bro, apparently this guy shows that the neurologist proved that Prophet had epilepsy (audubillah).
http://israfilnabeel.blogspot.ca/2012/06/test.html
Asalaamu Alaikum,
Brother, no he doesn't lol, Subhanallah that guys trying to twist and hide it. Bro, read the actual scans, it proves my point even more.
A few important things;
1. That's an anti-islam website, do not take their interpretation at face value.
2.
They scanned an incomplete section of what Owsei's book,
there's more pages after 13, which the author for some reason or another has purposely left out.
3. They themselves never state that Owsei said Muhammad(pbuh) is epileptic, their argument is; "Owsei didn't say anything".
4. In what they do scan, Owsei does narrate the "battle of the epilepsy claim" without giving his own opinion, except in small cases in the footer. For example, he says;
Muir (721), p.6: "It was probably a fit of epilepsy; but Muslim legend has invested it with so many marvellous features as it makes it difficult to discover the real facts." Whereas the clause is true, there is no evidence for the alleged probability of an epileptic fit.
^His first clear disagreement to an event Islamaphobes have claimed was "epilepsy". Then on the last page that is scanned, he says even more clearly;
"Most modern Orientalist have abandoned the beliefs in the epileptic nature of Mohammed's inspirations. All biographical data apart, it is indeed hard to imagine that the Koran, a body of religious, legal, and social instruction should largely be the product of a succession of hallucinatory epileptic attacks."
And then, even more interestingly he says;
The case of Mohammed is instructive (useful) because it illustrates the danger of diagnosing epilepsy in history with disregard of the historical setting, merely on the basis of behavioural similarities. Only recently has the alleged bond between shamanism and epilepsy been dissolved. (bracket meaning by me)
^The above he's saying that it's wrong to say; "this person has epilepsy, because his behaviour is similar as this person", without knowing the historical context of that person.
If anything, from the above alone, it's clear that Owsei
was not favourable of the Epileptic theory.
I know for sure now, that the person who wrote that article was the same guy who ran away from me on a youtube debate when I asked him to "scan up the book images". I remember he used the same arguments as the article of "genetic fallacy", meaning "Owsei didn't claim anything". He said he would and that he would get back to me (with the scans), but he never did, despite me asking him 2 weeks after.
Here now I see the guy doesn't scan the whole thing up and tries to misinterpret what Owsei said. He quotes Mindhacks (which is the same Neurologist website I showed him) of a Non-Muslim (it's clear from the way he's writing Muhammad(pbuh)) writing an article regarding Owsei dispelling the myth.
Furthermore,
in many Wiki articles,
Owsei is referenced as evidence against the Epilepsy claim. There's even a discussion on it
here. I quote (from one of the non-muslim editors, who ironically in this case is telling a Muslim not to be offended if some people think Muhammad has epilepsy);
Just to be clear, it is not my opinion that TLE is a source of Muhammad's inspirational spells. I favour Owsei Temkin's argument that the whole association with epilepsy has arisen from slanderous remarks. Temkin is a highly respected author on the history of epilepsy. It should also be clear that the article itself does not claim that TLE is a source of the inspirational spells. It only states that "some researchers" believe this. There are people who hold all sorts of beliefs, some offensive, some nutty. Wikipedia doesn't align itself with those beliefs if all it is doing is reporting that they exist.
It would be really good if we had the full pages, because Owsei might've written a conclusion or something. But from what we can gather, and from what others can gather, it's clear that Owsei's opinion was unfavourable towards Epilepsy.
