Muhammad's statement on the tailbone

[smaneck]

A religion that commands terrorism as proof of love of god, with the incentive terrorist martyrs are assured paradise while other Muslims are not, ridicules itself in the authoring of such garbage.

There is nothing in Islam that commands terrorism.

There are many so called scientific proofs of god in the Qur'an. Cosmology, geology, etc... Many that actual science proves false and as such indicates an omniscient god would not have made that error.

The same can be said about the Bible.

But scribes creating the Qur'an long after Muhammad's death would.

"Scribes" did not create the Qur'an. The Companions of the Prophet compiled the revelations Muhammad received into the Qur'an within twenty years of his passing. For canonization to be complete this quickly is unprecedented in the history of religion.

 

[smaneck]

Hello Susan.

How's tricks?

Very best regards.

Paul

{{{Paul}}} You're back!

Well Paul, have you lost your faith because tailbones disintegrate?

I know how important that is to you.

 

[smaneck]

God in the Bible caused bones to dance

You realize that the reference to bones rising and dancing in Ezekiel refers to the 'resurrection' of the nation of Israel, not a literal rising from the dead?

 

[smaneck]

In Jewish tradition, the very body that died will be resurrected,
there is a miniscule bone in the upper spine called the luz bone.
it is from this indestructable bone that God will reconstruct the entire body when the time arrives for the resurrection of the Dead.

Source?

 

[Niblo]

{{{Paul}}} You're back!

Well Paul, have you lost your faith because tailbones disintegrate?

I know how important that is to you.

LOL. Don't be cheeky. All this talk about disintegrating bones is very depressing.....I am 70 after all

Good to 'talk' with you again.

 

[smaneck]

He does not speak on his own, out of his own desire; That is but a Revelation that is revealed to him.
[Quran 53:3-4]

That is clearly a reference to the revelation of the Qur'an, TG. Hadiths are not considered revelation except for the occasional hadith qudsi. The ahadith you are citing don't qualify as that.

Tafsir Ibn Abbas states that this is in regard to the Quran, but other Muslims also state this applies to the hadiths.

Which Muslims apply that verse to ahadith.

According to them, you cannot be a Muslim if you reject the hadiths, since God inspired Muhammad and Muslims are told to obey God and the Messenger.

The only Muslims who take such a hard line in regard to ahadith are the Salafi from which produced Neo-Kharijite groups like al-Qa'ida and ISIS.

Granted, there are some Muslims (a minority) who reject the hadiths.

It is not an either/or matter. There are all kinds of issues involved.

1. Is everything Muhammad says to be regarded as revelation? I don't know of any Muslims that believe this. At most they might hold the Prophet to be infallible, but that still doesn't make every word he says revelation, any more than a papal pronouncement from the Seat of Peter, constitutes revelation. With only a few exceptions revelation is exclusive to the Qur'an.

2. How accurate likely is it that the Prophet actually said whatever is in the hadith in question. While you cited multiple ahadith they all eventually went back to a single person who claims the Prophet said this. Those who study ahadith sciences would require several witnesses to the same statement before they would accept it.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Muhammad stated that the coccyx bone is the only part of the human body that does not decompose...

No, that is not a fact. The fact is that in compilations written centuries after the Prophet there is one person who is recorded as hearing the Prophet say this. That is the only fact we have.

A thought to consider- if Muhammad made an error in a teaching describing the Day of Resurrection, who was he being guided by? Obviously, God would not have made a mistake by saying the coccyx bone does not decompose, when it obviously does. Where was he getting his information from? Clearly, not God.

My guess is that it may have come from the same source Rabban mentions, but that the Prophet himself never made that statement. Someone put it in his mouth, sometime later.

 

[smaneck]

LOL. Don't be cheeky. All this talk about disintegrating bones is very depressing.....I am 70 after all

I'm guessing your tail bone is still fine, though.

 

[smaneck]

Using the Hadith in this post to argue for Islam is an example of the lack of simple logic in making arguments by plenty of Muslims.

TG is using this hadith to argue against Islam. The only Muslims participating in this thread are Islam Mulla and Paul.

 

[Niblo]

I'm guessing your tail bone is still fine, though.

T'was, the last time I wagged it.

 

[Niblo]

TG is using this hadith to argue against Islam. The only Muslims participating in this thread are Islam Mulla and Paul.

It would appear that Bro Basel is also a Muslim.

 

[Robban]

Source?

Source?












Here is a little clip from an article by Naftali Silberberg;
"The very body that died will be resurrected.
According to tradition, there is a miniscule bone in the upper spine called the Luz bone,
it is from this indestructable bone that G-d will reconstruct the entire body when the time arrives for the Resurrection of the dead. (Today with our understanding of how DNA works, this age-old tradition does not seem so far fetched)........................"

There is plenty more.

 

[smaneck]

T'was, the last time I wagged it.

ROFL

 

[smaneck]

Source?
Here is a little clip from an article by Naftali Silberberg;
"The very body that died will be resurrected.
According to tradition, there is a miniscule bone in the upper spine called the Luz bone,
it is from this indestructable bone that G-d will reconstruct the entire body when the time arrives for the Resurrection of the dead. (Today with our understanding of how DNA works, this age-old tradition does not seem so far fetched)........................"

There is plenty more.

Found something:

The word luz in Hebrew (Hebrew: 'לוז') means nut or almond.[1] Because of this it became associated with the small bone at the top of the spinal column (the seventh cervical vertebra) or the coccyx, the small bone at the base of the spinal column, depending on the tradition.

Muslim and Jewish traditions teach that this is the bone from which the body will be rebuilt at the time of resurrection, and share the idea that this bone does not decay.[2] Arabic books refer to this bone as "'ajbu adh-dhanab" --(عَجْبُ الذَّنَب).

There is an aggadah (legend) in the midrash that the Roman Emperor Hadrian asked how man would be revived in the world to come, and Rabbi Joshua Ben Hananiah replied that it would be "From Luz, in the back-bone." "Prove this to me," said Hadrian. Then the Rabbi took Luz, a small bone of the spine, and immersed it in water, but it was not softened; he put it into the fire, but it was not consumed; he put it into a mill, but it could not be pounded; he placed it upon an anvil and struck it with a hammer, but the anvil split and the hammer was broken. (Ecclesiastes Rabbah xii / Genesis Rabbah xvii
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luz_(bone)

So apparently it is derived from the Midrash literature.

 

[smaneck]

It would appear that Bro Basel is also a Muslim.

Ah, it seems I missed his excellent post.

 

[Robban]

Found something:

The word luz in Hebrew (Hebrew: 'לוז') means nut or almond.[1] Because of this it became associated with the small bone at the top of the spinal column (the seventh cervical vertebra) or the coccyx, the small bone at the base of the spinal column, depending on the tradition.

Muslim and Jewish traditions teach that this is the bone from which the body will be rebuilt at the time of resurrection, and share the idea that this bone does not decay.[2] Arabic books refer to this bone as "'ajbu adh-dhanab" --(عَجْبُ الذَّنَب).

There is an aggadah (legend) in the midrash that the Roman Emperor Hadrian asked how man would be revived in the world to come, and Rabbi Joshua Ben Hananiah replied that it would be "From Luz, in the back-bone." "Prove this to me," said Hadrian. Then the Rabbi took Luz, a small bone of the spine, and immersed it in water, but it was not softened; he put it into the fire, but it was not consumed; he put it into a mill, but it could not be pounded; he placed it upon an anvil and struck it with a hammer, but the anvil split and the hammer was broken. (Ecclesiastes Rabbah xii / Genesis Rabbah xvii
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luz_(bone)

So apparently it is derived from the Midrash literature.

Yes, as said, tradition.

The written Torah does not contain much, a practical guide maybe,
the Oral Torah or Oral tradition was never intended to be written down,
The sages became concerned that the Oral Torah would be forgotten
if not recorded, much of the Oral Law was put into writing.

The Oral traditions, combined with rabbinical enactments,
form the Talmud and much of the rest of Jewish literature.

According to tradition,
the Luz bone recieves its only sustenance from the Saturday night meal that honours
the Shabbat Queen as she goes on her way.

 

[TG123]

Great talking to you again, Smaneck! Sorry for the long delay in response! I hope you are doing well.

That is clearly a reference to the revelation of the Qur'an, TG. Hadiths are not considered revelation except for the occasional hadith qudsi. The ahadith you are citing don't qualify as that.

Sites like the one below state that every Sahih hadith in Bukhari and Muslim are from Muhammad.
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=83766
The site below states that hadiths that are classified as Sahih are, because God protected them also.
https://islamqa.info/en/6981

Which Muslims apply that verse to ahadith.
Here is one example: https://islamqa.info/en/115125

The Prophet’s Sunnah is the second source of Islamic sharee‘ah. The revelation came down to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) with the Sunnah as it came down to him with the Qur’an. The proof of that is the words of Allah, may He be exalted (interpretation of the meaning):
“Nor does he speak of (his own) desire.
It is but a revelation revealed”
[an-Najm 53:3-4].

Allah, may He be exalted, has enjoined upon the believers complete submission to the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his hadith and rulings, to the extent that He, may He be glorified, swore by His divine self that whoever hears the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), then rejects them and does not accept them, has nothing to do with faith at all.
https://islamqa.info/en/115125

The only Muslims who take such a hard line in regard to ahadith are the Salafi from which produced Neo-Kharijite groups like al-Qa'ida and ISIS.

But does not the Quran itself tell the readers to obey Allah and His Messenger?

It is not an either/or matter. There are all kinds of issues involved.

1. Is everything Muhammad says to be regarded as revelation? I don't know of any Muslims that believe this. At most they might hold the Prophet to be infallible, but that still doesn't make every word he says revelation, any more than a papal pronouncement from the Seat of Peter, constitutes revelation. With only a few exceptions revelation is exclusive to the Qur'an.

No, and there is ahadith in which he himself stated that on wordly matters, his opinion is as valid as that of anyone else.

2. How accurate likely is it that the Prophet actually said whatever is in the hadith in question. While you cited multiple ahadith they all eventually went back to a single person who claims the Prophet said this. Those who study ahadith sciences would require several witnesses to the same statement before they would accept it.

Are you suggesting that the people who graded the hadiths were ignorant of the hadith sciences?

No, that is not a fact. The fact is that in compilations written centuries after the Prophet there is one person who is recorded as hearing the Prophet say this. That is the only fact we have.

And that people carefully looked at chains of transmission and other factors as they graded them.

My guess is that it may have come from the same source Rabban mentions, but that the Prophet himself never made that statement. Someone put it in his mouth, sometime later.

Or he said it and made a mistake. Can you find statements from any early scholars that this hadith is falsely attributed to Muhammad?

 

[smaneck]

Great talking to you again, Smaneck! Sorry for the long delay in response! I hope you are doing well.

Sites like the one below state that every Sahih hadith in Bukhari and Muslim are from Muhammad.
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=83766

http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=83766

Feel free to find one of those Muslims to debate with. I don't think they are here.

But does not the Quran itself tell the readers to obey Allah and His Messenger?

Sure, but this isn't an issue of obedience.

Are you suggesting that the people who graded the hadiths were ignorant of the hadith sciences?

You are asking someone who is more inclined towards Shi'ism how I feel about a the Sunni collections.
And as an academic scholar I don't give that much credence towards sources that don't get written down until centuries later.

And that people carefully looked at chains of transmission and other factors as they graded them.

Sure, but as I pointed out all of your silsilas ultimately go back to a single source.

Or he said it and made a mistake. Can you find statements from any early scholars that this hadith is falsely attributed to Muhammad?

How can early scholars call this hadith false, if it hasn't been invented yet? The question for a modern scholar would be when does this hadith first appear in the literature. I'm guessing we don't find it until Islamic Empire is well-established.

 

[dandan27]

I am interested in the giving of significance of the coccyx rather than any other bone. From what I have read elsewhee, science has since shown that human foetus grows from something called the primary streak on a cluster of cells. All of the tissues and organs of the body grow from this primary streak. The primary streak becomes the coccyx. So the idea that the body was resurrected from the coccyx was not so foolish an idea.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/coccyx_miracle.htm

 

[dandan27]

I also find it interesting to consider that prayer positions, and the lotus position, seem to liberate the coccyx, whereas a sitting posture tends to crush it. Imagine seeing a cat or dog sitting on it's coccyx.. Perhaps they know something we don't.

 

[Arthra]

the lotus position, seem to liberate the coccyx

Hmmm... I heard the lotus posture lines up the "chakras" and the coccyx is analogous to the Muladharra chakra...of course the "prayer positions" in Islam also involve the body united with prayer.