Wikipedia gives the following definition: "A Prophet is an individual who is regarded as being in contact with a God whatever religion is and is said to speak on that entity's behalf, serving as an intermediary with humanity and god by delivering messages or teachings from the supernatural source to other people."
I would suppose this is how people would understand the word prophet today as regards the Abrahamic religions. Is this different from what the idea evolved from? What did the idea evolve from? Etc. Thank you :)
Does anyone have any historical information about the wedding traditions that took place in Mecca and Madinah before, during, and after our beloved Prophet (SAWS) βs life?
Iβm talking about the culture that the Sahabas followed, like what kind of things they did at weddings, like food, clothing, gifts, etc. Also if any traditions they had that can still be found in Saudi Arabia today?
Unlike other traditions and undisputed Quranic passages that prove Muhammad was a false prophet beyond any shadow of a doubt, this one actually doesn't by itself, but it strongly favors that hypothesis, and adds another piece to the pile:
I found out about this recently (and in my view, strengthens my conviction in the actual reliability of many ahadith because nobody would ever make up stuff like this. I was already convinced of this fact because of the epileptic symptoms of Muhammad recorded there, and stuff like prophecies that were obviously false but were recorded nonetheless and gradually watered-down). But here goes: a Jewish woman told Aisha there was such a thing as punishment of the grave (ΨΉΨ°Ψ§Ψ¨ Ψ§ΩΩΨ¨Ψ±β) and not only that, but wrong practices concerning urination are the main cause of it (!!!!!!). She doubted this and told Muhammad about it. He confirmed it, and included this in his prophetic repertoire from then on! Now, if this was true why 1) did Muhammad never talk about this before being informed by someone else? 2) why is this nowhere to be found in any Jewish tradition, but rather absolutely seems like another prank by the Jews to mock Muhammad's prophetic claims to make him look ridiculous, as the Jews of Medina did on several occasions?
Sources:
Sahih Bukhari 1372
Narrated Masruq: Aisha said that a Jewess came to her and mentioned the punishment in the grave, saying to her, "May Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave." Aisha then asked Allah's Messenger (ο·Ί) about the punishment of the grave. He said, "Yes, (there is) punishment in the grave." Aisha added, "After that I never saw Allah's Messenger (ο·Ί) but seeking refuge with Allah from the punishment in the grave in every prayer he prayed.""
Sunan an-Nasai 1345 : "'Aisha said:"A Jewish woman entered unto me and said: 'The torment of the grave is because of urine.' I said: 'You are lying.' She said: 'No, it is true; we cut our skin and clothes because of it.' The Messenger of Allah (ο·Ί) went out to pray and our voices became loud. He said: 'What is this?' So I told him what she had said. He said: 'She spoke the truth.' After that day he never offered any prayer but he said, following the prayer: 'Rabba Jibril wa Mika'il wa Israfil, aiding min harrin-nar wa 'adhabil-qabr (Lord of Jibril, Mika'il and Israfil, grant me refuge from the heat of the Fire and the torment of the grave).'""
Bulugh al Maram 104 Al-Hakim reported that: βUrination is the main cause of p
... keep reading on reddit β‘Title questions and few other questions related to current biblical scholarship (asked below the links)
Has any scholar responded to the article? Or reviewed it?
Will this archeological dig move the scholarship towards the facts accepted in the Jewish tradition(that these persons are indeed prophets and existed in the past)?
Apologists can use the archeological dig to suggest that the Hebrew bible is a good depiction of history. Would they be correct in their assessment (in relation to the modern scholarship about the old testament or the Hebrew bible)? How much will this archeological evidence supports the biblical narrative?
