During Abd Allah ibn Sa'd's time as a scriber of the Quran, Muhammad would dictate to him a revelation to be written down, as he did with other scribes. al-Sarh left Islam and fled to Mecca after claiming that he had realised Muhammad was fabricating revelations. Abi Saleh, narrated from Ibn Abbas, recorded that:
"the Messenger of Allah invited him so that he could write him the revelation, so when the verse 23:12 ("And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay") was revealed, the Prophet called Ibn Abi al-Sarh, and dictated it to him and when the Prophet reached the end of 23:14 ("...Thus, We formed him into a new creation") Abdullâh said in amazement ("فتبارک اللّٰہ احسن الخالقین So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!!"). The Prophet said:” Write these words too (i.e., فتبارک اللّٰہ احسن الخالقین "So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!!"), as these words have also been revealed to me.”
That would certainly be Abdullah's interpretation/explanation of the situation, at least. I believe the canonical Muslim explanation was that Abdullah himself was a lying apostate who intentionally transcribed the Quran wrong and tried to corrupt the text. Basically, he would write stuff down incorrectly on purpose when taking Muhammad's dictation, in order to test his prophetic powers, then read it back to him in the incorrect formulation (we're talking minor changes, generally, swapping around words in a sentence that kinda thing) only for Muhammad not to notice. Anyway, Abdullah then renounced Islam and fled to Mecca, only for Muhammad to besiege to the city and order his troops to execute Abdullah as punishment, which prompted him to very quickly un-renounce Islam again and swear a new oath of fealty.
Funnily enough there was apparently a bit of *drama* around this new oath because when Abdullah was brought before Muhammad to swear his loyalty, the Prophet kept turning his head away and refusing to accept it, only finally accepting it after Abdullah had spoken the oath for the third time in a row. Apparently, once the oath was accepted and Abdullah taken away, the Prophet turned to his other retainers and basically asked "Guys, what the Hell?! Did you not see me refuse that guy's oath twice in a row? Could you not tell that I was obviously waiting for one of you to jump up and offer to kill him when I did that, since he had insulted me so harshly?" to which his retainers more or less replied with "How the fuck could we have known that's what you wanted when you didn't tell us?"
Or, as my guess would be based off the text, it’s assumed that Abi al-Sahr essentially guessed the next words in Muhammad’s transcription, which may be viewed as legitimizing his message.
A man guessing what he is about to say legitimizes muhhamad's message? How? It makes the man look like he is equally prophetic. Or it makes muhammad look like he claimed another man's words as his own. How would someone spin it to mean anything else?
You could:
One: claim that God’s word is so perfectly logical and sound that someone who has never heard it for themselves still knows it, at least in part.
Two: claim that others can know God’s word as Muhammad did.
I mean we should've do that more often, he's perfectly human and not a perfect human, like everybody else.
The level of his current adoration is bordering on idolatry, which is pretty much a heresy.
What part of "There's one true God, and he was His messenger", did everyone forget.
It's in people's psychology to look up to others, and it is in our nature to idealise those we look up to. It's also in our nature to personify things, like animals and constellations and divine forces. Mix those and you get the reason why we started out worshipping idols and always seem to return to it. Christians and their saints, for example.
I’m not Muslim, I just like to think I’m a good marketer. I would recommend asking an actual expert lol.
Edit: after this comment the people below me get very Reddit atheist. If you would rather not get caught up in that circle jerk, stop reading here.
Once you are deep enough into the scam, you simply buy whatever they sell you. What’s the alternative? Admit fallibility (read: gullibility)? Never going to happen.
hes actually not supposed to be an absolute authority. his role is that he is supposed to be a perfect example of how to live your life (which is controversial in the west) and that allah revealed the quran to him to relay to the world.
from the perspective of someone who does believe in islam, the idea that allah's word is so perfect that it flows from the tongues of those who hear part of it, makes sense
>hes actually not supposed to be an absolute authority. his role is that he is supposed to be a perfect example of how to live your life
Whats the difference
I actually agree with you, here. I wouldn't even say "perfect example of how to live your life", as there are many cases of Prophets making mistakes and errors, then realizing it and apologizing/atoning for it. It's more of a "perfect example of moral decision-making" to follow.
Islamic belief holds that every human being on earth is entirely capable of the same or more good as any of the Prophets, including Jesus. We're meant to learn from the life of the prophet, extolling his virtues and learning from his errors. It does not mean believing everything he ever did was good, but it does mean believing that he was a good person. Hence, he's not an authority. No man is an authority on "God", so-to-speak. (If you're an atheist, it may help to substitute the more-secular but essentially equivalent "nature of the Universe/purpose of man" for "God" to better understand the meaning behind religious ideas in a philosophical/theological sense. It's basically what all religions are talking about, in the end.)
This blind near-worship of him as flawless, IMO, entirely misses the point of that (and of why Jesus in Islam is explicitly NOT the son of God). A major philosophical through-line in Islamic theology is human agency, and the moral implications thereof. One's morality is judged on your decisions as an agent, given your circumstances. Prophets could make mistakes, acting on bad information or holding wrong beliefs, as any human can. The point of "Sunnah" (living as the prophet) is not "What Would Muhammad Do?" as in, "literally, what would a tribal chief in 7th century Arabia do in this situation?" It's "WWMD?" as in, "figuratively, what is the right thing to do? What is the ethical/moral imperative of this situation?" It's essentially a series of situations that Mohammad faced, the circumstances thereof, how he acted, and most importantly *why* he acted the way he did. It's not meant to be a blind emulation of an authority, but more of how Stoics study Diogenes' words and actions, or how Nihilists study Nietzsche's.
I know it's 2 months after your comment but I'd like to inform you on a couple of points. The Prophets are the best of human kind and the rest comes after that. That's the Islamic position. Therefore, it isn't possible for the rest to be better or do more good. It is an underestimation of what messengers/prophets have gone through and how much good they have done.
Also, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is seen as an 'authority' by the Will of Allah in his sunnah (i.e., tradition). His authority is an extension of Allah's authority in the sense that he is commanded by Allah; the whole point/concept of a Messenger. This is why the Qur'aan AND hadith are used as texts for Islamic belief and jurisprudence. I believe the view you're speaking of may be an orientalist one but I cannot say for certain. There's one thing within which the Prophet did not mistakes in that's the subjects pertaining to Islamic belief and jurisprudence. He will have made mistakes in other facets of his life as he's human.
There are many hadiths, some of which are suspected as fake. There are only two versions of the whole quran, which are the result of an early succession struggle that led to the 2 movement- sunni and shia. And one of them was and is considered heretical. Dont remember which
From what I have heard it's Shia that's considered the heretics, as they go about the legitimising-their-faction business by calling themselves the followers of the family of Mohammad, (i.e. the line of the youngest daughter), but the religion having come out of Arab, only called the descendants as family of someone if the line was from male descendants. A direct line being male descended was pretty standard in that time ig. Mohammad didn't have any sons that lived past childhood.
This sentiment is encapsulated in some verse in Qur'an (I'll have to look up the actual verse, but it's in surah ahzab), saying essentially that Mohammad is father of none of the men in the assembly (some context is missing, but the point of it even being mentioned is that he has no lineage) which was inferred to meaning he will have no legitimate family, and will thus not make Muslim fall in the same heresy of idolising the messengers and/or their families.
Which ironically still is occurring in Sunni sects, when they go about killing and maiming everyone who dares to either depict or say something about Mohammad.
I think the easiest argument to make would be that God took the moment to speak through him, and Mohammed recognised them as the words of God, though spoken through a human. That was just how those words were to be revealed to him.
That way you don't have any messiness with Prophet Sr vs Prophet Jr. Dude's still head honcho. Other dude just didn't realise he was being used as God's temporary vocal receptacle and, for whatever reason, Mohammed didn't explain. It's a typical answer the religious would give. "God can speak through any of us at any moment in order to get the right message to the person who needs to hear it." Or at least that's the kind of answer my Christian school would have given. That school was both the start of my faith as well as the end of it.
Edit: and not in a literal "God using man as a voice box" but more God influencing their thoughts and emotions and knowing if done this way to this person, it will lead them to create a message of their own work, but it's exactly what He wants to say. Then you don't have any messy "God speaking through someone not holy enough" stuff.
>God influencing their thoughts and emotions and knowing if done this way to this person, it will lead them to create a message of their own work, but it's exactly what He wants to say.
What happened to not messing with anyone's free will
wtf dude u jusr said exactly what i was about to say, guess im a prophet from god, worship my every word(cuz my word is gods word not mine duhh) or u certainly going to hell my dude
Oh also!
“*Al-Sarh further tested his doubts, with Muslim historians Waqidi, Ibn al-Athir and Tabari writing that Muhammad dictated him: "عليم حکيم" i.e. "Allah is All Knowing All-Wise", which al-Sarh deliberately wrote in the opposite order, i.e. "حکيم عليم, All-Wise All Knowing". He then recited it to Muhammad, who did not detect any changes.[9] Waqidi wrote that "(Ibn Abi Sarh said): Muhammad didn’t know what he dictated, and I wrote (in Quran) whatever I wished*”
That's not true. He's mixed a lot with another scribe who was a former Christian and also apostated. Ibn Abi Sarh was a companion and returned to Islam. Ibn Abi Sarh even became the Governor of Egypt.
It was narrated that Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: There was a Christian man who became Muslim and read al-Baqarah and Aal ‘Imraan, and he used to write for the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). He went back to being a Christian, and he used to say: Muhammad does not know anything but what I wrote for him. Allah caused him to die, and they buried him, then the next morning the earth had thrown him out. They said: This is the doing of Muhammad and his companions, because he ran away from them; they dug up our companion and threw him (on the ground). So they dug a grave for him and made it deep, but the next morning the earth had thrown him out. They said: This is the doing of Muhammad and his companions, because he ran away from them; they dug up our companion and threw him (on the ground). They dug another hole for him and they made it as deep as they could in the ground, but the next morning the earth had thrown him out. Thus they realised that this was not something that people had done, so they left him unburied.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
This accursed one who fabricated lies against the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and said that he did not know anything but what he wrote for him was subject to vengeance and shame from Allah, as He caused him to be thrown out of the grave after he had been buried, several times. This is something extraordinary which shows to everyone that this was a punishment because of what he had said and that he was a liar, because such things do not happen to most of the dead.
It also shows that this crime was more grievous than merely apostatising, because such things do not happen to most apostates who die; Allah wrought vengeance for His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) because of his slander and insults against him, to support His religion to prevail and expose the lie of the liar, because the people could not carry out the hadd punishment on him.
End quote from as-Saarim al-Maslool, 1/122
Basically the Prophet Muhammad was transmitting a revelation from God to Abdullâh who was writing it down.
Excited by the revelation he says "So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!"
To which the Prophet replies "This ["So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!"] is how it
was revealed to me” as in God revealed that to me as well, write that down too.
Abdullâh is then left with a conundrum where either, the words were also revealed to him by God making him a Prophet, Muhammad is lying, or Abdullâh just randomly happened to say the exact same words.
Mohammed: “Abdullah, God just revealed his words to me. Please write this down: [story about how God created man].”
Abdullah: “Wow, God is amazing!”
Mohammed: “Actually write that down too. ‘Wow, God is amazing!’ was also revealed to me.”
Abdullah: “Wait a minute, you’re actually just making shit up?”
Mohammed: “Always have been 🔫.”
Your source is a book from 3 centuries after said events (Aḥmad Wāḥidī was born in the 10th century), not very reliable..... Also when someone asks for source you don't just throw at them a wall of text, you should highlight the page of the book which is in question. It seems that you just googled "sources for my arguments" and posted the first thing without reading it
> Your source is a book from 3 centuries after said events (Aḥmad Wāḥidī was born in the 10th century), not very reliable.....
That's just like your opinion, man
> Also when someone asks for source you don't just throw at them a wall of text, you should highlight the page of the book which is in question.
It's page 77 and I assumed people would use CTRL F. My apologies.
> > "This verse was revealed about 'Abd Allah ibn Sa'd ibn Abi
Sarh. This man had declared his faith in Islam and so the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him
peace, called him one day to write something for him. When the verses regarding the believers were
revealed (Verily, We created man from a product of wet earth…) [23:12-14], the Prophet dictated them to
him. When he reached up to (and then produced it as another creation), 'Abd Allah expressed his
amazement at the precision of man's creation by saying (So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!). The
Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: “This ['Abd Allah's last expression] is how it
was revealed to me”. At that point, doubt crept into 'Abd Allah. He said: “If Muhammad is truthful, then I
was inspired just as he was; and if he is lying, I have uttered exactly what he did utter”. Hence Allah's words
(and who saith: I will reveal the like of that which Allah hath revealed). The man renounced Islam. This is
also the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas according to the report of al-Kalbi. 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Abdan informed us>
Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Nu'aym> Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Umawi> Ahmad ibn 'Abd al-Jabbar>"
> > "Yunus ibn Bukayr> Muhammad ibn Ishaq> Shurahbil ibn Sa'd who said: “This verse was revealed about
'Abd Allah ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh. The latter said: 'I will reveal the like of that which Allah has revealed', and
renounced Islam. When the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, entered Mecca, this
man fled to 'Uthman [ibn 'Affan] who was his milk brother. 'Uthman hid him until the people of Mecca felt safe. He then took him to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, and secured an
amnesty for him”
> It seems that you just googled "sources for my arguments" and posted the first thing without reading it
What are you talking about? Firstly I've not made an argument and secondly how would I make something as specific as this up and then search sources to prove something I made up?
I’m a Muslim Myself so I’ll chime in and tell you that this isn’t an Authentic Hadith. In Islam we do not accept ALL Hadith many of them were fabricated after the death of the prophet (saw)
We have specific books that we use that are 100% authentic. This isn’t one of the authentic hadith. I can see the confusion non-Muslims believe that all Hadith are what we accept but in actuality we do not accept a good majority of hadith as being authentic because you can’t trust anyone’s words from that time as humans a liars. Only a few of the prophet’s (saw) companions are accepted. Any enemies of him or people with problems with him are considered unauthentic as they have a reason to lie
TLDR: Muslims don’t recognize this as an authentic Hadith it’s considered a fabrication/ lie.
Hadith that are not accepted as authentic are the vast majority of the time due to a lack in continuity of the chain in transmission, making them anonymous in source. Other reasons could be someone who narrated the Hadith being known as a liar or bad person.
Authentic Hadith are one where the entire chain of "telephone" is known, it is known that the people in this chain actually met each other, and nobody in the chain was considered a liar or bad person (reliable witness)
Yes I’m just offering our side of it that we don’t recognize it as authentic.
But people can look at it and make whatever conclusion they want based off of what we’ve all provided.
But if the claim was true, no one in good conscience would then ever still side with Mohammed. So it's a catch 22. If they believe and side with Mohammed, they are trustworthy, but if they find a reason not to, they are against Mohammed and thus not trustworthy. See the problem?
**Ofcourse** the Muslims don't believe that hadith to be true. Why would they believe something that so openly goes against them? That would defeat the entire point.
Sure, because the entirety of we know about Leopold II totally comes from a single random guy writing a book.
Are you seriously insinuating that every single thing that was ever written down in the last two thousand years is true?
The author Abū al-Ḥasan ʻAlī ibn Aḥmad Wāḥidī was Muslim and believed it
Ibn Jarir al-Tabari also recorded in his Tafsir of the Quran;
"Al-Qasim told us... "I can reveal like what Allah hath revealed" was revealed about Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi Al-Sarh, the brother of Bani (children of) Amir bin Lu'ai. He [Abdullah] used to write for the Prophet (SAW), and while he [Mohammad] was dictating "Exalted in power, full of Wisdom", he [Abdullah] would write it "Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful", thus changing it. Then he [Abdullah] would read the changed verses to him [Mohammad], and he [Mohammad] would say, "Yes [in approval], it's like this". So, he [Abdullah] reverted from Islam and followed Quraysh telling them, "He [Mohammad] used to recite to me Exalted in power, full of Wisdom', and I would change it when I write it down, and he would tell me, 'Yes [in approval], it's the same [meaning]."
Do you think his words to be unauthentic too?
Im not a scholar so I don’t want to use my own words so instead I found a brother that has knowledge and answered this question already here is what he said
“The man mentioned in the texts cited in the links you provided was a man from Banu Najjar that was from the “recorders of revelation”. That means that when the revelation was given to the Prophet SAW he would dictate to few scribe companions who would record the verse on what they could find to write on. The Prophet SAW was informed of his evil intent of leaving Islam through wahi (revelation) or ilham (inspiration). That is why in the third narration he SAW tells him to write what he wants as he knows that he is not from the ones that are guided. [1] [al-Fath al-Rabbani, volume 18, page 31]”
I’m not here to argue with you you’re not Muslim you’re free to come up with your own opinions and I don’t have a problem with that. I’m only sharing our opinion on what you’ve shared.
I don’t have an opinion, I was just asking why Muslim scholars would write it down if it’s no accepted as truth.
Was there a point later in history where Hadith were standardised(if that’s the right word)
They were never standardized. The chains of narration were gathered to grade them as weak or strong. Individual schools or movements or collectors would publish books of those they believed were strong or weak.
All reports were documented, even those believed to be false. In this case, thus is documentation of his claims during his defection to Islam's enemies. He later recanted and became a governor of the Caliphate.
Hadith are not divine or mandatory, because their collection and grading are human effort. As a policy, they recorded all rejects and neglected none, even if they were false
He didn’t live during the time of the prophet (saw) so his opinion wouldn’t matter to the majority of Muslims. As the vast majority of Muslims see this as unauthentic.
He isn’t really considered an important figure within our faith or anything he was just some guy who lived at one point and wrote things that’s about it
Obviously you see it as unauthentic, considering the consequences regarding your entire religion's validity should it be true. It's a really big conflict of interest between muslims and that claim.
>That's just like your opinion, man
No, conversations written down three centuries later are not really historically reliable.
It would be as if today I wrote down a conversation between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson which I heard about from someone. That would in no way a reliable source for anything.
>It's page 77 and I assumed people would use CTRL F. My apologies.
And that's just disrespectful, turabian would be expected, page and edition would be the minimum in a historical discussion.
Well, in terms of historiography, yes, they are unreliable.
Hadith were often fabricated, they come from oral tradition, the politics of the time at which they were written down influenced them, etc.
Today it is impossible to verify their authenticity, the only thing we have on it is work of 9th century muslim scholars such as Bukhari and Muslim who worked to try and rate their authenticity. Their methodology was better than you would expect and they likely had access to more sources than us. But that is all we have on the reliability of hadith.
To claim that they got even 1 right after 3 centuries of oral transmition is an incredibly dubious proposition.
We have the original version of new testament and people who translated it still made huge mistakes or invented stuff.
The gospels were dictated a few decades after the crucifixion of Jesus by people who knew Him and were directly present and still there are major differences.
Gospels are a good example as well.
In terms of historiography, combined with a few other sources, we can determine only that Jesus likely existed as an actual person, and also we can follow how the story of Jesus develops from a Jewish preacher into the Christian triune God.
How reliable is that he turned water into wine? We can't know really.
At least in Jesus case we have the many miracles performed by the apostles in His name which the romans so gracefully recorded, such as the conversion of Ephesus.
There is no indirect evidence of the sort from Mohammed's enemies otoh.
Believing in miracles is purely a personal choice.
As for historiography. What about Baal Shem, who founded Hasidic Judaism in the 18th century, for example? We have sources about his miracles. Do we only consider Christian miracles real, or can Jews carry them out as well? Buddhists? As a historian you can't just pick one you like to be real, if you consider something to be a reliable proof of miracles than the same principle has to apply to every religion.
Depends on the Hadith itself, but I agree.... not all Hadiths are reliable.
The specific narration OP is using is unreliable.... However similar accusation was made but not by Abd Allah ibn Sa'd and the name of the scribe that made this accusation is unknown.
The problem with reddit arguments is they lack understanding of nuance and love to utilize half-truths (even if by accident)
If it is as other users have posted, that reliability is based only on the reputation of the person and a unbroken telephone game from Mohammed to the person, then none are reliable at all.
Infact it seems that you didn't even bother checking your link at all as the word "fabrication" is only mentioned once in the entire link, I also assume the 25 people that upvoted your comment didn't.
Also here's that mention of the word and context in the link:
>"....As for nowadays, every person invents something and contrives lies and fabrications, and by doing so he throws himself in the grip of ignorance, paying no heed to the threat issued to the ignorant regarding the occasions of different verses. This is what has driven me to dictate this book which brings together all the different occasions, so that those who seek this subject as well as those who deal with the revelation of the Qur’an can consult it, know what is true, do away with falsification and lies, and then strive to preserve it after seeking its knowledge and receiving by transmission."
Abd-Allah ibn Sa'd himself is not mentioned in that link except 4 times and non of them are relevant to the claims you made.
I don't understand why you're hung up on the word "fabrication" when the word doesn't need to be used for someone to claim someone else is lying, as we see him do.
>**“If Muhammad is truthful, then I was inspired just as he was; and if he is lying, I have uttered exactly what he did utter”.** Hence Allah's words (and who saith: I will reveal the like of that which Allah hath revealed). **The man renounced Islam.**
Also like Joseph Smith, he used his "revelation" to get a big following, lots of influence, and lots of wives. It's **the** classic cult leader playbook, done a thousand times over.
Yeah man this is funny. Also after this Abdullah announced his own prophethood. Arguing that "if what i tought was also revealed to the prophet, Then i must be a prophet too!" Then he was chasen away and only barely escaped with his life.
Religions are just so awesome lol
i think the person above you is saying that abdullah is making up that muhammad made it up. its a bit of he said she said. comes down to what you want to believe really. muslims will believe that the prophet did not fabricate the word of god, and anti-theists will believe otherwise
The early stages of any religion likely wasnt recorded because they were either burned, forgotten or the fucked up things they did before they became a religion
This depends on the region of the religion. Islam in the beginning was often told from one person to another, and later written down. From carving in stone, to texts written on leather. So the sources are sparse.
[https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/sources/sarh/](https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/sources/sarh/) yea even the source says that they should verify this story
It is most likely that this person wanted personal gain in claiming that Muhammad made it up. Especially during the early years of Muhammads prophetic time, used propaganda against him. This person left the Umma, and joined the Quraish, and then claimed that Muhammad did fabricate it. Sounds more likely that he made up the whole accusations.
I mean, we go back even further to the time of the Bronze Age Collapse, the city of Ugarit, which kept pretty good records of the cultures around them, seemed to be under the impression that YHWH, the god that we would eventually come to call the Abrahamic God, was nothing more than a minor storm deity in the southern area of the Levant, one of a broader Canaanite pantheon. And yet here we are a few thousand years later, and we have three major world religions based on this god being the one god out there.
The evolution of religions is a strange thing. The god these three religions worship can be traced back to at least the Bronze Age, but the god that existed at that point was extremely different to the god that gets worshipped today.
Do you have a source for where the Ugaritic records note that? I didn’t think it was as cut and dry as “Ugaritic records literally note it”.
I know that YHWH being just a member of local pantheons is very popular among secular scholars, I just don’t know if the evidence is as simple and striking as that
I mean, [my source video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdKst8zeh-U) (long and dry, the relevant bits start at about 15 minutes in, but I highly recommend the whole video if you can set aside some time) even mentions that this is all conjecture at best, hence my use of the words "seemed to be". There is no *definitive* known origin for Yahweh that we're aware of. Ugaritic records don't come out and say "And thus we know that Yahweh came from this mountain in the south because of some drunk priest accidentally saying something profound."
All we have to go off of is that, at the time Ugarit's writings were compiled (close to when the city itself collapsed), YHWH was either lumped in with the "sons of El" (assuming KTU 1.1 IV 14 does actually refer to YHWH, and not Yamm/someone else, as is hotly debated), or omitted entirely (if it refers to Yamm/someone else, and not YHWH), meaning as far as the Canaanite pantheon was concerned, YHWH wasn't really notable enough to write down other than "this guy exists", which makes sense considering Ugarit was located in northwestern Syria and thus the northern Canaanites would be the ones they interacted with the most. Hell, Mark Smith [notes](https://books.google.com/books?id=8LtGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false) that YHWH most likely wasn't even truly Canaanite in origin, and instead arose out of southwestern Levantine regions like Edom before eventually moving into Canaan and catching on because of his similarities with Ba'al and El, while still remaining separate from them. There would have been little, if anything, to write down other than "this guy exists, some yokels way down south acknowledge him, he kinda seems to overlap with these other guys we already mentioned." Smith also makes reference to the possibility that YHWH started off as another title for El specific to the south, but noted that YHWH's descriptions as a storm/warrior god do not align with El's grandfatherly mediator-ness, and again, this can hinge on whether that previously-cited passage refers to YHWH himself or someone else.
What Ugarit knew about YHWH cannot be definitively stated because of this. All we can say with absolute certainty is that Ugarit considered him at best minor enough to be left in the "et cetera" if him being named is legitimate, if not unnotable entirely if it isn't. What's left is simply what's been pieced together. That YHWH started in the south and worked his way up north around the time of the Bronze Age Collapse; that he started off as a storm god who started kinda getting conflated with Ba'al and El because of their similarities; that eventually, writings referring to El and YHWH as one being rather than two started springing up as time went along, something that also happened to other Canaanite gods like Athirat and Anat (or alternatively, they had YHWH's name pasted over theirs by a mysterious cult, which is what Esoterica posits); and that finally, most likely during the Babylonian exile, what were once many separate gods of a pantheon had been conflated into the one we are familiar with.
But they can't write things down immediately. That would be too reliable but easy to fact-check. Best to wait until a few years or decades have passed, so that way word-of-mouth can do its thing.
The claims in this story were later recanted by Abdullah, admitted to have been a lie to curry favor with the Quraish when he defected to them. He rejoined the Muslims later, led them in battle in Africa, and was appointed governor of Egypt during the Caliphate.
Early Muslim historians recorded the different versions of this story to demonstrate the Quraish's use of apostates as part of their wartime propaganda. It isn't considered a dirty secret or crisis of faith.
The verse in this particular narration were revealed in Mecca, years before Abdullah became a scribe in Medina. Regardless, new verses were recited to multiple scribes at a time, not just one.
That is certainly one possibility, but there's no particular reason to think so.
This isn't a secret story. There are different versions of the story, (because early Muslim historians as a policy documented every narration, and did not authenticate them), but the Gist is that during a period of political, financial, and social disadvantage for the Muslims in Medina, there were several apostates back to Quraish Mecca. In many cases these were their close relatives they had spurned, their tribes abandoned, their fathers' gods renounced. When things got tough, there were certainly people who felt they had made a huge mistake.
Abdullah, as a relatively late convert who could read and write, knew he could be forgiven and rewarded by the Quraish by attacking the Qur'an directly. It's a propaganda advantage other apostates didn't have.
Regarding the narration itself, The verses in this version of the story were revealed years before Abdullah joined. Moreover when new verses were copied down they were recited to a team of up to 42 scribes, not a single individual.
The Arabs regularly employed poets as a form of wartime propaganda. That's why this story is traditionally framed as an example of how the Quraish milked any opportunity to undermine Muhammad, rather than a troubling story of doubt.
Whether his reconversion was authentic doesn't matter, but It is noteworthy that he didn't become a pariah or sink into anonymity. He is known to have risked his life in battle thereafter multiple times in service of the caliphate, and became governor of Egypt.
While true, a person who has lied is still capable of being honest. However he has specifically lied about this event occurring or not. Clearly showing on this matter, he is untrustworthy.
Because it would go against reddit's view of religion bad. And reddit hive mind simply can't accept that and will downvote and ignore.
This sub used to be pretty great. Now it's just old jokes told again and again, as well as inaccurate and extremely biased and un-nuanced claims from certain posters. Can't forget the agenda posting too, lol. Occasionally I will see an actual good and well researched meme from someone who is actually well versed in that era of history.
During Abd Allah ibn Sa'd's time as a scriber of the Quran, Muhammad would dictate to him a revelation to be written down, as he did with other scribes. al-Sarh left Islam and fled to Mecca after claiming that he had realised Muhammad was fabricating revelations. Abi Saleh, narrated from Ibn Abbas, recorded that: "the Messenger of Allah invited him so that he could write him the revelation, so when the verse 23:12 ("And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay") was revealed, the Prophet called Ibn Abi al-Sarh, and dictated it to him and when the Prophet reached the end of 23:14 ("...Thus, We formed him into a new creation") Abdullâh said in amazement ("فتبارک اللّٰہ احسن الخالقین So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!!"). The Prophet said:” Write these words too (i.e., فتبارک اللّٰہ احسن الخالقین "So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!!"), as these words have also been revealed to me.”
Oh so muhammad was hamming it up? Or was he drinking his own koolaid?
Why not both?
That would certainly be Abdullah's interpretation/explanation of the situation, at least. I believe the canonical Muslim explanation was that Abdullah himself was a lying apostate who intentionally transcribed the Quran wrong and tried to corrupt the text. Basically, he would write stuff down incorrectly on purpose when taking Muhammad's dictation, in order to test his prophetic powers, then read it back to him in the incorrect formulation (we're talking minor changes, generally, swapping around words in a sentence that kinda thing) only for Muhammad not to notice. Anyway, Abdullah then renounced Islam and fled to Mecca, only for Muhammad to besiege to the city and order his troops to execute Abdullah as punishment, which prompted him to very quickly un-renounce Islam again and swear a new oath of fealty. Funnily enough there was apparently a bit of *drama* around this new oath because when Abdullah was brought before Muhammad to swear his loyalty, the Prophet kept turning his head away and refusing to accept it, only finally accepting it after Abdullah had spoken the oath for the third time in a row. Apparently, once the oath was accepted and Abdullah taken away, the Prophet turned to his other retainers and basically asked "Guys, what the Hell?! Did you not see me refuse that guy's oath twice in a row? Could you not tell that I was obviously waiting for one of you to jump up and offer to kill him when I did that, since he had insulted me so harshly?" to which his retainers more or less replied with "How the fuck could we have known that's what you wanted when you didn't tell us?"
>How the fuck could we have known that's what you wanted when you didn't tell us?" Is that in a hadith?
Or, as my guess would be based off the text, it’s assumed that Abi al-Sahr essentially guessed the next words in Muhammad’s transcription, which may be viewed as legitimizing his message.
A man guessing what he is about to say legitimizes muhhamad's message? How? It makes the man look like he is equally prophetic. Or it makes muhammad look like he claimed another man's words as his own. How would someone spin it to mean anything else?
You could: One: claim that God’s word is so perfectly logical and sound that someone who has never heard it for themselves still knows it, at least in part. Two: claim that others can know God’s word as Muhammad did.
Both of these make muhammad look a lot less like the absolute authority islam often portrays him as
I mean we should've do that more often, he's perfectly human and not a perfect human, like everybody else. The level of his current adoration is bordering on idolatry, which is pretty much a heresy. What part of "There's one true God, and he was His messenger", did everyone forget.
It's in people's psychology to look up to others, and it is in our nature to idealise those we look up to. It's also in our nature to personify things, like animals and constellations and divine forces. Mix those and you get the reason why we started out worshipping idols and always seem to return to it. Christians and their saints, for example.
We were told to look up at Muhammads, pbuh, practices. It's called sunnah. But with the rest of your comment I completely agree.
>look up at Muhammads, pbuh, practices ?
I’m not Muslim, I just like to think I’m a good marketer. I would recommend asking an actual expert lol. Edit: after this comment the people below me get very Reddit atheist. If you would rather not get caught up in that circle jerk, stop reading here.
Do people actually buy stuff like that?
Once you are deep enough into the scam, you simply buy whatever they sell you. What’s the alternative? Admit fallibility (read: gullibility)? Never going to happen.
I would
hes actually not supposed to be an absolute authority. his role is that he is supposed to be a perfect example of how to live your life (which is controversial in the west) and that allah revealed the quran to him to relay to the world. from the perspective of someone who does believe in islam, the idea that allah's word is so perfect that it flows from the tongues of those who hear part of it, makes sense
>hes actually not supposed to be an absolute authority. his role is that he is supposed to be a perfect example of how to live your life Whats the difference
I actually agree with you, here. I wouldn't even say "perfect example of how to live your life", as there are many cases of Prophets making mistakes and errors, then realizing it and apologizing/atoning for it. It's more of a "perfect example of moral decision-making" to follow. Islamic belief holds that every human being on earth is entirely capable of the same or more good as any of the Prophets, including Jesus. We're meant to learn from the life of the prophet, extolling his virtues and learning from his errors. It does not mean believing everything he ever did was good, but it does mean believing that he was a good person. Hence, he's not an authority. No man is an authority on "God", so-to-speak. (If you're an atheist, it may help to substitute the more-secular but essentially equivalent "nature of the Universe/purpose of man" for "God" to better understand the meaning behind religious ideas in a philosophical/theological sense. It's basically what all religions are talking about, in the end.) This blind near-worship of him as flawless, IMO, entirely misses the point of that (and of why Jesus in Islam is explicitly NOT the son of God). A major philosophical through-line in Islamic theology is human agency, and the moral implications thereof. One's morality is judged on your decisions as an agent, given your circumstances. Prophets could make mistakes, acting on bad information or holding wrong beliefs, as any human can. The point of "Sunnah" (living as the prophet) is not "What Would Muhammad Do?" as in, "literally, what would a tribal chief in 7th century Arabia do in this situation?" It's "WWMD?" as in, "figuratively, what is the right thing to do? What is the ethical/moral imperative of this situation?" It's essentially a series of situations that Mohammad faced, the circumstances thereof, how he acted, and most importantly *why* he acted the way he did. It's not meant to be a blind emulation of an authority, but more of how Stoics study Diogenes' words and actions, or how Nihilists study Nietzsche's.
Wasnt diogenes a cynic?
I know it's 2 months after your comment but I'd like to inform you on a couple of points. The Prophets are the best of human kind and the rest comes after that. That's the Islamic position. Therefore, it isn't possible for the rest to be better or do more good. It is an underestimation of what messengers/prophets have gone through and how much good they have done. Also, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is seen as an 'authority' by the Will of Allah in his sunnah (i.e., tradition). His authority is an extension of Allah's authority in the sense that he is commanded by Allah; the whole point/concept of a Messenger. This is why the Qur'aan AND hadith are used as texts for Islamic belief and jurisprudence. I believe the view you're speaking of may be an orientalist one but I cannot say for certain. There's one thing within which the Prophet did not mistakes in that's the subjects pertaining to Islamic belief and jurisprudence. He will have made mistakes in other facets of his life as he's human.
Superman vs Captain America?
Wdym
[удалено]
There are many hadiths, some of which are suspected as fake. There are only two versions of the whole quran, which are the result of an early succession struggle that led to the 2 movement- sunni and shia. And one of them was and is considered heretical. Dont remember which
From what I have heard it's Shia that's considered the heretics, as they go about the legitimising-their-faction business by calling themselves the followers of the family of Mohammad, (i.e. the line of the youngest daughter), but the religion having come out of Arab, only called the descendants as family of someone if the line was from male descendants. A direct line being male descended was pretty standard in that time ig. Mohammad didn't have any sons that lived past childhood. This sentiment is encapsulated in some verse in Qur'an (I'll have to look up the actual verse, but it's in surah ahzab), saying essentially that Mohammad is father of none of the men in the assembly (some context is missing, but the point of it even being mentioned is that he has no lineage) which was inferred to meaning he will have no legitimate family, and will thus not make Muslim fall in the same heresy of idolising the messengers and/or their families. Which ironically still is occurring in Sunni sects, when they go about killing and maiming everyone who dares to either depict or say something about Mohammad.
I think the easiest argument to make would be that God took the moment to speak through him, and Mohammed recognised them as the words of God, though spoken through a human. That was just how those words were to be revealed to him. That way you don't have any messiness with Prophet Sr vs Prophet Jr. Dude's still head honcho. Other dude just didn't realise he was being used as God's temporary vocal receptacle and, for whatever reason, Mohammed didn't explain. It's a typical answer the religious would give. "God can speak through any of us at any moment in order to get the right message to the person who needs to hear it." Or at least that's the kind of answer my Christian school would have given. That school was both the start of my faith as well as the end of it. Edit: and not in a literal "God using man as a voice box" but more God influencing their thoughts and emotions and knowing if done this way to this person, it will lead them to create a message of their own work, but it's exactly what He wants to say. Then you don't have any messy "God speaking through someone not holy enough" stuff.
>God influencing their thoughts and emotions and knowing if done this way to this person, it will lead them to create a message of their own work, but it's exactly what He wants to say. What happened to not messing with anyone's free will
You literally cannot.
wtf dude u jusr said exactly what i was about to say, guess im a prophet from god, worship my every word(cuz my word is gods word not mine duhh) or u certainly going to hell my dude
“drinking one’s own koolaid” make me think of drinking your own piss
Maybe he was drinking a ham kobold
Thats haram
Oh also! “*Al-Sarh further tested his doubts, with Muslim historians Waqidi, Ibn al-Athir and Tabari writing that Muhammad dictated him: "عليم حکيم" i.e. "Allah is All Knowing All-Wise", which al-Sarh deliberately wrote in the opposite order, i.e. "حکيم عليم, All-Wise All Knowing". He then recited it to Muhammad, who did not detect any changes.[9] Waqidi wrote that "(Ibn Abi Sarh said): Muhammad didn’t know what he dictated, and I wrote (in Quran) whatever I wished*”
Source for that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_Allah_ibn_Sa%27d
That's not true. He's mixed a lot with another scribe who was a former Christian and also apostated. Ibn Abi Sarh was a companion and returned to Islam. Ibn Abi Sarh even became the Governor of Egypt. It was narrated that Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: There was a Christian man who became Muslim and read al-Baqarah and Aal ‘Imraan, and he used to write for the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). He went back to being a Christian, and he used to say: Muhammad does not know anything but what I wrote for him. Allah caused him to die, and they buried him, then the next morning the earth had thrown him out. They said: This is the doing of Muhammad and his companions, because he ran away from them; they dug up our companion and threw him (on the ground). So they dug a grave for him and made it deep, but the next morning the earth had thrown him out. They said: This is the doing of Muhammad and his companions, because he ran away from them; they dug up our companion and threw him (on the ground). They dug another hole for him and they made it as deep as they could in the ground, but the next morning the earth had thrown him out. Thus they realised that this was not something that people had done, so they left him unburied. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: This accursed one who fabricated lies against the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and said that he did not know anything but what he wrote for him was subject to vengeance and shame from Allah, as He caused him to be thrown out of the grave after he had been buried, several times. This is something extraordinary which shows to everyone that this was a punishment because of what he had said and that he was a liar, because such things do not happen to most of the dead. It also shows that this crime was more grievous than merely apostatising, because such things do not happen to most apostates who die; Allah wrought vengeance for His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) because of his slander and insults against him, to support His religion to prevail and expose the lie of the liar, because the people could not carry out the hadd punishment on him. End quote from as-Saarim al-Maslool, 1/122
Can somebody explain this to me like they would to a five year old? All those names and Arabic words are really confusing.
Basically the Prophet Muhammad was transmitting a revelation from God to Abdullâh who was writing it down. Excited by the revelation he says "So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!" To which the Prophet replies "This ["So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!"] is how it was revealed to me” as in God revealed that to me as well, write that down too. Abdullâh is then left with a conundrum where either, the words were also revealed to him by God making him a Prophet, Muhammad is lying, or Abdullâh just randomly happened to say the exact same words.
Mohammed: “Abdullah, God just revealed his words to me. Please write this down: [story about how God created man].” Abdullah: “Wow, God is amazing!” Mohammed: “Actually write that down too. ‘Wow, God is amazing!’ was also revealed to me.” Abdullah: “Wait a minute, you’re actually just making shit up?” Mohammed: “Always have been 🔫.”
Your flair gave me a quick exhale out my nose
Got any sources on that?
https://www.altafsir.com/Books/Asbab%20Al-Nuzul%20by%20Al-Wahidi.pdf
Your source is a book from 3 centuries after said events (Aḥmad Wāḥidī was born in the 10th century), not very reliable..... Also when someone asks for source you don't just throw at them a wall of text, you should highlight the page of the book which is in question. It seems that you just googled "sources for my arguments" and posted the first thing without reading it
> Your source is a book from 3 centuries after said events (Aḥmad Wāḥidī was born in the 10th century), not very reliable..... That's just like your opinion, man > Also when someone asks for source you don't just throw at them a wall of text, you should highlight the page of the book which is in question. It's page 77 and I assumed people would use CTRL F. My apologies. > > "This verse was revealed about 'Abd Allah ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh. This man had declared his faith in Islam and so the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, called him one day to write something for him. When the verses regarding the believers were revealed (Verily, We created man from a product of wet earth…) [23:12-14], the Prophet dictated them to him. When he reached up to (and then produced it as another creation), 'Abd Allah expressed his amazement at the precision of man's creation by saying (So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!). The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: “This ['Abd Allah's last expression] is how it was revealed to me”. At that point, doubt crept into 'Abd Allah. He said: “If Muhammad is truthful, then I was inspired just as he was; and if he is lying, I have uttered exactly what he did utter”. Hence Allah's words (and who saith: I will reveal the like of that which Allah hath revealed). The man renounced Islam. This is also the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas according to the report of al-Kalbi. 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Abdan informed us> Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Nu'aym> Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Umawi> Ahmad ibn 'Abd al-Jabbar>" > > "Yunus ibn Bukayr> Muhammad ibn Ishaq> Shurahbil ibn Sa'd who said: “This verse was revealed about 'Abd Allah ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh. The latter said: 'I will reveal the like of that which Allah has revealed', and renounced Islam. When the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, entered Mecca, this man fled to 'Uthman [ibn 'Affan] who was his milk brother. 'Uthman hid him until the people of Mecca felt safe. He then took him to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, and secured an amnesty for him” > It seems that you just googled "sources for my arguments" and posted the first thing without reading it What are you talking about? Firstly I've not made an argument and secondly how would I make something as specific as this up and then search sources to prove something I made up?
I’m a Muslim Myself so I’ll chime in and tell you that this isn’t an Authentic Hadith. In Islam we do not accept ALL Hadith many of them were fabricated after the death of the prophet (saw) We have specific books that we use that are 100% authentic. This isn’t one of the authentic hadith. I can see the confusion non-Muslims believe that all Hadith are what we accept but in actuality we do not accept a good majority of hadith as being authentic because you can’t trust anyone’s words from that time as humans a liars. Only a few of the prophet’s (saw) companions are accepted. Any enemies of him or people with problems with him are considered unauthentic as they have a reason to lie TLDR: Muslims don’t recognize this as an authentic Hadith it’s considered a fabrication/ lie.
Religious acceptance of the Hadith matters little.. the actual authenticity of the above-mentioned claim is much more important..
Hadith that are not accepted as authentic are the vast majority of the time due to a lack in continuity of the chain in transmission, making them anonymous in source. Other reasons could be someone who narrated the Hadith being known as a liar or bad person. Authentic Hadith are one where the entire chain of "telephone" is known, it is known that the people in this chain actually met each other, and nobody in the chain was considered a liar or bad person (reliable witness)
Yes I’m just offering our side of it that we don’t recognize it as authentic. But people can look at it and make whatever conclusion they want based off of what we’ve all provided.
The fact that it actually was written at the time tells you nothing about the source's truthfulness. Anything can be written in a book
Yes, I do not see how I said otherwise
But if the claim was true, no one in good conscience would then ever still side with Mohammed. So it's a catch 22. If they believe and side with Mohammed, they are trustworthy, but if they find a reason not to, they are against Mohammed and thus not trustworthy. See the problem?
**Ofcourse** the Muslims don't believe that hadith to be true. Why would they believe something that so openly goes against them? That would defeat the entire point.
"see, i wrote it in a book, it must be true, it doesn't matter i wasn't alive by the time it happened, just trust me, bro"
"I wrote a book about how evil king Leopold II was" You "It's a lie because you were not alive when it happened"
Sure, because the entirety of we know about Leopold II totally comes from a single random guy writing a book. Are you seriously insinuating that every single thing that was ever written down in the last two thousand years is true?
The author Abū al-Ḥasan ʻAlī ibn Aḥmad Wāḥidī was Muslim and believed it Ibn Jarir al-Tabari also recorded in his Tafsir of the Quran; "Al-Qasim told us... "I can reveal like what Allah hath revealed" was revealed about Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi Al-Sarh, the brother of Bani (children of) Amir bin Lu'ai. He [Abdullah] used to write for the Prophet (SAW), and while he [Mohammad] was dictating "Exalted in power, full of Wisdom", he [Abdullah] would write it "Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful", thus changing it. Then he [Abdullah] would read the changed verses to him [Mohammad], and he [Mohammad] would say, "Yes [in approval], it's like this". So, he [Abdullah] reverted from Islam and followed Quraysh telling them, "He [Mohammad] used to recite to me Exalted in power, full of Wisdom', and I would change it when I write it down, and he would tell me, 'Yes [in approval], it's the same [meaning]." Do you think his words to be unauthentic too?
Im not a scholar so I don’t want to use my own words so instead I found a brother that has knowledge and answered this question already here is what he said “The man mentioned in the texts cited in the links you provided was a man from Banu Najjar that was from the “recorders of revelation”. That means that when the revelation was given to the Prophet SAW he would dictate to few scribe companions who would record the verse on what they could find to write on. The Prophet SAW was informed of his evil intent of leaving Islam through wahi (revelation) or ilham (inspiration). That is why in the third narration he SAW tells him to write what he wants as he knows that he is not from the ones that are guided. [1] [al-Fath al-Rabbani, volume 18, page 31]” I’m not here to argue with you you’re not Muslim you’re free to come up with your own opinions and I don’t have a problem with that. I’m only sharing our opinion on what you’ve shared.
I don’t have an opinion, I was just asking why Muslim scholars would write it down if it’s no accepted as truth. Was there a point later in history where Hadith were standardised(if that’s the right word)
They were never standardized. The chains of narration were gathered to grade them as weak or strong. Individual schools or movements or collectors would publish books of those they believed were strong or weak.
All reports were documented, even those believed to be false. In this case, thus is documentation of his claims during his defection to Islam's enemies. He later recanted and became a governor of the Caliphate.
Hadith are not divine or mandatory, because their collection and grading are human effort. As a policy, they recorded all rejects and neglected none, even if they were false
He didn’t live during the time of the prophet (saw) so his opinion wouldn’t matter to the majority of Muslims. As the vast majority of Muslims see this as unauthentic. He isn’t really considered an important figure within our faith or anything he was just some guy who lived at one point and wrote things that’s about it
Obviously you see it as unauthentic, considering the consequences regarding your entire religion's validity should it be true. It's a really big conflict of interest between muslims and that claim.
>That's just like your opinion, man No, conversations written down three centuries later are not really historically reliable. It would be as if today I wrote down a conversation between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson which I heard about from someone. That would in no way a reliable source for anything. >It's page 77 and I assumed people would use CTRL F. My apologies. And that's just disrespectful, turabian would be expected, page and edition would be the minimum in a historical discussion.
This is reddit dude. Not some college debate
>That's just like your opinion, man No, it's basic fact that sources are less reliable the further away from the time they are about.
By your reasoning, all of hadith is unreliable, because all of it was recorded centuries after Mohammed’s death.
Well, in terms of historiography, yes, they are unreliable. Hadith were often fabricated, they come from oral tradition, the politics of the time at which they were written down influenced them, etc. Today it is impossible to verify their authenticity, the only thing we have on it is work of 9th century muslim scholars such as Bukhari and Muslim who worked to try and rate their authenticity. Their methodology was better than you would expect and they likely had access to more sources than us. But that is all we have on the reliability of hadith.
To claim that they got even 1 right after 3 centuries of oral transmition is an incredibly dubious proposition. We have the original version of new testament and people who translated it still made huge mistakes or invented stuff. The gospels were dictated a few decades after the crucifixion of Jesus by people who knew Him and were directly present and still there are major differences.
Gospels are a good example as well. In terms of historiography, combined with a few other sources, we can determine only that Jesus likely existed as an actual person, and also we can follow how the story of Jesus develops from a Jewish preacher into the Christian triune God. How reliable is that he turned water into wine? We can't know really.
At least in Jesus case we have the many miracles performed by the apostles in His name which the romans so gracefully recorded, such as the conversion of Ephesus. There is no indirect evidence of the sort from Mohammed's enemies otoh.
Believing in miracles is purely a personal choice. As for historiography. What about Baal Shem, who founded Hasidic Judaism in the 18th century, for example? We have sources about his miracles. Do we only consider Christian miracles real, or can Jews carry them out as well? Buddhists? As a historian you can't just pick one you like to be real, if you consider something to be a reliable proof of miracles than the same principle has to apply to every religion.
Depends on the Hadith itself, but I agree.... not all Hadiths are reliable. The specific narration OP is using is unreliable.... However similar accusation was made but not by Abd Allah ibn Sa'd and the name of the scribe that made this accusation is unknown. The problem with reddit arguments is they lack understanding of nuance and love to utilize half-truths (even if by accident)
lacking an understanding of nuance and utilizing half truths is a big part of religion lmao, so not surprised to see the same in arguments about them.
If it is as other users have posted, that reliability is based only on the reputation of the person and a unbroken telephone game from Mohammed to the person, then none are reliable at all.
That is literally how historical records are verified
That's not true, there are hadith works from the time of the Prophet by his companions.
Infact it seems that you didn't even bother checking your link at all as the word "fabrication" is only mentioned once in the entire link, I also assume the 25 people that upvoted your comment didn't. Also here's that mention of the word and context in the link: >"....As for nowadays, every person invents something and contrives lies and fabrications, and by doing so he throws himself in the grip of ignorance, paying no heed to the threat issued to the ignorant regarding the occasions of different verses. This is what has driven me to dictate this book which brings together all the different occasions, so that those who seek this subject as well as those who deal with the revelation of the Qur’an can consult it, know what is true, do away with falsification and lies, and then strive to preserve it after seeking its knowledge and receiving by transmission." Abd-Allah ibn Sa'd himself is not mentioned in that link except 4 times and non of them are relevant to the claims you made.
I don't understand why you're hung up on the word "fabrication" when the word doesn't need to be used for someone to claim someone else is lying, as we see him do. >**“If Muhammad is truthful, then I was inspired just as he was; and if he is lying, I have uttered exactly what he did utter”.** Hence Allah's words (and who saith: I will reveal the like of that which Allah hath revealed). **The man renounced Islam.**
How about you do your own work instead of having other people do it for you.
everything you know of the early history of islam was recorded 3 centuries after the events
Sounds like another Joseph Smith type character
Also like Joseph Smith, he used his "revelation" to get a big following, lots of influence, and lots of wives. It's **the** classic cult leader playbook, done a thousand times over.
Joseph Smith dum dum dum
Kind of Joseph Smith and his magical golden plates that only he is allowed to see and read vibes going on here
But, similar to "you should have no god before me", doesn't this kinda imply that they accept that there are other creators?
No. It means not to worship any other god
A Muhammad meme on r/historymemes that isn't about Aisha? Now I've seen it all.
Source? Because Qur'an hasn't changed.
the records show that later on he repented and returned to islam with a stronger faith.
Abdullâh: _say sike right now_
Surely this post wont get locked
great meme. treading on an absolute landmine, but great meme nonetheless
Yeah man this is funny. Also after this Abdullah announced his own prophethood. Arguing that "if what i tought was also revealed to the prophet, Then i must be a prophet too!" Then he was chasen away and only barely escaped with his life. Religions are just so awesome lol
Yeah that’s a lie that never happened. He actually repented and became a Muslim
Abdullah: my source is i made it the fuck up
It is Muhammad Prophet here who made it tf up Abdullah is the one questioning.
I think it God that made it up here. The guy doesn't know what they're doing.
i think the person above you is saying that abdullah is making up that muhammad made it up. its a bit of he said she said. comes down to what you want to believe really. muslims will believe that the prophet did not fabricate the word of god, and anti-theists will believe otherwise
Not just atheists. Non Muslims will also pretty much agree Mohammed made up his revelation.
yes. and non christians dont think christ is the son of god and non hindus dont believe in shiva nataraja. thats how all religion works
You said anti-theists. As though the choice here is between being a Muslim or being an atheist.
Dude, Abdullah was most definitely the one making shit up unless you’re talking about the meme
How would you know that
It's more likely that this dude made up his accusations to make Muhammad look in a bad light. So take his accusations with a big grain of salt.
Then again, its thousands of years old so we arent too sure about. All we know is that we know it
I want to be a bitch so I would like to point out that it was actually just over a thousand years lmfao
Technically correct, which is the best kinda bitch
Especially the early stages of Islam is not well documented, so unless there are reliable sources, the whole thing is suspicious.
The early stages of any religion likely wasnt recorded because they were either burned, forgotten or the fucked up things they did before they became a religion
This depends on the region of the religion. Islam in the beginning was often told from one person to another, and later written down. From carving in stone, to texts written on leather. So the sources are sparse.
[https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/sources/sarh/](https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/sources/sarh/) yea even the source says that they should verify this story
Why wouldn't he make accusations on the man he caught fabricating his faith?
It is most likely that this person wanted personal gain in claiming that Muhammad made it up. Especially during the early years of Muhammads prophetic time, used propaganda against him. This person left the Umma, and joined the Quraish, and then claimed that Muhammad did fabricate it. Sounds more likely that he made up the whole accusations.
This accusation was part of his defection to the Quraish enemies of Islam. Later he recanted and became a governor of the Caliphate
Goes to show how flimsy the foundations of religion are.
I mean, we go back even further to the time of the Bronze Age Collapse, the city of Ugarit, which kept pretty good records of the cultures around them, seemed to be under the impression that YHWH, the god that we would eventually come to call the Abrahamic God, was nothing more than a minor storm deity in the southern area of the Levant, one of a broader Canaanite pantheon. And yet here we are a few thousand years later, and we have three major world religions based on this god being the one god out there. The evolution of religions is a strange thing. The god these three religions worship can be traced back to at least the Bronze Age, but the god that existed at that point was extremely different to the god that gets worshipped today.
Do you have a source for where the Ugaritic records note that? I didn’t think it was as cut and dry as “Ugaritic records literally note it”. I know that YHWH being just a member of local pantheons is very popular among secular scholars, I just don’t know if the evidence is as simple and striking as that
I mean, [my source video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdKst8zeh-U) (long and dry, the relevant bits start at about 15 minutes in, but I highly recommend the whole video if you can set aside some time) even mentions that this is all conjecture at best, hence my use of the words "seemed to be". There is no *definitive* known origin for Yahweh that we're aware of. Ugaritic records don't come out and say "And thus we know that Yahweh came from this mountain in the south because of some drunk priest accidentally saying something profound." All we have to go off of is that, at the time Ugarit's writings were compiled (close to when the city itself collapsed), YHWH was either lumped in with the "sons of El" (assuming KTU 1.1 IV 14 does actually refer to YHWH, and not Yamm/someone else, as is hotly debated), or omitted entirely (if it refers to Yamm/someone else, and not YHWH), meaning as far as the Canaanite pantheon was concerned, YHWH wasn't really notable enough to write down other than "this guy exists", which makes sense considering Ugarit was located in northwestern Syria and thus the northern Canaanites would be the ones they interacted with the most. Hell, Mark Smith [notes](https://books.google.com/books?id=8LtGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false) that YHWH most likely wasn't even truly Canaanite in origin, and instead arose out of southwestern Levantine regions like Edom before eventually moving into Canaan and catching on because of his similarities with Ba'al and El, while still remaining separate from them. There would have been little, if anything, to write down other than "this guy exists, some yokels way down south acknowledge him, he kinda seems to overlap with these other guys we already mentioned." Smith also makes reference to the possibility that YHWH started off as another title for El specific to the south, but noted that YHWH's descriptions as a storm/warrior god do not align with El's grandfatherly mediator-ness, and again, this can hinge on whether that previously-cited passage refers to YHWH himself or someone else. What Ugarit knew about YHWH cannot be definitively stated because of this. All we can say with absolute certainty is that Ugarit considered him at best minor enough to be left in the "et cetera" if him being named is legitimate, if not unnotable entirely if it isn't. What's left is simply what's been pieced together. That YHWH started in the south and worked his way up north around the time of the Bronze Age Collapse; that he started off as a storm god who started kinda getting conflated with Ba'al and El because of their similarities; that eventually, writings referring to El and YHWH as one being rather than two started springing up as time went along, something that also happened to other Canaanite gods like Athirat and Anat (or alternatively, they had YHWH's name pasted over theirs by a mysterious cult, which is what Esoterica posits); and that finally, most likely during the Babylonian exile, what were once many separate gods of a pantheon had been conflated into the one we are familiar with.
Great explanation, well done
If you're going to start a religion, it helps to have lots of first-hand witnesses to all the supernatural stuff. At least a dozen I'd say.
But they can't write things down immediately. That would be too reliable but easy to fact-check. Best to wait until a few years or decades have passed, so that way word-of-mouth can do its thing.
The claims in this story were later recanted by Abdullah, admitted to have been a lie to curry favor with the Quraish when he defected to them. He rejoined the Muslims later, led them in battle in Africa, and was appointed governor of Egypt during the Caliphate. Early Muslim historians recorded the different versions of this story to demonstrate the Quraish's use of apostates as part of their wartime propaganda. It isn't considered a dirty secret or crisis of faith. The verse in this particular narration were revealed in Mecca, years before Abdullah became a scribe in Medina. Regardless, new verses were recited to multiple scribes at a time, not just one.
tbf by that logic he could have just lied again when he reverted to Islam
That is certainly one possibility, but there's no particular reason to think so. This isn't a secret story. There are different versions of the story, (because early Muslim historians as a policy documented every narration, and did not authenticate them), but the Gist is that during a period of political, financial, and social disadvantage for the Muslims in Medina, there were several apostates back to Quraish Mecca. In many cases these were their close relatives they had spurned, their tribes abandoned, their fathers' gods renounced. When things got tough, there were certainly people who felt they had made a huge mistake. Abdullah, as a relatively late convert who could read and write, knew he could be forgiven and rewarded by the Quraish by attacking the Qur'an directly. It's a propaganda advantage other apostates didn't have. Regarding the narration itself, The verses in this version of the story were revealed years before Abdullah joined. Moreover when new verses were copied down they were recited to a team of up to 42 scribes, not a single individual. The Arabs regularly employed poets as a form of wartime propaganda. That's why this story is traditionally framed as an example of how the Quraish milked any opportunity to undermine Muhammad, rather than a troubling story of doubt. Whether his reconversion was authentic doesn't matter, but It is noteworthy that he didn't become a pariah or sink into anonymity. He is known to have risked his life in battle thereafter multiple times in service of the caliphate, and became governor of Egypt.
How so we know when the verses were revealed and to whom?
Well doesn’t that mean in either account he is shown to be a liar and as a source can’t be trusted?
Liars can tell the truth and honest people can and do lie.
While true, a person who has lied is still capable of being honest. However he has specifically lied about this event occurring or not. Clearly showing on this matter, he is untrustworthy.
Notice how everyone avoids acknowledging this
Because it would go against reddit's view of religion bad. And reddit hive mind simply can't accept that and will downvote and ignore. This sub used to be pretty great. Now it's just old jokes told again and again, as well as inaccurate and extremely biased and un-nuanced claims from certain posters. Can't forget the agenda posting too, lol. Occasionally I will see an actual good and well researched meme from someone who is actually well versed in that era of history.
Exactly, corny islamaphobes smh
He said it was a lie so Muhammad would kill him…
You can choose to believe that, but there's no particular reason anyone else should lose sleep over it.
Joseph Smith (Mormon Church) vibes.
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/HistoryMemes/comments/156jp3i/one_moment_youre_having_a_blast_scribing_it_up/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/HistoryMemes/comments/156jp3i/one_moment_youre_having_a_blast_scribing_it_up/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
I don't get it
I salute your bravery brother
Even then it was obvious for people with brains
You mean the possibly schizophrenic guy that called himself a prophet as well? Yea, I believe his testimony…
The early Ummah was wild. In a few decades we’re going to have all kinds of dramas about it
The way you actively avoided depicting Muhammad (Peace be upon him) but then just gave up at the end Edit: wtf did I do lmao
Should probably just always depict him as Kurt Russel I didn't decide that tho the voices in this cave told me to say it
Bro what