and Bucaille claims in it that Merneptah died of a head wound. Not only do the two videos disagree with each other, neither has much to do with reality.

As to the mummy of Ramesses II being filled with salt, that would be natron, a salt deliberately used to preserve mummies. There's no sign Ramesses II died by drowning. As to the death of Merneptah, his mummy shows signs of hardening of the arteries. Nobody but Bucaille sees any sign of violent death.

Finally, given the long standing practice of mummification in Egypt, it would be amazing if the body of any given pharaoh were not preserved.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . megasnip . . . The city of Iram (Lost city) which is mentioned in the Quran and was thought to be a myth was rediscovered around this time.
[Quran 89:6-8] Link . . . (megasnip) . . .

Going back, once again, to the OP, let us consider this lost city, Iram, which the link in the OP identifies with Ubar. Was the Qur'an alone in mentioning this city? According to a number of sites, including this one, Ptolemy also referred to the city. So, does that make the writings of Ptolemy divinely inspired? The answer to that question is, of course, "No." The video in the OP link even mentions Ptolemy's map. This article, one the discovery of the site of Ubar says of the destruction of the city:

History: Artifacts indicate the city came into existence before 2800 B.C. Legend holds that it was destroyed by God because of the debauchery of its residents, but new evidence indicates it was destroyed, perhaps around AD 100 to 200, when a large limestone cavern beneath it collapsed.

Had the Qur'an been the earliest writing on a lost city in the desert this claim of it inspiration in the OP might actually mean something. However, Ptolemy had already mentioned the city. So, he was likely Muhammad's source. No divine inspiration required

 

[TimCallahan]

mikeb768: Since you've recently posted on another thread, you obviously have time to post on this one. So, I would like to have an answer to my question about how old A'isha was when she and Muhammad consummated their marriage. The reason I ask this question is not to claim that Muhammad was a child molester. Rather, it is to point out that at least one of the hadiths says that A'isha was nine when this happened (see Craig B's post # 362). Other Islamic sources insist that she was a young woman, or at least past puberty at the time. If you espouse the latter view, then you must be rejecting any divine inspiration for that particular hadith.

However, you apparently accept as historical Muslim legends that Muhammad split the moon in two, then fused it together again. Yet Q 54:1 can easily be interpreted as referring to the the moon being split in two at the end of the world. So, my questions to you are as follows:

Do you pick and choose which hadith's you consider valid?

If so, what is your basis for following one and not the other? You certainly would not do this with respect to the Qur'an.

Finally, what is your answer regarding A'isha?

 

[mikeb768]

mikeb768: Since you've recently posted on another thread, you obviously have time to post on this one. So, I would like to have an answer to my question about how old A'isha was when she and Muhammad consummated their marriage. The reason I ask this question is not to claim that Muhammad was a child molester. Rather, it is to point out that at least one of the hadiths says that A'isha was nine when this happened (see Craig B's post # 362). Other Islamic sources insist that she was a young woman, or at least past puberty at the time. If you espouse the latter view, then you must be rejecting any divine inspiration for that particular hadith.

However, you apparently accept as historical Muslim legends that Muhammad split the moon in two, then fused it together again. Yet Q 54:1 can easily be interpreted as referring to the the moon being split in two at the end of the world. So, my questions to you are as follows:

Do you pick and choose which hadith's you consider valid?

If so, what is your basis for following one and not the other? You certainly would not do this with respect to the Qur'an.

Finally, what is your answer regarding A'isha?

Yeah I'm quite familiar with Muhammad's marriage to Aisha and I also don't have a problem with Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. Although if it something that truly intrigues you, then maybe you should start a new thread to discuss this. It is a very common tactic, that if you are unable to discredit the message, then try to discredit the messenger.

Also if you want to believe that the Splitting of the Moon is something which is still to come, then go for it. I disagree based on the Quran and multiple hadiths.
[Quran 54:1]
Moon Splitting recorded in hadith
Comprehensive collection of Hadiths

But how do you believe the splitting of the Moon is something still to come even though it has been mentioned multiple times in hadith? Also if you believe this is something which has not taken place, but at some point will take place as promised, then why aren't you a Muslim?

 

[I Ratant]

...

But how do you believe the splitting of the Moon is something still to come even though it has been mentioned multiple times in hadith? Also if you believe this is something which has not taken place, but at some point will take place as promised, then why aren't you a Muslim?

.
As the moon hasn't split, yes, that event is still to come.
Other than some bizarre writings in a chronicle of fantasy, the moon's splitting has been unobserved.
If it ever occurs... and it's not likely ever, it will be observed and commented on by cultures around the world.. if it happens while people are still here.
The religious mind can assume many impossibilities before, during and long after breakfast.
This hadith is just another in the long line of fantasies.

 

[TimCallahan]

Yeah I'm quite familiar with Muhammad's marriage to Aisha and I also don't have a problem with Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. Although if it something that truly intrigues you, then maybe you should start a new thread to discuss this. It is a very common tactic, that if you are unable to discredit the message, then try to discredit the messenger.

You have apparently totally misunderstood my question and have certainly not answered it. Here it is again:

The hadith cited by Craig B, Bukhari Hadith, states that Muhammad consummated his marriage with A'isha when she was only nine. However, another source also cited by Craig B, Zahid Aziz, says that Aisha was at least past puberty when the marriage was consummated. For my part, I would just as soon the waters weren't muddied by accusations against Muhammad that he was a child molester. Thus, I would assume, unless proven otherwise that he wasn't, and that the latter interpretation, by Zahid Aziz, was correct. So, my question to you is which view do you accept? I would hope your interpretation would be that A'isha was a young woman at the time, rather than a nine year-old girl. However, in order to come to that conclusion, you must reject Bukhari Hadith, that says A'isha was only nine when the marriage was consummated.

Also if you want to believe that the Splitting of the Moon is something which is still to come, then go for it. I disagree based on the Quran and multiple hadiths.
[Quran 54:1]
Moon Splitting recorded in hadith
Comprehensive collection of Hadiths

Now, when it comes to splitting the moon in two, if you reject one hadith, regarding the age of Aisha when she and Muhammad consummated their marriage, how do you determine which hadith to accept and which to reject. I am told that Shia Muslims accept certain hadiths as true and reject others and that those accepted by Sunni Muslims often differ from those accepted by Shiites. Is this true? If so, how does each group choose which hadiths to accept and which to reject?

But how do you believe the splitting of the Moon is something still to come even though it has been mentioned multiple times in hadith? Also if you believe this is something which has not taken place, but at some point will take place as promised, then why aren't you a Muslim?

For myself, I could care less, since I don't believe either the Qur'an or any of the hadiths to be divinely inspired. I'm simply saying that, had the moon been split in two then fused again, some time in the 600s, two things would be true:

1) There would have been multiple sightings of the event across the eastern hemisphere. This would have included Christian observers, Chinese and Japanese observers of various religions and Hindu observers. Even had these observers considered it sorcery or a demonic act, they would have reported it. However, this is not the case.

2) There would be physical evidence of the event today, visible on the lunar surface. In fact, there should be a scar girdling the moon. However, this is not the case.

For you to believe this happened you have to willfully and blatantly ignore the historical and physical evidence against it, and you have to do it because of your particular interpretation of a single verse in the Qur'an and because you have elevated the hadiths to put them on the same level as the Qur'an.

 

[mikeb768]

You have apparently totally misunderstood my question and have certainly not answered it. Here it is again:

The hadith cited by Craig B, Bukhari Hadith, states that Muhammad consummated his marriage with A'isha when she was only nine. However, another source also cited by Craig B, Zahid Aziz, says that Aisha was at least past puberty when the marriage was consummated. For my part, I would just as soon the waters weren't muddied by accusations against Muhammad that he was a child molester. Thus, I would assume, unless proven otherwise that he wasn't, and that the latter interpretation, by Zahid Aziz, was correct. So, my question to you is which view do you accept? I would hope your interpretation would be that A'isha was a young woman at the time, rather than a nine year-old girl. However, in order to come to that conclusion, you must reject Bukhari Hadith, that says A'isha was only nine when the marriage was consummated.



Now, when it comes to splitting the moon in two, if you reject one hadith, regarding the age of Aisha when she and Muhammad consummated their marriage, how do you determine which hadith to accept and which to reject. I am told that Shia Muslims accept certain hadiths as true and reject others and that those accepted by Sunni Muslims often differ from those accepted by Shiites. Is this true? If so, how does each group choose which hadiths to accept and which to reject?



For myself, I could care less, since I don't believe either the Qur'an or any of the hadiths to be divinely inspired. I'm simply saying that, had the moon been split in two then fused again, some time in the 600s, two things would be true:

1) There would have been multiple sightings of the event across the eastern hemisphere. However, this is not the case.

2) There would be physical evidence of the event today, visible on the lunar surface. In fact, there should be a scar girdling the moon. However, this is not the case.

For you to believe this happened you have to willfully and blatantly ignore the historical and physical evidence against it, and you have to do it because of your particular interpretation of a singe verse in the Qur'an and because you have elevated the hadiths to put them on the same level as the Qur'an.

The hadiths plainly state that Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha once she hit puberty (a normal practice of the time), some have her age listed as young as nine, some say that she was a few years older than this. The hadiths are human accounts and not on the same level as the Quran, something most people are quite aware of.

Why are you still trying to argue against Muslims believing that the Moon was split? Just like the miraculous birth of Jesus, or Moses striking his rod on a rock and splitting the sea, there may exist no exact proof for these events, maybe one day there will be for the Moon splitting? Who knows?

Even if there existed records (historical records, NASA photographs, etc.) which stated or showed that the event had taken place with 99.9% surety, I'm quite sure that you would still find some excuse not to believe. Right?

The people of Mecca who witnessed the account first hand also chose to reject it; [Quran 54:2] But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic."

Maybe you should start a new thread on these two subjects?

 

[BStrong]

Mike, you're riding an old worn out horse, and you want the world to believe it's Seabiscuit.

That Allah jive isn't any better that the rest of the fairy tales that are sold under the label "faith," and if you want to throw your weight into a club where a certain demographic of membership is inclined to right every wrong with an AK, be my guest, but I ain't buying it.

 

[mikeb768]

2) There would be physical evidence of the event today, visible on the lunar surface. In fact, there should be a scar girdling the moon. However, this is not the case.

You also seem to be assuming quite a bit, don't you think? The moon just like the earth is under constant bombardment, something which is quite clear just from looking at the moon's surface. But unlike the earth, the moon has no atmosphere to help burn up asteroids before impact. So it is possible that the moon could have taken a good deal of punishment over all of these years.

Lunar impact rate: On average, 33 metric tons (73,000 lbs) of meteoroids hit Earth every day, the vast majority of which harmlessly ablates ("burns up") high in the atmosphere, never making it to the ground. The moon, however, has little or no atmosphere, so meteoroids have nothing to stop them from striking the surface. The slowest of these rocks travels at 20 km/sec (45,000 mph); the fastest travels at over 72 km/sec (160,000 mph). At such speeds even a small meteoroid has incredible energy -- one with a mass of only 5 kg (10 lbs) can excavate a crater over 9 meters (30 ft) across, hurling 75 metric tons (165,000 lbs) of lunar soil and rock on ballistic trajectories above the lunar surface.

The lunar impact rate is very uncertain because observations for objects in this mass range are embarrassingly few -- a single fireball survey conducted by Canadian researchers from 1971 to 1985. Clearly more observations are needed if we are to establish the rate of large meteoroids impacting the moon.
Reference: NASA on Lunar Impact Monitoring


If I were you I would not be so quick to say what the Moon should look like after 1400 years, such as your statement "there should be a scar girdling the moon". Especially if such statements are just mere speculation and have no solid backing or support. You don't have any proof that there should be a scar as you have stated, you just believe that there should be one.

Not much different from Muslims believing that the event took place if you ask me.

 

[BStrong]

You also seem to be assuming quite a bit, don't you think? The moon just like the earth is under constant bombardment, something which is quite clear just from looking at the moon's surface. But unlike the earth, the moon has no atmosphere to help burn up asteroids before impact. So it is possible that the moon could have taken a good deal of punishment over all of these years.

Lunar impact rate: On average, 33 metric tons (73,000 lbs) of meteoroids hit Earth every day, the vast majority of which harmlessly ablates ("burns up") high in the atmosphere, never making it to the ground. The moon, however, has little or no atmosphere, so meteoroids have nothing to stop them from striking the surface. The slowest of these rocks travels at 20 km/sec (45,000 mph); the fastest travels at over 72 km/sec (160,000 mph). At such speeds even a small meteoroid has incredible energy -- one with a mass of only 5 kg (10 lbs) can excavate a crater over 9 meters (30 ft) across, hurling 75 metric tons (165,000 lbs) of lunar soil and rock on ballistic trajectories above the lunar surface.

The lunar impact rate is very uncertain because observations for objects in this mass range are embarrassingly few -- a single fireball survey conducted by Canadian researchers from 1971 to 1985. Clearly more observations are needed if we are to establish the rate of large meteoroids impacting the moon.
Reference: NASA on Lunar Impact Monitoring


If I were you I would not be so quick to say what the Moon should look like after 1400 years, such as your statement "there should be a scar girdling the moon". Especially if such statements are just mere speculation and have no solid backing or support. You don't have any proof that there should be a scar as you have stated, you just believe that there should be one.

Not much different from Muslims believing that the event took place if you ask me.

Forget about "scars." how about this?

How was the moon split into two perfect halves?

 

[devnull]

A guy who believes some guy magically split the moon in two and then put it back together is lecturing someone else about speculation, evidence and belief.

Riiiiight.

 

[TimCallahan]

The hadiths plainly state that Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha once she hit puberty (a normal practice of the time), some have her age listed as young as nine, some say that she was a few years older than this. The hadiths are human accounts and not on the same level as the Quran, something most people are quite aware of.

I don't think too many girls hit puberty at nine even these days. Many fewer would have hit puberty at nine in times of less intense nutrition. However, I'm willing to accept that Muhammad waited until A'isha was sexually mature before consummating their marriage. My main point is that, since the hadiths are, as you say, human accounts, not on a par for Muslims with the Qur'an, and since Muslims disagree with each other on their interpretation and validity, that your reliance on them seems a bit misplaced.

Why are you still trying to argue against Muslims believing that the Moon was split? Just like the miraculous birth of Jesus, or Moses striking his rod on a rock and splitting the sea, there may exist no exact proof for these events, maybe one day there will be for the Moon splitting? Who knows?

The supposed miraculous birth of Jesus is based on two accounts (in Matthew and in Luke) that contradict each other in every particular. We have no testable evidence for the event. Moses parting of the Red Sea likewise is largely untestable. Were we to find the remains of abut 600 chariots, along with the skeletons of many horses and even some human skeletons at a certain point in the Red Sea, that would constitute powerful evidence. Another block of physical evidence of the historical validity of the Exodus / Conquest narratives would be the remains of the great walled cities the Book of Joshua said the Israelites destroyed in the conquest of Canaan. However, whether historians and archaeologists locate the Exodus / Conquest in time at the 1200s or the 1400s BCE, they fail to find the required evidence.

Consider also the witness of the Gospel of Matthew, that, at the crucifixion of Jesus, dead people left their tombs, walked about in Jerusalem and were seen by many. Yet, nobody else records this, not even the other gospel writers.

As to the moon being split in two, there are a number of Islamic websites claiming that NASA photos do reveal the scars of the event. However these are lunar rilles that by no means girdle the moon.

Even if there existed records (historical records, NASA photographs, etc.) which stated or showed that the event had taken place with 99.9% surety, I'm quite sure that you would still find some excuse not to believe. Right?

Why would you assume this?

The people of Mecca who witnessed the account first hand also chose to reject it; [Quran 54:2] But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic."

Outside of Muslim legends to that effect, what evidence do you have that the people of Mecca actually observed this? Where are the Christian records of this event - even assuming the Christians witnessing it ascribed it to sorcery? Where are the Chinese and Japanese records of the event? You claim that a certain king in India converted to Islam after witnessing it. Yet, upon examining the evidence, it turns out that this is just another unsupported legend, along with legends that this king converted to Buddhism. How could such an event happen without it being witnessed and recorded over an entire hemisphere of the earth? Answer: It couldn't.

Maybe you should start a new thread on these two subjects?

I think we can let the matter of A'isha go. You have expressed the belief that she and Muhammad consummated their marriage after she was sexually mature. My point remains, that you put undue reliance on the hadiths, which you yourself agree are not divinely inspired and are thus subject to error.

As to the moon being split in two, this speaks to the validity of your claim that the Qur'an is divinely inspired, which is at least part of what this thread is about. There's no need for a new thread.

 

[TimCallahan]

You also seem to be assuming quite a bit, don't you think? The moon just like the earth is under constant bombardment, something which is quite clear just from looking at the moon's surface. But unlike the earth, the moon has no atmosphere to help burn up asteroids before impact. So it is possible that the moon could have taken a good deal of punishment over all of these years.

Lunar impact rate: On average, 33 metric tons (73,000 lbs) of meteoroids hit Earth every day, the vast majority of which harmlessly ablates ("burns up") high in the atmosphere, never making it to the ground. The moon, however, has little or no atmosphere, so meteoroids have nothing to stop them from striking the surface. The slowest of these rocks travels at 20 km/sec (45,000 mph); the fastest travels at over 72 km/sec (160,000 mph). At such speeds even a small meteoroid has incredible energy -- one with a mass of only 5 kg (10 lbs) can excavate a crater over 9 meters (30 ft) across, hurling 75 metric tons (165,000 lbs) of lunar soil and rock on ballistic trajectories above the lunar surface.

The lunar impact rate is very uncertain because observations for objects in this mass range are embarrassingly few -- a single fireball survey conducted by Canadian researchers from 1971 to 1985. Clearly more observations are needed if we are to establish the rate of large meteoroids impacting the moon.
Reference: NASA on Lunar Impact Monitoring


If I were you I would not be so quick to say what the Moon should look like after 1400 years, such as your statement "there should be a scar girdling the moon". Especially if such statements are just mere speculation and have no solid backing or support. You don't have any proof that there should be a scar as you have stated, you just believe that there should be one.

Not much different from Muslims believing that the event took place if you ask me.

I'm saying that, for the claim that the moon was split in two, then stuck back together in the 600s, there should be evidence. It would be highly implausible that such a thing could happen without many people over a hemisphere seeing and recording such a spectacular event and without the event leaving physical scars. If you say it could have happened without leaving physical evidence, then you are admitting that the claim cannot be tested. As such, it remains nothing more than an unverified - and unverifiable - extraordinary claim, nothing more.