Page 1 of 4

Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:36 pm
by manfred
And We did certainly give the Children of Israel the Scripture and judgement and prophethood, and We provided them with good things and preferred them over the worlds.
Qur'an 45:16


And We gave to Him Isaac and Jacob and placed in his descendants prophethood and scripture. And We gave him his reward in this world, and indeed, he is in the Hereafter among the righteous.
Qur'an 29:27



Jacob is also known as Israel. He was the son of Isaac.

The Qur'an says loud and clear that prophets as scripture come from this lineage. But Mohammed made up a lineage for himself going back to Ishmael. Ishamel would have been Jacob's half-uncle, and obviously NOT in the line of Isaac-Jacob.

So by his own confused Qur'an Mohammed actually admitted that the was no prophet, and basically a fraud.

So he messed up his own cover story. Again.

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 6:17 am
by Garudaman
QS. 6:86. And Ishmael and Elisha and Jonah and Lot - and all [of them] We preferred over the worlds.

QS. 6:87. And [some] among their fathers and their descendants and their brothers - and We chose them and We guided them to a straight path.

QS. 6:88. That is the guidance of Allah by which He guides whomever He wills of His servants. But if they had associated others with Allah , then worthless for them would be whatever they were doing.

QS. 6:89. Those are the ones to whom We gave the Scripture and authority and prophethood. But if the disbelievers deny it, then We have entrusted it to a people who are not therein disbelievers.

QS. 6:90. Those are the ones whom Allah has guided, so from their guidance take an example. Say, "I ask of you for this message no payment. It is not but a reminder for the worlds."

QS. 19:54. And mention in the Book, Ishmael. Indeed, he was true to his promise, and he was a messenger and a prophet.

QS. 19:55. And he used to enjoin on his people prayer and zakah and was to his Lord pleasing.

QS. 38:48. And remember Ishmael, Elisha and Dhul-Kifl, and all are among the outstanding.


just because God appointed certain people as a prophet, whether if so God wouldn't appoint another person as a prophet? well, this is like arguing about whether is it okay or not, want another son, besides son who God had promised... :roll:

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:23 pm
by manfred
QS. 19:54. And mention in the Book, Ishmael. Indeed, he was true to his promise, and he was a messenger and a prophet.


Well, the bible disagrees about Ishmael being a prophet...

He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."


Genesis 16:12

A bit harsh, perhaps... still that is what the bible thinks about Ishmael.


Uncanny, though, the biblical text does somehow capture something about Arabs... and such a long time ago... Even though he was not the ancestor of the Arabs, he may have lived amongst them as an immigrant later in life.

So, let's check. The Qur'an says Ishmael was a MESSENGER. What was his message? We don't really know? So why did Allah allow it to vanish? Did Ishmael's prophetic activity produce any results? Make people follow Islam perhaps, during his lifetime? Where are the followers of this "prophet" now? What happened to them?

So Ishmael was another one of these prophets of Islam that had no message and no effect on the people he was sent to, just like the Islamic Jesus, and pretty well all others.

Why can't Allah get this prophet thing right? He sends lots of them, all end up loosing the message, and being ignored, being utterly pointless, or worse, a source for deception, like Isa.

If he CANNOT do this properly, then he cannot be "all powerful", or even "a little bit powerful". After all, if I want to send you a message, I can put it here for you to read, and explain it more if I am misunderstood. Allah does not seem to even have that power, does he?

Well, maybe he has real power... but then, Garudaman, you must also accept that he WILLINGLY and deliberately lead people astray with poorly chosen, incapable prophets and conflicting messages. As the Qur'an openly admits this to be the case with Islamic Isa, why not also with all the others? Ishmael, by all accounts, was a pointless and failed prophet.

So, given so many ineffectual prophets, Mohammed should be different? Despite of the fact that he was a thief, a rapist, a pedophile and a murderer?

So, perhaps Allah was getting desperate... All these prophets failed, so in a final desperation he picked a bully and warlord. The rivers of blood that followed Mohammed at least ensured that he is not ignored. Or perhaps that choice was also Allah's way to show his utter disrespect to humanity to choose such unworthy man, and give him such a foul message to deliver?

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:48 pm
by Eagle
A few points need addressing besides your usual rant and repetitions of already debunked claims such as about the failure of prophets like Jesus viewtopic.php?f=71&t=14579

manfred wrote:Well, the bible disagrees about Ishmael being a prophet


And the bible goes on telling you that Abraham's "only son" was Isaac, thats how accurate it is

manfred wrote:Genesis 16:12

A bit harsh, perhaps


And demonstrating the Israelites tribal prejudice that is prevalent throughout their own scriptures, towards their own Israelite brethren but that is another issue.

This alleged curse on Ishmael alone (not his descendants), while just before Yahweh promises to bless him, make him a great and fruitful nation is again a clear fabrication not supported by history at all. In fact, this is what happened to the descendants of Isaac, who were constantly at war, not only with their neighbors but also with their own tribal brethren. This fact is even written all over the OT, and could be seen down to the days of the Prophet Muhammad when rival Jewish tribes of the Arabian peninsula allied with pagans against one another. God himself destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem through pagan nations as a punishment to Israel for their falling away from the path of God. On the other hand, the descendants of Ismail conquered the Persian and Roman Empires, and created a civilization that lasted well over a 1000 years. Let us not forget to mention that the Arabs were pretty much independent throughout their history. Never did the other nations take to attacking Arabia, except for only one time in pre-islamic times when the Christian Yemenite King, Abraha, attempted to invade it but failed.

manfred wrote:Even though he was not the ancestor of the Arabs


So He was not their ancestor but somehow the curse that was imposed on him still applies to the Arabs. Putting aside that absurdity, the above statement not only goes against Arab tradition pre-dating Islam, but the Jewish tradition itself as well as your Bible. This was already discussed http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic ... 79#p193232

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:23 pm
by Garudaman
manfred wrote:QS. 19:54. And mention in the Book, Ishmael. Indeed, he was true to his promise, and he was a messenger and a prophet.

Well, the bible disagrees about Ishmael being a prophet...

He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."
Genesis 16:12

A bit harsh, perhaps... still that is what the bible thinks about Ishmael.

Uncanny, though, the biblical text does somehow capture something about Arabs... and such a long time ago... Even though he was not the ancestor of the Arabs, he may have lived amongst them as an immigrant later in life.

الْكِتَابِ on that verse is Al-Quran, manfred, not Bible! you think, who was ordered to "mention/اذْكُرْ" on that verse? :roll:

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:37 pm
by manfred
Dear eagle,
You are putting words into my mouth again. Where did I say anything about a curse or of the Arabs being cursed? I said some suggest that Ishmael may have lived with people who later became known as Arabs. He certainly was not their "ancestor". That fanciful notion simply does not stand up to historical facts. Given the belligerent nature of Arabs mainly after Mohammed it is kind of an odd but fitting coincident though that Mohammed should style himself a descendent of a man who was quarrelsome and unintelligent.

debunked


You seem to think if you post something on a subject you "debunk" it, even of it is complete nonsense. Even in this post you merely make a whole lot of unfounded and unsourced assertions. No doubt later you will say this amounts to a "debunk" too.

As to Isaac, he was Abraham's only son borne by his real wife. Ishmael was not an "Israelite", as you falsely suggest: "Israel" (="persevere with God") is a name given to Jacob, so his son's were then called "Israelites". Jacob, however, was Isaac's son, and not Ishmael's.

It is also interesting that the Qur'an says that prophets should be Israelites. (see above). This means Mohammed, true to form, got it all wrong again, and wrote himself OUT of the line of prophets. Only later, possibly when he found out his mistake, did he promote Ishmael to "prophet".

On the other hand, the descendants of Ismail conquered the Persian and Roman Empires, and created a civilization that lasted well over a 1000 years.


Well, some people who have self-styled themselves as "descendents of Ishmael", did something like that. Yes, indeed, they spread bloodshed and destruction wherever they went. They destroyed civilisations, killed millions of innocent people, enslaved even more, and to this day the main contribution they have to offer to the world is violence, hatred and tyranny. Some "civilisation" indeed. The Arabs do not have a particularly violent or cruel history, not until Mohammed came along. He turned a relatively simple and peaceful people into a plague on humanity, a destroyer of civilisation.

So, please tell us: what was Ishmael's prophetic message and mission? Where is his text? What did it achieve?


As you believe there are about 124,000 Islamic prophets, where are all their texts? What did they all achieve? ALL are either lost or "corrupted". ALL OF THEM. All of them failures. Isa the worst. Except old Mo he was not a failure... :???:

And that does not seem just a tiny bit odd to you???

Oh, I forgot, you "debunked" that. Right.... :lotpot:

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:39 pm
by manfred
Sorry Garudaman, I should have it laid out better:

The first bit is from the Qur'an, a verse that you quoted yourself. The second bit is from the bible.

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:13 pm
by Eagle
manfred wrote:Where did I say anything about a curse or of the Arabs being cursed?


You quoted Gen16:12, a curse on Ishmael, and then linked its message to what you think Arabs were, which they werent and it turned out it was the Israelites who fit that alleged curse much better than the Ishmaelites who were targeted. Besides your little slip where you applied that curse on the Arabs thus conceding they are his descendants, Ishmael was certainly their ancestor, ask your rabbis if you do not trust a people's own tradition on its genealogy.

manfred wrote:As to Isaac, he was Abraham's only son borne by his real wife


Of course you need to qualify the phrase "only son" in order to make it work. But the verse makes no such qualifications, and your OT calls Ishmael his son. Being born from a different union doesnt make him less of a son than Isaac. In an attempt to explain the inconsistency of qualifying Isaac as the "only son", your rabbis have concoted a surrealistic dialogue between God and Abraham where the latter -taking the literal meaning of "only son"- is asking for specification as to which "only son" he should go up with to Moriah for the sacrifice:

(Sanh. 89b, Gen. Rabbah 39:9, 55:7)"He [Abraham] said to Him,“ I have two sons.” He [God] said to him,“ Your only one.” He said to Him,“ This one is the only son of his mother, and that one is the only son of his mother.” He said to him,“ Whom you love.” He said to Him,“ I love them both.” He said to him,“ Isaac.”

One doesn't need to be told how forced on the story this 'explanation' is. But this oral tradition stresses the important logical fact that Ibrahim loved them both equally and saw both Ismail and Isaac as equals and legitimate sons of his, in accordance with the mosaic law in Deut21:15-17.

manfred wrote:Ishmael was not an "Israelite"


Sure he wasnt

manfred wrote:It is also interesting that the Qur'an says that prophets should be Israelites


It showed that prophethood was placed among Ibrahim's progeny. But not "only" in it. How does that negate there being prophets in other lines, which it clearly says there were

manfred wrote:The Arabs do not have a particularly violent or cruel history


So much for Genesis' curse then?

manfred wrote:Yes, indeed, they spread bloodshed and destruction wherever they went


You would love that to be true, dont you

manfred wrote: what was Ishmael's prophetic message and mission? Where is his text? What did it achieve?


How does determining his message and achievements (which are related in the Quran) is in any way relevant to your point about prophethood solely being among the Israelites

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:34 pm
by manfred
Good grief... either you don't read what I say or you don't understand.

let's make it easier.

Ishmael is not seen as a prophet by the Jews or the Christians. He is a rather tragic figure in the Old Testament. Being born of a substitute wife, he got jealous of his little half brother, because he was born of Abraham's real wife, teasing him, and upsetting Sarah, Isaac's mother. There was also suggestion that he was somewhat frivolous sexually. So in the end Sarah asked Abraham to send Ishmael and Hagar away. Maybe she should not have asked, and maybe Abraham should not have agreed. Still, he agreed, and they were cast out. Notice who people in the bible are REAL people, even a "prophet" like Abraham has a darker side.

However, the bible says that Ishmael also had numerous descendents, but in a way, not surprisingly, he ended up somewhat psychologically damaged. He was stubborn and easily angered, and lived away from people.

That is the story. No magic mumbo jumbo, no big "curse", but a sad, very human story.

After this episode, Ishmael is lost to us in the bible, and we hear not much more about him. The reason for that is simple: To develop the story the focus needs to turn to Isaac, and Jacob, his twelve sons. That is the next frame in the "big movie".

So what became of Ishmael? All we can tell certainty is , that he also was circumcised like Isaac, that he settled in a remote place later, but that he was excluded from the inheritance of Abraham and the covenant. He had twelve sons, and a daughter. There is no mention of any Arab connection, that is a much later conjecture, found in some Jewish writing. It is more likely that he may have settled in areas where he had some contact with people later becoming known as Arabs, and that his children integrated and intermarried.

Now, back to the Qur'an verses I mentioned. They hint at the Jewish notion of the covenant, because they make it clear that God's revelation was given to the children of Israel.

My contention is this:

First Mohammed naively accepted that idea of the covenant. For a time, he thought he could persuade the Jews to accept him. Hence the verses.
Then he realised the problem: He has called himself a prophet, but he was not one of the children of Israel. He also kind of built a genealogy for himself going back to ISHMAEL, as it was a common but false notion at the time (and still is with some Muslims) that Arabs where descended from Ishmael.

So obviously the first thing any Jew would say to Mohammed would be that he cannot be a prophet simply because he is an "Ishmaelite", by his own admission.

So what did Mohammed do? He could not back peddle and say he was not a prophet after all, nor could suggest he was an Israelite. He had to come up with something else:

Simple. He promoted Ishmael to "prophet". He HAD to become a prophet, otherwise Mohammed could not possibly be a prophet. The fact that there was not a shred of evidence for any such thing did not bother him at all. He made sure his pal Allah came to the rescue, as usual.

That is why the story in the Qur'an about Ishmael is quite deliberately changed from the original.


Now do you understand why I asked you about Ishmael's prophetic mission? You cannot give any details of his message, his actions or his effect.

So, you have to agree that Ishmael as a prophet was a complete failure, are absolutely NOTHING of his work has survived or made a difference to anyone.

I would maintain that Ishmael most obviously only was no prophet at all, only in the mind of Mohammed who needed him to be one, and to have a role in the covenant. (Hence the building of Kaaba story Mohammed invented) For the whole of the bible, Ishmael is a sad but peripheral character. NOTHING until Mohammed ever suggested that he was a prophet or that he helped to build the Kaaba.

Mohammed's re-invention of Ishmael is a very obvious ploy, so obvious that you would have to be either blind or exceptionally dumb to even entertain in for a second. Obviously my very question would also have been one Mohammed's followers would have asked him. What was his mission, his message, what did he do? Hence the cock and bull story of Ishmael traveling with Abraham to Mecca to build the Kaaba was born.

I once heard a famous Muslim delivering a sermon on Ishmael. The best part was his face and his body language. He KNEW he was telling the Muslims a load of baloney.

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:26 pm
by Eagle
even a "prophet" like Abraham has a darker side.


Sure Abraham had a "darker side", like most if not all of the prophets of the OT and of course you cannot see the connection with one of the most basic themes in the Bible about the Israelites either committing sins because they were "misled" by the prophets as in Aaron's case who was painted as the instigator of the whole calf worship incident (yet strangely he wasnt killed along with all those that sinned), or were punished solely for the "sins" of their prophets such as in 1 Chronicles 21 where God gives David 3 options to forgive his alleged sin: punish the Israelites with famine, with a plague or at the hands of their ennemies and it is reported that he chose the plague which resulted in 70'000 deaths.
As regards their sins and atrocities they commited as they invaded foreign lands, they are depicted as "divine decrees". They also masked their tribal prejudices from the stories of Abraham's "only son" who suddenly meant second born (Isaac) rather than firstborn (Ishmael), to Esau and Jacob with God "rewarding" the later's deception to be the covenant's upholder, the exclusion and divine curse of one line (Jeconiah) in favor of another (Solomon) for the Messiah's lineage, or Yahweh taking sides among their internal tribal conflicts as in Judges20,21 with the massacre of the Benjamites by the Levites or in 2Chron13 with Yahweh's blessing of Abijah, king of Judah (southern kingdom) to wage war against Israel (northern kingdom) ruled by Jeroboam (not from the line of Solomon) that resulted in no less than 500.000 deaths among His "chosen people".

Though it may appear very strange that the Jews should accuse their own Prophets of the most heinous sins, yet a deep and critical study of their history will show that this was done to justify their own moral degradation. When the whole community in general, and the religious scholars and priests in particular, became involved in deviations and immoralities, their guilty consciences impelled them to invent excuses for justifying their own bad conduct, blemishing the pure characters of their prophets in the process.

He is a rather tragic figure in the Old Testament


As to Ishmael's "tragic" destiny in your OT, a closer look at it will quickly reveal the inconsistencies of the narrative.

As Abraham accepted Sarah's request and sent Hagar with his firstborn Ishmael, food and water all on her shoulders "and he took bread and a leather pouch of water, and he gave [them] to Hagar, he placed [them] on her shoulder, and the child, and he sent her away; and she went and wandered in the desert of Beer sheba" (the traditional jewish explanation that the 15-16 year old Ismail is carried by Hagar because of his sickness from an evil eye cast on him by Sarah -Gen. Rabbah 53:13- is not only physically illogical in regards to Hagar but also reveals a senseless Ibrahim sending away his sick child and wife to wander in the desert with a small ration of food and drink) and sent away to the desert of Beerseba.

Ismail who is now allegedly about 15-16 years old is carried by Hagar along with water and food to wander around the desert and after the water was finished, Hagar "cast the child under one of the bushes" because she couldnt bare to "see the death of the child" and finally "God heard the voice of the lad" and told Hagar to "Rise, pick up the lad and grasp your hand upon him".

All these are obviously not the description of a 15-16 year old teenager but of an INFANT. The whole story is that of Hagar desparately fearing that her infant baby would die. Isaac wouldn't even have been born at the time for the incident that is alleged to have happened in verse 12. If the incident was related to Isaac being born, Ishmael would NOT have been an infant at the time he was cast out.

The claim that Ishmael and Hagar were cast into Paran as a result of some wife jealousy is patently false, and as the Quran clearly states, Ishmael was re-located by the command of God for a particular purpose, not because of some alleged jealousy by the wife of Abraham who would never commit an act so be-smearing of any sensistive person. People dont just send their other wife and child into the midst of the wilderness to end the bickering of their wives. If this was the case, Abraham would have simply let Hagar and Ishmael reside in some tent in a nice place and not the desert wilderness, where they were to suffer from extreme thirst to the point the infant child was on the verge of death. And Abraham is not a typical human being, in the words of the Quran 11:75"forbearing, tender-hearted, oft-returning to Allah". He is a prophet of God who was known for his piety and obedience to God, as well as notorious in the Bible for his arguing with Yahweh to spare the lives of innocent strangers Gen18 is suddenly incapable of pleading for his own beloved son. To claim he would place his wife and child in the desert for the sake of the petty jealousy of Sarah is a smearing campaign. It isn't normal behavior, let alone behavior for a Prophet of God.

The Quran and the traditions state that it was for a clearer plan of which we see evidence today in the manifestation of the altar in Mecca known as the Kaaba. It is the premiere symbol of the oneness of God throughout the whole world and will forever be, until the Day of Judgement.

Being born of a substitute wife


Firstly Ishmael was born of a legitimate union with Hagar whom he took as a wife Gen16:3, the princess daughter of an Egytpian King according to even some Rabbinical traditions but some still argue that Ishmael was illegitimate due to a supposedly low birth to a servant. However Ishmael is referred as Abraham's seed, taken to be circumcised and clearly identified as his son next to the purchased male slaves Gen17:23-27.

The Jewish Encyclopedia says:
While the two narratives, Gen. xvi. and xxi. 9-21, are not directly contradictory, the critical school, pointing to the fact that in both instances Hagar is expelled upon Sarah's request and with the reluctant assent of Abraham, and that in both instances she receives, while sitting by a fountain, a divine message foretelling the great destiny of her son, finds in these narratives two parallel accounts of the origin of the Bedouins, whose racial affinity with the Israelites the latter had to admit, while degrading them by tracing their origin to a concubine of their common ancestor. Accordingly the name "Hagar" is explained as "the fugitive," from the Arabic "hajar" (to flee). Her native country was not Egypt, but Muṣri in northern Arabia, according to Winckler ("Altorientalische Forschungen," pp. 29 et seq., as cited by Holzinger, "Genesis," in "Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament," p. 151). As regards sources, the account in Gen. xvi. is assumed to be Jahvistic, with the exception of verse three, which, apparently repeating verse two, is ascribed to the Priestly Code; the account in Gen. xxi. is put down as Elohistic.


the bible says that Ishmael also had numerous descendents


His numerous descendancy is a blessing in the words of your OT, as well as his being made a great nation

that he also was circumcised like Isaac


And of course, circumsision isnt what necessarly includes one in the covenant?

that he settled in a remote place later


The progeny of Ismail settled in the area from Havilah (Yemen) unto Shur (near gulf of Aqabah at the north east end of Red sea) Gen21:21,25:9-18, which essentially is the Hijaz where the descendants of Ismail have always identified themselves in, whether in ancient history or today. Even in the NT we read in Gal4:25 that Hagar, the mother of Ishmael is associated with Arabia. In fact the passage even associates Mt Sinai with Arabia, which challenges the traditional belief originating from an arbitrary designation in the 4th century in a typical zeal by Christians of the time to create fictious holy sites for pilgrims, that Horeb and Mt Sinai are located in the Sinai peninsula instead of the Arabian peninsula. In passages like Ex2:15,3:1,4:19 and others, Midian is identified as the area to which Moses fled, subsequently met God at the burning bush, and then returned to with the Israelites. There is a reason why not a shred of evidence has been found for the massive wandering of Israelites in the Sinai peninsula. Jewish tradition itself speaks of Kedar, Nebaioth or Tema having settled in Arabia.

but that he was excluded from the inheritance of Abraham and the covenant


Sure, according to those very reliable scribes

They hint at the Jewish notion of the covenant


No, the Quran clearly states that none is entitled to an exclusive relation with God. You are reading the verse with the corrupted premise of the OT

the first thing any Jew would say to Mohammed would be that he cannot be a prophet simply because he is an "Ishmaelite"


Besides the fact that reference to non-Israelite prophets is often made in Meccan suras, before any significant interraction of the prophet Muhammad with the Jews, the other thing cancelling your little story is that your own Rabbinic literature recognizes the prophethood of 7 non-Israelite, non-Jewish men, besides those whom they did not recognize but were nevertheless true prophets -whether Israelites or not-, and the others they rejected or murdered throughout their history as attested by Jesus in your NT.
These non-Israelite prophets they recognize are Job (Ayyub in the Quran), Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, Zophar the Naamathite, Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, Balaam and his father. The Bible mentions Balaam in Numbers23 even though he ended up as a soothsayer, he addressed non-israelites as well as the Jews and his address to the Israelites in Numbers24 is revered until today.

As to Ishmael's prophetic mission, the Quran relates its relevant points, which was no different that the other Arab and non-Arab prophets "who used to enjoin upon his people prayer and charity, and found favour in his Sustainer's sight". This means he was nothing less than the one who initiated those pious practices in Mecca and the Kaaba hence the necessity for his descendants to reform themselves and go back to the ways of their father.

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:30 pm
by Nosubmission
manfred wrote:
And We did certainly give the Children of Israel the Scripture and judgement and prophethood, and We provided them with good things and preferred them over the worlds.
Qur'an 45:16


And We gave to Him Isaac and Jacob and placed in his descendants prophethood and scripture. And We gave him his reward in this world, and indeed, he is in the Hereafter among the righteous.
Qur'an 29:27



Jacob is also known as Israel. He was the son of Isaac.

The Qur'an says loud and clear that prophets as scripture come from this lineage. But Mohammed made up a lineage for himself going back to Ishmael. Ishamel would have been Jacob's half-uncle, and obviously NOT in the line of Isaac-Jacob.

So by his own confused Qur'an Mohammed actually admitted that the was no prophet, and basically a fraud.

So he messed up his own cover story. Again.


The writer of the Qur'an was obviously confused about Abraham's sons: :lotpot:

... in all of the four Meccan chapters that mention Ishmael (Surah 6, 19, 21, and 38) a reference is made to Abraham as a father, but these verses contain the names Isaac and Jacob, and Ishmael is by no means connected to them. In Surah 6:84, Surah 19:49, Surah 21:72, and Surah 38:45 Abraham’s name always appears along with Isaac and Jacob and forms a triplet. Ishmael, on the other hand, is always kept out of this triplet and awkwardly inserted into the group of some other prophetic figures.

Evidently, having a vague and faltering knowledge of Ishmael’s relation to Abraham, Muhammad kept repeating Isaac and Jacob’s name along with Abraham and did not mention Ishmael as the first son until he devised Surah 14, in which he managed to correct his mistake by removing Jacob from the group of Abraham’s two sons. This removal meant Jacob’s replacement with Isaac and Isaac’s replacement with Ishmael. Muhammad’s correction was quite smooth and theologically beneficial since Ishmael’s first-time identification as Abraham’s first son in the Qur’an was thematically tied to Ishmael’s alleged settlement in Mecca.


According to Surah 3:33, Muhammad is not a true prophet:

The lack of a reference to Ishmael or to Muhammad in Surah 3:33 causes much trouble for Islamic scholars as Christian apologists and critics of the Qur’an use this particular verse to prove Jesus’ superiority to Muhammad. For example, in his article entitled Jesus Superior Still According to the Qur’an! Sam Shamoun rebuts the objections of the Islamic scholars who strive to add Muhammad into the list of the chosen and preferred families by expanding the definition of the phrase “family of Abraham” to include Ishmael. As stated in Shamoun’s article, the linguistic structure of the verse will not allow Muhammad’s addition into Abraham’s family with the help of his unsubstantiated affiliation with Ishmael, for Mary’s father is linked in Surah 3 to Abraham through his son Isaac, proving that the “final” family chosen by God was by no means related to Ishmael and his lineage.

As we discussed above, Muhammad could never have pointed at Ishmael’s line while referring to Abraham’s family in Surah 3:33 since he copied the names and order of the two patriarchs (Abraham and Imran) from the Gospel of James, a non-canonical Christian text that neither knew nor confirmed the modern Islamic allegations concerning Muhammad’s affiliation with Ishmael. More to the point, in the first chapter of that Gospel of Infancy, which was summarized and incorporated into the 3rd chapter of the Qur’an in the form of two short verses, Mary’s father remembered Abraham not because of his son Ishmael, but because of his son Isaac. Since Muhammad repeated this certain parallelism between Abraham and Mary’s father to the point of presenting the latter as a patriarch, it is unthinkable that he regarded the line descending from Ishmael as chosen and preferred.


Taken from http://answering-islam.org/authors/masi ... ther2.html

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:34 am
by manfred
So Eagle, reading that, I am curious how Abraham was given Isaac and Jacob... and apparently not Ishmael...

Jacob???


Allah always seems have had problems with getting family relations right... according to him, Moses was apparently Jesus's uncle, too. Does he have a bad memory?

Go on, get your spinning hat on and spin away... make your lame excuses for him.

And, seriously, are you suggesting that Ishmael went to Mecca and built the Kaaba? Well, where in the bible do I find that? Why did Allah keep this rather significant event secret from the Jews, who after all were his chosen people before Mohammed, and also the Christians? He seems to either be a terrible communicator or quite a nasty character, always out to deceive...

Do you know where Abraham lived? How did he and Ishmael get to Mecca? Air Buraq? And why on earth would they go to an empty place in the middle of the desert?

Most importantly, why did later prophets have nothing to say about the Kaaba?

Was it not superfluous, blasphemous even, for Solomon to build a temple, and should have not directed people to the Kaaba?

Allah really does the darnedest things, it seems.

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:22 am
by Eagle
Nosubmission wrote:
manfred wrote:
And We did certainly give the Children of Israel the Scripture and judgement and prophethood, and We provided them with good things and preferred them over the worlds.
Qur'an 45:16


And We gave to Him Isaac and Jacob and placed in his descendants prophethood and scripture. And We gave him his reward in this world, and indeed, he is in the Hereafter among the righteous.
Qur'an 29:27



Jacob is also known as Israel. He was the son of Isaac.

The Qur'an says loud and clear that prophets as scripture come from this lineage. But Mohammed made up a lineage for himself going back to Ishmael. Ishamel would have been Jacob's half-uncle, and obviously NOT in the line of Isaac-Jacob.

So by his own confused Qur'an Mohammed actually admitted that the was no prophet, and basically a fraud.

So he messed up his own cover story. Again.


The writer of the Qur'an was obviously confused about Abraham's sons: :lotpot:

... in all of the four Meccan chapters that mention Ishmael (Surah 6, 19, 21, and 38) a reference is made to Abraham as a father, but these verses contain the names Isaac and Jacob, and Ishmael is by no means connected to them. In Surah 6:84, Surah 19:49, Surah 21:72, and Surah 38:45 Abraham’s name always appears along with Isaac and Jacob and forms a triplet. Ishmael, on the other hand, is always kept out of this triplet and awkwardly inserted into the group of some other prophetic figures.

Evidently, having a vague and faltering knowledge of Ishmael’s relation to Abraham, Muhammad kept repeating Isaac and Jacob’s name along with Abraham and did not mention Ishmael as the first son until he devised Surah 14, in which he managed to correct his mistake by removing Jacob from the group of Abraham’s two sons. This removal meant Jacob’s replacement with Isaac and Isaac’s replacement with Ishmael. Muhammad’s correction was quite smooth and theologically beneficial since Ishmael’s first-time identification as Abraham’s first son in the Qur’an was thematically tied to Ishmael’s alleged settlement in Mecca.


According to Surah 3:33, Muhammad is not a true prophet:

The lack of a reference to Ishmael or to Muhammad in Surah 3:33 causes much trouble for Islamic scholars as Christian apologists and critics of the Qur’an use this particular verse to prove Jesus’ superiority to Muhammad. For example, in his article entitled Jesus Superior Still According to the Qur’an! Sam Shamoun rebuts the objections of the Islamic scholars who strive to add Muhammad into the list of the chosen and preferred families by expanding the definition of the phrase “family of Abraham” to include Ishmael. As stated in Shamoun’s article, the linguistic structure of the verse will not allow Muhammad’s addition into Abraham’s family with the help of his unsubstantiated affiliation with Ishmael, for Mary’s father is linked in Surah 3 to Abraham through his son Isaac, proving that the “final” family chosen by God was by no means related to Ishmael and his lineage.

As we discussed above, Muhammad could never have pointed at Ishmael’s line while referring to Abraham’s family in Surah 3:33 since he copied the names and order of the two patriarchs (Abraham and Imran) from the Gospel of James, a non-canonical Christian text that neither knew nor confirmed the modern Islamic allegations concerning Muhammad’s affiliation with Ishmael. More to the point, in the first chapter of that Gospel of Infancy, which was summarized and incorporated into the 3rd chapter of the Qur’an in the form of two short verses, Mary’s father remembered Abraham not because of his son Ishmael, but because of his son Isaac. Since Muhammad repeated this certain parallelism between Abraham and Mary’s father to the point of presenting the latter as a patriarch, it is unthinkable that he regarded the line descending from Ishmael as chosen and preferred.


Taken from http://answering-islam.org/authors/masi ... ther2.html


Puting aside the issue of whether Ismail and by necessary extension Muhammad, are included in Ibrahim's descendency spoken of in 3:33, what tells your Shamoun that God's preference of those families is in terms of superiority of prophethood rather than in numbers of prophets they counted as compared to other nations and families of the world. Like all prophets, Ismail whom you alledge 3:33 doesnt include among Ibrahim's progeny, is also said to have been exalted with all prophets 6:86 and Muhammad, like all prophets have taken a covenant with God 33:7. There is nothing even remotely hinting to prophethood superiority or comparison between prophets in the verse or its direct context and next time you see your Shamoun tell him to rid his mind of his god-man obsession and read a bit further and see what verse 3:84 has to say about not making such distinctions between prophets.

To educate you and your Shamoun a bit more, although Muslims must regard all prophets and messengers as equals 3:84, from God's perspective He has exalted some above others in some particular aspects 2:253,17:55 this doesnt mean some are greater in "status" than others.

About your ramblings on Muhammad's unawareness of Ibrahim's connection to Ismail in Meccan suras until he corrected himself with another Meccan sura where that relationship is clearly established, it is only an assumption based on 2 faulty premises
1- that sura 14 was revealed later than suras 6,19,21,48, which isnt the case
2- that the mention of God giving Isaac and Jacob to Ibrahim must mean that they are his sons, which is supposedly reinforced by the mention of their names next to his, which isnt the case:
a- the word "wahabna" literally meaning "giving without taking" and is used for other than offsprings 19:53
b- the order of the names of the prophets in these passages is irrelevant in determining their chronological order in history or whether they are contemporaries or not. Lut is mentionned several times as Ibrahim's contemporary in Meccan suras but is named in sura 6 after all prophets are listed, same thing with other names that are randomly mentionned from sura to another like Zakariya or Nuh regardless of their true historical order of which the Quran is aware, so the presence of names between Ismail and Isaac is no indication of the Quran's unawareness of them being affiliated or contemporaries only until sura 14.

As to the sudden theological need to connect Ibrahim, Ismail, Muhammad and the Kaaba, you are again off the mark since that link has already been established in several Meccan suras like 6:161,16:120-3 where Muhammad appeals to Abraham's true creed when addressing the Meccans, something that would have been totally irrelevant to them and to his argument had there been no known connection between the Meccans and Ibrahim, which there was even in pre-islamic times.

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:47 am
by Eagle
manfred wrote:Moses was apparently Jesus's uncle, too.


Your memory is short viewtopic.php?f=21&t=14591&p=193537#p193465

manfred wrote:Do you know where Abraham lived? How did he and Ishmael get to Mecca? Air Buraq?


How about the same way he travelled around the middle east, from Ur to Egypt and stopping along the way (longer than Beerseba - Mecca) then back again to Canaan. Dont look astonished, thats your own ignorance you're staring at

manfred wrote:And why on earth would they go to an empty place in the middle of the desert?


It was the settlement of a new comunity. Thats nothing strange in human history. Mecca was a religious settlement and Abraham's whole purpose of migrating away from his people was spiritual and if you knew anything about you precious Bible you have noticed that throughout his journeys, Abraham settled worship sites and altars. When in the OT, Ibrahim prayed that Ismail might live "before the Lord", he was asking God that his firstborn and only son at the time be dedicated to His service at the altar, as the terminology clearly applies to, throughout the Bible besides its use for the offerings made to God. This alludes to the fact that Ismail was going to be dedicated to serve the Lord at His House and Ismail was re-located in Paran per the OT, where according to the Quran he and his father Ibrahim settled a place of worship 2:127, with Ibrahim praying that this Holy Shrine remain a purified sanctuary for the righteous pilgrims 2:125, that this unforgiving location be turned to a hospitable place for all the pilgrims flocking in 2:126,14:37,28:57 that he and his descendants remain free from worshiping idols 14:36"surely they have led many men astray; then whoever follows me, he is surely of me, and whoever disobeys me, Thou surely art Forgiving, Merciful" and that they keep up prayer and be protected until the Day of Resurrection 14:40.

manfred wrote:Most importantly, why did later prophets have nothing to say about the Kaaba?


Who says they didnt. One interesting passage is In Psalms84, where David speaks, in his prayers to the Lord of hosts -the Lord of all nations-, of pilgrims frequently going through the valley of Beca to pray at the altar. Beca is identified by a definite article meaning it clearly refers to a place which cannot in anyway be the Temple in Jerusalem which was not even constructed at the time.
David speaks of Beca as a frequently journeyed altar by pilgrims and there was no place of pilgrimage during that time, to the point that certain commentators argue that what David is referring to is a place in heaven. This is ruled out by the fact it is refered to as a geographical location which Bible scholars have not been able to identify until now, and anyone familiar with even pre-Islamic history knows that the Arabs identified Mecca originally as Becca as corroborated in the Quran in addition that it is the very first place of worship of the One God and that it will remain so 3:95-99. It is also mentionned several times as the Ancient/Atiq House because it was so old that it came to be known throughout Arabia by that name 22:29,33 and its history went back to the days of Ibrahim and Ismail 2:125. The word Atiq conveys also the meaning of honor and reverance since it had been made sacred by God 27:91. One of its defining characteristics is that rain collects in pools when it rains because of the hardness of the grounds, besides the fact that people journey to it through valleys "Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools". Some Bible versions say "Valley of Tears/ Weeping", and Beca means "crying" in Arabic as a reference to Hagar crying for Allah's help in the wilderness fearing for her son Ismail's life, as related in both the OT and Islamic tradition.

manfred wrote:Was it not superfluous, blasphemous even, for Solomon to build a temple, and should have not directed people to the Kaaba?


Even to the Muslims, the direction of prayer was changed several times to demonstrate some important points already spoken of there viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13319#p185823, the main reasons being that no place is sacred in and of itself, that God's presence is in all directions and that the important thing is to follow a divine command while dismissing one's own whims

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:23 am
by manfred
Here is a map of Abraham's travels:

Image

He followed the Euphrates NORTH to Haran, then turns southwest Towards Syria, and from there into Egypt. He sensibly kept close to water whenever possible, and quite deliberately AVOIDED the Arabian desert. The reason for that should be obvious. He wanted to survive his journey.

Elsewhere you claim that camels where not used at his times. So, walking the detour to Mecca and back, on the way to Egypt is a detour of roughly 2500 kilometres. On foot. Through the desert. For what? This really is too insane to entertain even for a minute, and it is embarrassing that you even bring it up. :wacko:

As to there being any kind of settlement in Mecca at the time of Abraham is of course complete baloney. We KNOW there was nothing there at Abraham's times:

The historical record suggests that Mecca was settled around the 4th century A.D. by the Yemeni tribe of Khuzaa'h, joined later by Mohammed’s tribe the Quraish. The Kaaba was built around the early 5th century likely by Asa'd Abu Karb, for Arabian Star Family worship after the black stone made it's way to Mecca, most likely from Yemen. Early reporters recounted that prior to the construction of the Kaabah, a tent occupied the site. The Kaaba eventually housed 360 idols dedicated to Arabian moon, sun, star and jinn (demon) worship. It is no secret that the black stone that Muslims still prostrate themselves toward 5 times a day, venerate, and circumambulate, is the same black stone idol that pagan Arabians venerated and circumambulated. In other words, the Quraish established the rituals that Mohammed eventually adopted and then adapted to his religion.


http://www.historyofmecca.com/

David speaks of Beca as a frequently journeyed altar by pilgrims


There is a ALTAR at the Kaaba?? :lol:

Read the psalm. "They go from strength to strength, till each appears before God in Zion." Last time I looked Zion was in Israel. ‘Blessed are they who dwell in your house’ is also says. There are no people staying inside the Kaaba.


Blessed are those whose strength is in you, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage. As they pass through the Valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs: the autumn rains also cover it with pools


Does that sound like Mecca to you? A "place of springs"? With Autumn rain and pools???

And because we don't know exactly what place the "valley of Beca" is referring to it follows it MUST be Mecca? How daft is that? It most likely does not refer to real place at all. The "valley of tears" is a metaphor. It cannot possibly refer to Mecca, as it does not exist yet, not for another 1500 years.

God's presence is in all directions


But apparently only when it suits you. Do Muslims pray in all directions? When was the rule to face Mecca introduced for the first time?

I was not even referring to the qibla. If the Kaaba was the first and prime centre of worship and pilgrimage for JEWS as you you claim, it would be a blasphemous act to built a temple in Jerusalem, and call it the "house of God". Did they suddenly forget all about the Kaaba? Or was the temple in Jerusalem only a summer residence perhaps? Allah's Castel Gandolfo?

So, there is no reference to Mecca in the bible at all, simply because there was no such place when the texts were written. There is also no evidence of any kind of monotheistic worship at the Kaaba before Mohammed. At best Mecca was 300 years old when Mohammed was born. The story of Abraham and Ishamel in Mecca are made up by Mohammed for the reasons specified earlier.

Any idiot can see that Mohammed simply adopted pre-existing pagan rites around the Kaaba into his own invention, to make it more palatable to his his own tribe, as his attempts to convince the Jews and Christians had utterly failed.

Bukhari V2, B26, #689 (V1, B8, No 365): Narrated Abu Huraira:
“In the year prior to the last Hajj of the Prophet when Allahs Apostle made Abu Bakr the leader of the pilgrims, the latter (Abu Bakr) sent me in the company of a group of people to make a public announcement: 'No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year, and no naked person is allowed to perform Tawaf of the Kaba.'”


Bukhari V2, B26 #710 (B2 #128)
“Asem told us that he said to Uns bin Malek, a companion of Mohammed, “You were hating to encompass around the Safa and Marwa.” He answered, “Yes, because it was one of the pagan rites of Jahiliyah until Allah gave a verse that the Safa and Marwa are the rites of Allah. If one makes the Hajj to the Kaabah, he must encompass them. The person has no sin when he encompass them.”


Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:54 pm
by Eagle
You asked how could Ibrahim have gone to Mecca from Beersheba, implying that the distance was to long. You were then shown the flimsiness of that argument, as is usually the case with your issues, by a reminder of the fact that he travelled even greater distances than that. The issue wasnt about determining whether the Bible mentions the trip or not and why would it when it has already been shown how many facts concerning Ismail were obscured. So you can return your irrelevant cartoon to your Bible store.

manfred wrote:He followed the Euphrates NORTH to Haran


Once more:
The progeny of Ismail settled in the area from Havilah (Yemen) unto Shur (near gulf of Aqabah at the north east end of Red sea) Gen21:21,25:9-18, which essentially is the Hijaz where the descendants of Ismail have always identified themselves in, whether in ancient history or today. Even in the NT we read in Gal4:25 that Hagar, the mother of Ishmael is associated with Arabia. In fact the passage even associates Mt Sinai with Arabia, which challenges the traditional belief originating from an arbitrary designation in the 4th century in a typical Christians zeal of the time to create fictious holy sites for pilgrims throughout the empire because of the massive revenue it generated for the Church and local areas, that Horeb and Mt Sinai are located in the Sinai peninsula instead of the Arabian peninsula. The desert of Paran where Ishmael was settled Gen21 is equally associated with Mt Sinai (Numbers10), again reinforcing the fact that the correct location is Arabia. Ex3:1 plainly identifies Mt Sinai as being in Midian which could not have been in the modern Sinai peninsula since Moses' refuge in Midian is qualified as being outside of Egypt Ex2:15,4:19. There is a reason why not a shred of evidence has been found for the massive wandering of Israelites in the Sinai peninsula. It all happenned in Arabia. Jewish tradition itself speaks of Kedar, Nebaioth or Tema having settled in Arabia.

The camels, they were gifts during Abraham's stay in Egypt by Pharao (another anachronism since that title wasnt used for Egyptian rulers at that time, and the Quran correctly refers to rulers of the time of Ibrahim and Joseph as "kings"). Before he didnt have and couldnt have any as the domestication of camels didnt start until later on, and certainly not from the area where he initiated his journey. His travels, they happened by foot, donkey's back, and he made many stops along the way, pitching his tent, building worship sites. He used a donkey, not a camel as he went to prepare the sacrifice of "Isaac" Gen22. Its suddenly difficult for you to imagine ancient people travelling long distances while this is nothing surprising in the history of humanity.

manfred wrote:As to there being any kind of settlement in Mecca at the time of Abraham is of course complete baloney


And your Christian revisionist site regurgitating orientalist nonsense, that is actually refuted by other orientalists, is so reliable. There is evidence much prior to Islam of references to a singular Temple in Arabia by Greek historians, which mentions the Temple being venerated by all of Arabia. For example Muir quotes Diodorus Siculus speaking in the 1st century BC of a "temple" in Arabia which was "greatly revered by all the Arabs" and concludes, like everyone who knows the historicity of the location that it cannot be anything else than the Meccan Kaaba. Edward Gibbon equally recognizes "the genuine antiquity of Caaba ascends beyond the Christian era".
The fact is, no other Temple has ever served as a central point of pilgrimage, despite the fact that Arabia, during these days, had temples all throughout the region that were all established subsequently to and in imitation of the Meccan Kaaba, such as Abraha's Yemeni Kaaba. It is because of such prominence of the Kaaba that Abraha marched towards it to destroy it. Sura Fil refers to this episode.
But none of those shrines were older than the Kaaba, nor was any one of them regarded by the Arabs as of similar antiquity and commanding comparable veneration, as reflected in the verses i already provided. Mecca was not a passing point of voyagers nor a trade route, hence the scarcity of non-Arab sources mentionning it. Outside the annual pilgrimmage during which all of Arabia flocked in and generated profit to the city and its inhabitants, Meccans had to journey outside their own region to places like Syria and Yemen to sell and buy goods because no trading route passed by or close to them. This established fact refutes the baseless assertion made in that link you provided about Mecca and being built upon a trade route.

manfred wrote:There is a ALTAR at the Kaaba?


The Mecca and Kaaba is the altar where Ismail was nearly offered to God, and where millions bring in their offerings yearly.

manfred wrote:‘Blessed are they who dwell in your house’ is also says. There are no people staying inside the Kaaba.


And of course there were people living in that non-existant Jerusalem house of Becca, enclosed in a valley, near God's altar where pilgrims flocked in frequently? A few verses up God is also said to be dwelling in that house. It is a metaphor for dedication to God's worship, like when the OT speaks of God dwelling in a tent, the tabernacle, the temple etc.

manfred wrote:A "place of springs"? With Autumn rain and pools?


It says spring in the singular, other translators render it "well".
But of course you know nothing of Mecca's natural water resources, including the Zamzam well "Who passing through the valley of Baca makes it a well; the rain also fills the pools" that made it hospitable to the pilgrims. This is where according even to your Bible that God openned Hagar's eyes to a well, in answer to her supplications Gen21:18-9"Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink". This was God's gift to her, a means of sustenance for her settlement there in accordance with His plan and promise to make a great nation out of Ismail. As a side note, none of the wells of Beerseba or anywhere near it are mentionned as God-given. They are very distinctly described as the work of human hand.

Once more for you:
One of its defining characteristics is that rain collects in pools when it rains because of the hardness of the grounds, which isnt Jerusalem's case, besides the fact that people journey to it through valleys "Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools". Jerusalem in no way can be said to fulfill these qualities but Mecca which is in addition inside a valley does.

manfred wrote:Last time I looked Zion was in Israel


When was "Zion" identified with Jerusalem? Of course, later in Jewish history Zion became affiliated with Jerusalem, but it couldnt have been during the time of David, or Moses for that matter. Jerusalem in the sense of the Holy City and place of pilgrimage was not built yet in David's days who was in addition referring to a place far away that required strenuous effort.

manfred wrote:And because we don't know exactly what place the "valley of Beca" is referring to


Just above you thought it spoke of Israel. You and your scholars will never know where it truly is as long as you live in denial

manfred wrote:it follows it MUST be Mecca?


Not because we dont know its location for sure, but because of the various reasons already mentionned

manfred wrote:But apparently only when it suits you


No, when it suits God who as already explained, changed the direction of prayer several times in human history to establish certain points

manfred wrote:If the Kaaba was the first and prime centre of worship and pilgrimage for JEWS as you you claim


No, what was said and what Psalms is clear on, is that the author praises it as "a" pilgrimage site to the Lord of all nations.

manfred wrote:There is also no evidence of any kind of monotheistic worship at the Kaaba before Mohammed


There is plenty, in the tradition of the hanif who claimed following Ibrahim's creed in pre-islamic times.

manfred wrote: adopted pre-existing pagan rites


These were all the rites established by Ibrahim that became tainted and disfigured with poytheism throughout the course of history. The prophet Muhammad was sent to revive their true purpose by appealing to that tradition with which none of his addressees contended.

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:56 pm
by manfred
And all this you know because you were there I suppose.

It is amazing with what ease you can ignore all evidence when it comes to propping up your religion.

So, can you show me a historical reference to Mecca older than some 300 years before Mohammed? You have to do better than psalm 84. Nobody in their right mind would suggest any connection with Mecca in that text.

You say Mecca existed at the time of Abraham. Any proof?
You also say Abraham and Ishmael went there? Any proof for that?
You say that the rituals of the hajj date back to Abraham. Any proof for that, then?

We need to see the pre-Islamic sources, which you cannot bring because there are none. Why not? Because it simply is not true.

Not only are there no sources, it absolutely makes no sense:

If the Kaaba really had been such a central focal point of worship it would be completely unthinkable that it is not repeatedly and clearly mentioned in a great many Jewish and later Christian texts. Instead, you grope around for ONE alleged reference built on the fact that the Hebrew word for tears sounds a bit like Mecca, or Becca. Psalm 84 may have been written by David, but even that we cannot say for sure. It speaks of pilgrims making their way through a "vale of tears" to Jerusalem. We don't know the location of this "vale of tears", and possibly it is merely a metaphor for the daily struggles of life. No Mecca, no Zamzam no anything else to do with Mo's cock and bull story about Abraham and Ishmael in Mecca. The author of the psalm could not talk about non-existing places!

Also, given that the early Muslims faced Zion = Jerusalem at first speaks volumes: If the Kaaba really had such an old and illustrious history, this would never have happened. So Mo's version of the history of the Kaaba was not known to Muslims at first. Why not? Mo had not cooked it up yet. He came up with the tale to help him gain control of Mecca. He kept the old rituals to make his people feel a little less alienated by the new religion he forced onto them after the conquest of Mecca. There is no evidence that any of the rituals of the hajj have even a slight connection with Abraham or Ishmael. That is just Mo's fanciful tale.

Why were the Christian Churches not built to face Mecca? Surely if there was a grain of truth in Mo's tale then they would have known all about it long before him. And the Jews? How can the have no record of any of that? And build a temple defying the Kaaba?

Diodorus Siculus, that reference merely mentions a "temple" that SOME SUGGEST may refer to the Kaaba. In fact, as there were a great many similar shrines throughout the Arabian peninsula, and as there are no other details in the source, it could refer to any number of them.

The real question you must address is why the Kaaba does not feature in Judaism and Christianity. If Mo's tale is even half true then we would find ample sources in Jewish and Christian texts before Mohammed, and we find nothing at all. It would be unthinkable that such an important thing would simply be missing from ancient Hebrew texts. So it is not there, because it never happened.

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:26 am
by Eagle
There is nothing abstract or metaphorical about Ps84's description of a pilgrimage site, but that is of course the necessary route you need to take in order to remain in denial. Funny how now the authorship of the Bible suddenly became doubtful as you need a later date of composition for Psalms84 in order to make it fit Jerusalem. Even if we are to assume they were fabricated, the words are attributed to to the mouth of David. And if this is the case, then there is no way possible it could refer to Jerusalem, plain and simple, the end. Talk about ignoring evidence to prop up one's paradigm. Some opinions assert that David compiled psalms written before his, in addition to his own which constitute the majority and nothing indicates that ch84 wasnt penned by him, but that opinion doesnt deny David being the final compiler of Psalms and even confirms it. Even if we accept a later date it still cannot apply to Jerusalem due to certain geographical aspects already mentionned.

The Greek reference, once more, it is speaking of a singular temple revered by all Arabs of the peninsula, no other place than Mecca has ever been a universal place of frequent pilgrimage in that area despite the fact that Arabia, during these days, had Temples all throughout the region.

Mecca was an isolated city, far from trading routes hence the scarcity of non-Arab sources testifying to it. In addition its historicity and relation to Ibrahim, Ismail and Hagar was obscured in the OT on several levels spoken of in previous posts, and the clear indications of corruption either due to forgetfulness or deliberate tampering clearly testify to this.

That is why the importance, greatness and historicity of the Kaaba prior to Islam that made it known to the entire world, was confined to the Arabs and their oral tradition, and pre-islamic references were already provided although their transmission by Muslims wasnt to your taste.

Early Muslims faced the Kaaba at first, not Jerusalem. We've already been through that and God did not intend for it to be the universal qibla at its onset before it was made universally known and all its reality and importance exposed to those that were unaware of it as well as those that denied and obscured it.

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:52 am
by manfred
Eagle this is getting tedious.

The psalm is crystal clear. It is you who want it to say something it could not possibly say.

Zion is a synonym of Jerusalem. As to your assertion that Jerusalem did not exist at the time of David, I don't know who told you that nonsense.


David conquered the Jebusite fortress of Jerusalem, and made it his capital. "Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, also carpenters and masons who built David a house." David brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, intending to build a temple, but God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, announced that the temple would be built at a future date by one of David's sons (Solomon). God made a covenant with David, promising that He will establish the house of David : "Your throne shall be established forever."

read 2 Samuel. It tells you all about it. So if David did write or know psalm 84, a reference to Jerusalem would not be weird to him.

The Greek reference, once more, it is speaking of a singular temple revered by all Arabs of the peninsula, no other place than Mecca has ever been a universal place of frequent pilgrimage in that area despite the fact that Arabia, during these days, had Temples all throughout the region.


It mentions a temple, revered by "The Arabs". As I keep telling you there have been many similar places like the Kaaba in Arabia, and most were visited by different tribes, exactly like the Kaaba. This isolated comment can hardly be proof of the Kaaba as such. There were heaps of "temples" visited by "the Arabs".


Mecca was an isolated city, far from trading routes hence the scarcity of non-Arab sources testifying to it. In addition its historicity and relation to Ibrahim, Ismail and Hagar was obscured in the OT on several levels spoken of in previous posts, and the clear indications of corruption either due to forgetfulness or deliberate tampering clearly testify to this.


Now, this is just plain silly. Why would the Jews DELIBERATELY obscure an important act of Abraham? How could there have been a mass amnesia about this? Why is there no Jewish worship centre in Mecca or of the Kaaba? Something as important as that cannot be "forgotten" nor deliberately hidden. It simply would not work. In addition there would be no perceivable motive for such a thing. Long before Islam, why on earth would anyone want to hide Abraham going to Mecca. Get used to it: It's not there because it did not happen. It's one of Mo's fables.

We have biblical texts identical to ours predating Mohammed by centuries. Surely they should at least mention the Kaaba?

There were also a fair number of classical historians writing about Arabia, mainly mentioning things in passing, because to them it was a complete backwater. None of them mention Mecca. Why not? It did not yet exist.

The is no "scarcity" of sources. There are NO sources at all, and also no ARAB sources from before Mohammed linking the Kaaba to Ishmael and Abraham.

Mohammed himself made up one story after another about the Kaaba, contradicting himself:

In the Qur'an we find this cock and bull story:

Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Isma'il, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer).
2:125


This would suggest that the Kaaba was built about 2000BC... but then we also learn:
Narrated Abu Dhaar: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was built first?" He replied, "Al-Masjid-ul-Haram." I asked, "Which (was built) next?" He replied, "Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a (i.e. Jerusalem)." I asked, "What was the period in between them? He replied, forty years.

Sahih Bukhari 4:55:636


Which means it was built 1000 years after Abraham died.

However we do have an Islamic source for my explanation of the the Kaaba:

Narrated Aswad: Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, "Aisha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Ka'ba?" I replied, "She told me that once the Prophet said, 'O 'Aisha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka'ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit." Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same.
Sahih Bukhari 1:3:128


Here Mohammed actually admits the whole thing. The Kaaba was always a pagan shrine, for all of the 200 years or so it had existed by then. That is all it ever was. He decided to incorporate the pagan rituals around it into Islam, because he needed to make Islam more palatable to his people. His words, not mine. Not hate speech, Sahih Bukhari. In the process of this plan he invented all that Abraham and Ishmael nonsense, to give the Kaaba a more Islamic face.

Similar things can be found in many religious traditions... we have "temple of the tooth" in Kandy, Sri Lanka, claiming to house the actual tooth of Buddha.

We have a grave with golden coffins in Cologne Cathedral which claims to house the bones of the three kings who visited the new born Jesus. This however is highly unlikely.

It is also not uncommon to change and adapt existing religious practices to help people to accept a new religion. In Christianity, the choice of the date for Christmas is one such thing. We don't know the exact day Jesus was born, not even the exact year. It is not really important. It was chosen to more or less coincide with a Northern European mid-winter festival, thereby redefining it.

The difference is, Christians and Buddhists are not shy to admit and talk about these things, but a Muslim, like yourself, simply will not dare to even think that Mohammed did exactly the same, and on a much grander scale.


I would also suggest that there was an additional motive to keep the Kaaba going: Not merely to make his followers happy. Mohammed was no fool. He wanted the income that the Kaaba generated.

Re: Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:24 am
by manfred
Finally, to stop this nonsense here is the whole psalm you keep telling is is about Mecca... :wacko:

For the director of music. According to gittith. Of the Sons of Korah. A psalm. How lovely is your dwelling place, LORD Almighty!

1 How lovely is your dwelling place,
Lord Almighty!
2 My soul yearns, even faints,
for the courts of the Lord;
my heart and my flesh cry out
for the living God.
3 Even the sparrow has found a home,
and the swallow a nest for herself,
where she may have her young—
a place near your altar,
Lord Almighty, my King and my God.
4 Blessed are those who dwell in your house;
they are ever praising you.[c]

5 Blessed are those whose strength is in you,
whose hearts are set on pilgrimage.
6 As they pass through the Valley of Baka,
they make it a place of springs;
the autumn rains also cover it with pools.[d]
7 They go from strength to strength,
till each appears before God in Zion.

8 Hear my prayer, Lord God Almighty;
listen to me, God of Jacob.
9 Look on our shield,[e] O God;
look with favor on your anointed one.

10 Better is one day in your courts
than a thousand elsewhere;
I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God
than dwell in the tents of the wicked.
11 For the Lord God is a sun and shield;
the Lord bestows favor and honor;
no good thing does he withhold
from those whose walk is blameless.

12 Lord Almighty,
blessed is the one who trusts in you.


The text is very clearly referring to Jerusalem. It mentions Zion. It is also a psalm that has a heading that does NOT say it was written by David, but by the "sons of Korah"

It is clearly and repeatedly referring to the temple in Jerusalem, with means it must have been written some time after David.

Now look again at the passage you keep misrepresenting:

As they pass through the Valley of Baka,
they make it a place of springs;
the autumn rains also cover it with pools.


emeq ha-Baka could mean"Valley of the Balsam Tree" or "Valley of the Weeper/tears" it could be a real place, but it could also be a metaphor.


However, it is evident beyond doubt that the song speaks of pilgrims on the way to Jerusalem. So if this emeq ha-Baka is a real place it is obviously not far from Jerusalem, somewhere on the way.

Also you seem to be not shy of even changing the words themselves to make it appear as if somehow Mecca is mentioned here. "A place of springs" is what it says. In your version that became "the place of the [=Zamzam] spring". It is shameful to steep to deliberate dishonesty to make something say something it does not.