Mohammed is not a prophet according to the Qur'an

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Post by manfred »

eagle, I am not sure that this is going anywhere. It seems nothing people tell you seems to sink in.

How do we know that London was originally a ROMAN town? It is not as old as you claim Mecca is.

How do we know that? We have references by the Romans about it, we have queen Boudica attacking an destroying it, and the Romans rebuilding and fortifying it, we have remains of bath houses and temples, Roman coins, ample records. So, if anyone suggests that London was founded 200 years ago can be easily shown wrong. Similarly, someone could suggest that London was founded by Moses. What you say to such a person?

A city of similar age as your proposed age for Mecca would be Babylon, some 300 years older. We know the names of many rulers, and their actions. We have cuneiform writings on all sort of things, for the mundane to poetry, law and mathematics. We also have references to Babylon by Egyptians, and others, as of course the bible. We have pots, ruins, graffiti, statues and art work.

It is fairly easy to date Babylon, and your friend Siculus had a go at dating it a very long time ago and got it pretty much right.

Now, even if we allow for Mecca's remote location, what you say simply does not make sense. You claim it was a "universal" centre of worship for ALL the Arabs. An Arab equivalent of Karnak in Egypt.

And you seriously suggest that for a period of 2500 years no traces are left of it anywhere? When you go for a pilgrimage you usually take home some mementos, like Muslims do today: bottles of Zamzam water, beads maybe a cap or just a pot that says "Mecca". These kind of things should be all over Arabia, and we should have found some of them. As the centre would have been connected to Abraham, it is completely unthinkable that it would be missing in the bible altogether. As you may know, the Torah was in fact written by several people, a minimum of three, most likely four, not all living at the same time. So how could all these people have the same morbid notion of hiding something important about Abraham? How come the Jews who obviously knew Arabia, as some even settled there, never mentioned an "universal" centre of worship revered by "all" the Arabs? Even if it was not recorded in the Torah, how can it not have been known later? How long can you live next to your neighbours before you know at least some basic facts about them? NONE of ANY of the biblical writers mentions anything like that, even those writing centuries later. And the Egyptians, never heard of it either?


We should also find some ruins in Mecca. Why would the Saudis be reluctant to show them off? They would help them in their quest to promote Islam. They would put serious egg on the face of people like me. Have you ever wondered why they don't like excavations in Mecca? It's not some feelings of piety as they may tell you. They are not even shy about knocking parts of the Haram mosque down as you know. They need more hotels. They know exactly that there is nothing to find, and they don't want this issue exposed.

But we don't even need the Saudis. Just as we don't need to see the ruins of Babylon to be able to date it, because we have a lot of other things. We should have at least SOME of that, on a smaller scale A few artifacts here and there... a mention in some writings from around the region...

None at all, well that means case closed.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

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

Post by Eagle »

manfred wrote:How do we know that? We have references by the Romans about it, we have queen Boudica attacking an destroying it, and the Romans rebuilding and fortifying it, we have remains of bath houses and temples, Roman coins, ample records. So, if anyone suggests that London was founded 200 years ago can be easily shown wrong. Similarly, someone could suggest that London was founded by Moses. What you say to such a person?
Laugh and prove him wrong. So why didnt anyone do the same concerning the claim of Abrahamic connection with the Kaaba, the core of the prophet's message
manfred wrote:A city of similar age as your proposed age for Mecca would be Babylon, some 300 years older. We know the names of many rulers, and they actions. We have cuneiform writings on all sort of things, for the mundane to poetry, law and mathematics. We also have references to Babylon by Egyptians, and others, as of course the bible. We have pots, ruins, graffiti, statues and art work.
Your analogies of cities at the center of civilizations and implicated in worldwide affairs does not work, for the reasons already stated concerning Mecca.
manfred wrote:You claim it was a "universal" centre of worship for ALL the Arabs
Forget about Arab tradition. Siculus makes the claim. So how come you still cannot figure out where is that temple revered by all Arabs. Going by your reasoning, there should be somewhere, any traces of that temple that did exist per secular sources. Let me repeat; you have an author writing about ALL Arabs revering a singular Temple. The only one which ever commanded the universal homage in Arabia, was the one in Mecca, then the very idea that there is none is a statement divorced from reality and not grounded in any historical or traditional evidence.
We're not speaking of pyramid or some monuments no longer used, but of a living monument kept in high regard by an entire population past, present and future.
manfred wrote:An Arab equivalent of Karnak in Egypt.
The analogy still fails. It was part of one of the major cities of ancient Egypt, close to trade routes. Its accessibility to explorers along the Nile river, its religious significance to one of the greatest civilizations and the implication of successive pharaos in building it, nothing of all that compares to Mecca
manfred wrote:And you seriously suggest that for a period of 2500 years no traces are left of it anywhere? When you go for a pilgrimage you usually take home some mementos, like Muslims do today: bottles of Zamzam water, beads maybe a cap or just a pot that says "Mecca". These kind of things should be all over Arabia, and we should have found some of them.
Has there ever been archeological research in the area with that objective? Has there ever been found all over Arabia, any pottery confirming Silucus' account of a single temple revered by all Arabs?
manfred wrote:As the centre would have been connected to Abraham, it is completely unthinkable that it would be missing in the bible altogether. As you may know, the Torah was in fact written by several people, a minimum of three, most likely four, not all living at the same time. So how could all these people have the same morbid notion of hiding something important about Abraham?
Its not missing altogether, the contradictions attest to manipulation in this regard. The distortions concerning Ibrahim, Ismail, Hagar and their connection to Mecca and the Kaaba were first transmitted orally, as would any lie be repeated and exagerated, any rumor be started and propagated in a community, until the matter was obscured beyond recognition as the generations passed. That disfigured truth was eventually put in writing when Genesis was first composed
manfred wrote:How come the Jews who obviously knew Arabia, as some even settled there, never mentioned an "universal" centre of worship revered by "all" the Arabs? Even if it was not recorded in the Torah, how can it not have been known later?
Are there any references to non-Jewish worship sites in the writings of Arabian Jews? Did they list temples worshipped by pagans, besides the few hanif remnants followers of the creed of Ibrahim, as was the case with the Meccan Kaaba that got polluted with polytheism during the course of time? Although some settlements did exist, no significant Jewish population is reported in current days Saudi Arabia before the mid 6th century.
manfred wrote:We should also find some ruins in Mecca. Why would the Saudis be reluctant to show them off? They would help them in their quest to promote Islam. They would put serious egg on the face of people like me. Have you ever wondered why they don't like excavations in Mecca? It's not some feelings of piety as they may tell you. They are not even shy about knocking parts of the Haram mosque down as you know. They need more hotels. They know exactly that there is nothing to find, and they don't want this issue exposed.
As i said, file a complaint against them. They view the reverence to ancient sites associated with the prophet as a heresy, and to avoid it, they destroy and rebuild, without making any distinction between Islamic or pre-islamic material. Its not a matter of hiding something, they just do not have any consideration for these things, per their religious beliefs.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Post by manfred »

eagle wrote:
manfred wrote: Similarly, someone could suggest that London was founded by Moses. What you say to such a person?
Laugh and prove him wrong.
Excellent. I agree. Finally we seem to get somewhere. Now tell me how you would do that. How do you PROVE that Moses never went to London?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

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

Post by Eagle »

By using the same criteria we used now for Mecca. You're arguing from the point of view of absence of independent and secular evidence while the conditions for the existence of such evidence are not satisfied in anyway, as per the reasons mentioned several times

On the other hand you reject a people's own knowledge on its origins. You're not trying to confirm a single person's claims (as per your failed Moses-in-London analogy) but the claims of an entire population. So does the population of London claim spiritual, physical descendancy from Moses?

But forget about Arab tradition. Going by your reasoning, Siculus' Arabian temple does not exist because no archeological evidence of it has been found.
Eagle wrote:Let me repeat; you have an author writing about ALL Arabs revering a singular Temple. The only one which ever commanded the universal homage in Arabia, was the one in Mecca, then the very idea that there is none is a statement divorced from reality and not grounded in any historical or traditional evidence.
We're not speaking of pyramid or some monuments no longer used, but of a living monument kept in high regard by an entire population past, present and future.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Post by manfred »

You are avoiding the question.

I want to hear YOUR argument telling me why exactly London could not have been founded by Moses. "Spiritual descendency" is not a sine-quo-non condition for someone having founded a city. Singapore has Stamford Raffles as its "founder", a white English Christian guy. He was a politician, not a religious person. No Singaporean would say that they are "spiritual descendents" of Raffles. Few Singaporeans follow his religion. And yet all Singaporeans agree that Raffles was the founding father of their city.

Besides, if you ask any person in London, they will have heard about Moses, and if they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Sikh they will honour him. Does that prove he came to London?

So, how do you PROVE that Moses never came to London?

So you laughed. Good. Now show me why this cannot be right.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

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

Post by Eagle »

You're not payig attention. It isnt the case of a single person making a grandiose claim regarding his and a people's origins, an entire population is making the claim. In the former scenario, anyone would laugh, in the latter it would be taken very seriously.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Post by manfred »

Right, so ALL of the Arab people before Mohammed suggested Abraham was the founder of Mecca, you say. All of them, without interruption... :lotpot: ...for some 2600 years. So did they put a big statue of Abraham in the centre of town? The Singaporeans did of Raffles... A tiny weeny inscription at least? Somewhere on the Kaaba perhaps, Abraham or Ishamel put their names at least, like the builders of medieval cathedrals in Europe?

I suppose you can show proof of that idea of yours?



You are still avoiding the question...what would be your argument to show to just this single person that London was not founded by Moses? That others don't agree? Well, even majorities can be wrong, can't they? They majority of people don't agree that Mohammed was any kind of prophet. Something is either true or not. The number of people suggesting it to be true does not change that.

Tell us how would you show him he was mistaken.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

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

Post by Garudaman »

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.
then why it thread title says "according to the Quran"? :ermm:

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Post by manfred »

Hai orang garuda,

Apa kabar? Semua sehat?
Garudaman wrote: then why it thread title says "according to the Quran"? :ermm:
Well look at the start:
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.
....
The Qur'an says a prophet must be a descendent of Isaac and Jacob. Mohammed says he was not.

So the Qur'an rules Mohammed out as a prophet.


It is also not true that Mohammed's ancestry was common knowledge:
Ma'n Ibn 'Isa al-Ashja'i al-Qazzaz (silk-merchant) informed us; he said: Mu'awiyah Ibn Salih informed us on the authority of Yahya Ibn Jabir who had seen some Companions of the Prophet and said: The people of Banu Fuhayrah came to the Prophet and said to him: You belong to us. He replied: Verily, (the archangel) Gabriel has informed me that I belong to Mudar. (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Volume I, p. 4)
Here we are told the Mohammed's genealogy is only something conveniently "revealed", and NOT previously known for sure.

He SAYS he was a descendent of Ishmael, but that is hard to believe too.

For the historian, the Arabs are no more the descendents of Ishmael, son of Abraham, than the French are of Francus, son of Hector. — Maxime Rodinson
We have some Muslim genealogies for Mohammed, and none make sense.

Also, Abraham was not "given" Jacob. He was Issac's son. Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. So that part is also wrong.

We have since kind of moved on to trying to establish if Abraham went to Mecca and built the Kaaba. I am sure that is quite impossible, but eagle seems to think yes, even though we have no archeological evidence that Mecca is that old. What do you think?

I want you to fully take part, so if you don't understand something, because of the English, PM, I will help. You can always write in Indonesian.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Post by manfred »

eagle are we still talking about this?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Garudaman
Posts: 1266
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:39 am

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

Post by Garudaman »

manfred wrote:The Qur'an says loud and clear that prophets as scripture come from this lineage.
not only from that lineage :

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.

manfred wrote:The Qur'an says a prophet must be a descendent of Isaac and Jacob.
if the Quran said that God appoint certain group become prophets, isn't that meant God will not appoint others :

QS. 16:36. And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], "Worship Allah and avoid Taghut." And among them were those whom Allah guided, and among them were those upon whom error was [deservedly] decreed. So proceed through the earth and observe how was the end of the deniers.
manfred wrote:Here we are told the Mohammed's genealogy is only something conveniently "revealed", and NOT previously known for sure.

He SAYS he was a descendent of Ishmael, but that is hard to believe too.

For the historian, the Arabs are no more the descendents of Ishmael, son of Abraham, than the French are of Francus, son of Hector. — Maxime Rodinson

We have some Muslim genealogies for Mohammed, and none make sense.
even prophet Muhammad isn't Ismael descendent it still doesn't matter, because :

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.
manfred wrote:Also, Abraham was not "given" Jacob. He was Issac's son. Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. So that part is also wrong.
QS. 11:71. "...We gave her good tidings of Isaac and after Isaac, Jacob."
manfred wrote:We have since kind of moved on to trying to establish if Abraham went to Mecca and built the Kaaba. I am sure that is quite impossible, but eagle seems to think yes, even though we have no archeological evidence that Mecca is that old. What do you think?
Kaaba isn't built to be entered, so it isn't impossible if Kaaba was built with materials/designs which not very durable, plus disasters factor : http://muslimmatters.org/2012/11/15/ten ... the-kaaba/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The Kaaba that we see today is not exactly the same Kaaba that was constructed by Prophets Ibrahim ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) and Ismail ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) From time to time, it has needed rebuilding after natural and man-made disasters."

"One of the problems with having the Kaaba situated at the bottom of a valley is that when it rains – valleys tend to flood
. This was not an uncommon occurrence in Mecca and the cause of a lot of trouble before the days of flood control systems and sewage. For days on end the Kaaba would be half submerged in water."


;)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Post by manfred »

sorry I have missed you post...


right...


so according to you prophets come from the lineage of Jacob (i.e. from the people of Israel). They also do not come from that lineage.

Does that not sound odd to you? Why even mention that, if it does not matter?

Imagine I want to explain what "nasi goreng" is.

So suppose I said "Nasi goreng is fried rice and has chicken it it." Did I explain what "nasi goreng" is? Is everybody clear?

Then you come and say "well, you can also make it with prawns, lamb or beef, or just fried tofu".

As this is obviously true, my statement "it has chicken in it" is pointless, misleading even, as it may or may not have chicken, so nobody would understand any better what "nasi goreng" is.

So, if Qur'an wants to tell us what a prophet is, why say something it later changes?



Why would you FIRST say that the come from the lineage of Isaac and Jacob, when in fact later we read that is not really the case, and does not matter?

If this lineage is not important, and anyone could possibly be a prophet, why even mention it in the first place?


I tried to explain how this odd contradiction came about.

First Mohammed wanted to get accepted by the Jews and he tried to show them that his religion is compatible with theirs. So he said that prophets come from the lineage of Isaac and Jacob.

Later he discovered, to his shock, that the lineage he told everybody he had, would be wrong to be a prophet. Jews simply pointed out he is not an Israelite so he cannot be a prophet, and that was be the end of that.

So suddenly, the idea of a "prophet" gets re-defined:

In the verses you mention, suddenly the lineage of Isaac and Jacob is no longer important. It was crucial for Mohammed to suggest that Ishmael was also a prophet, as otherwise his whole story would collapse.

So, all of a sudden, all sorts of other people also are "prophets" including some who never were before: Job, Ishmael, Lot.... not to mention all the unnamed thousands of others.

Anyway, that is what I think happened. What do you think?

As to the Kaaba:

Of course we know that the current Kaaba has been rebuilt quite a few times. That is not the problem.

The problem is that neither Abraham nor Ishmael could have ever been to Mecca. It is simply impossible.

Why?

1) We have no record prior to Mohammed of this. If it happened, we should be able to find it in the bible, or in some other ancient texts. We should have inscriptions, graves, statues, pottery and even graffiti. We should also find that Mecca is mentioned as an important centre for pilgrimage in at least some texts from all around the Middle East. We have none of that. absolutely nothing at all.

2) We can date the city of Mecca fairly well, with at most a couple of hundred years error. It was first settled at the earliest about 300 AD, that is roughly 2300 years AFTER Abraham. He could not have gone there, because the place did not exist yet. We can be quite certain of that, because there is no city that leaves no trace of its existence for over 2000 years. It simply does not happen. We have record of places in Arabia which lasted only 200 years, but none for the alleged city of Mecca for all of 2000 years.

Just as you cannot go and see a movie at the cinema today that will be made next year, Abraham could not have gone to Mecca. That means that he could not have build the Kaaba. The Kaaba was at most 300 year old when Mohammed was born.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

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

Post by Eagle »

I see that you still cannot show a single graffiti or pottery attesting to Siculus' sole temple that was universally worshipped by all Arabs (going by your reasoning, the temple must have never existed then), neither have you been able to locate the valley of Becca through which pilgrims have been flocking since the time of David, as per the psalms.


manfred wrote:what would be your argument to show to just this single person that London was not founded by Moses?
Your analogy was shown to be irrelevant to the discussion and you keep going on. For the analogy to work you must prove an entire population wrong, no just one. Another easpect of the inapropriateness of your comparison is that we have extra Quranic texts at least going in the direction of that traditional belief, such as the progeny of Ishmael having settled in the hijaz per the Tanakh, Abraham having established Hagar and his "only son" in the same area. That is not even starting with the various elements proving dissimulation and manipulation regarding the true child of the sacrifice.
manfred wrote:They majority of people don't agree that Mohammed was any kind of prophet
This is completely irrelevant to what the "majority" thinks. Your OT and NT have specific criteria disregarding your whims viewtopic.php?f=21&t=14684&start=20#p194540" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
manfred wrote:Here we are told the Mohammed's genealogy is only something conveniently "revealed", and NOT previously known for sure.
You tried this before http://www.forum09.faithfreedom.org/vie ... 40#p193232" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
manfred wrote:The Qur'an says a prophet must be a descendent of Isaac and Jacob
No, it just says prophetood was placed among that line (not "only"), just as it was placed in other lines. The obvious implication being that all of them come from the same source and share the same principles. Read 45:16 in context
manfred wrote:Why would you FIRST say that the come from the lineage of Isaac and Jacob, when in fact later we read that is not really the case
The suras speaking of God's indiscriminate choseness of a propet, the exaltation of prophets outside the line of Israel with Muhammad, the last of these chosen noble individuals being the bearer of the same continuous revelation and covenant that was bestowed on past prophets (suras ghafir, al anaam, al shuaara etc) precede the revelation of both 45:16 and 29:27.
manfred wrote:Abraham was not "given" Jacob
He was, like Moses was given Harun viewtopic.php?f=21&t=14684#p194408" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
manfred wrote:First Mohammed wanted to get accepted by the Jews and he tried to show them that his religion is compatible with theirs
During his Meccan years when Jewish involvement in his life was totally insignificant?
manfred wrote:Later he discovered, to his shock, that the lineage he told everybody he had, would be wrong to be a prophet. Jews simply pointed out he is not an Israelite so he cannot be a prophet
You're repeating the same falsehood, which can safely be now desicribed as a deliberate lie, on which you were corrected previously viewtopic.php?f=21&t=14684#p194346" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Jews believe in the prophethood of non-israelites, non-Jews. Your little stories keep falling appart.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Post by manfred »

I see that you still cannot show a single graffiti or pottery attesting to Siculus' sole temple that was universally worshipped by all Arabs (going by your reasoning, the temple must have never existed then), neither have you been able to locate the valley of Becca through which pilgrims have been flocking since the time of David, as per the psalms.
This is a complete red herring.

a) Silucus did not speak of a SOLE temple. You made that up. He mentioned "a (indefinite form) temple". "Some temple".
b) I have shown you that his reference cannot refer to Mecca. As we have little other information, we simply don't know which of the many sanctuaries he is talking about. I told you a likely location, based on his text. It says it is coastal. Mecca isn't. It describes the features of the coast. They don't match anything near Mecca. True, it may be possible that Siculus was simply wrong and and this temple did not exist either. We simply have not found the answer to that yet. It is silly to say because something cannot be otherwise identified with 100% certainty, it suddenly becomes 100% certain that it refers to Mecca, which did not even exist then.
c) Siculus's reference is 2000 years too late anyway.
d) You surely know by know that there is a place called "valley of Bacca" just a few miles from Jerusalem, so that is the best match for a real place as psalm 84 speaks of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. I personally believe that the psalm is using a metaphor, but if it does really refer to a place you you have been told where it is. It is NOT Mecca.

Your analogy was shown to be irrelevant to the discussion and you keep going on
The analogy is there to ask you to provide a reasoned argument why Moses did not found London. If you were to attempt this you would use exactly use the same reasoning I used with regard to Mecca. That is why you refuse to even try.
No, it just says prophetood was placed among that line (not "only"), just as it was placed in other lines. The obvious implication being that all of them come from the same source and share the same principles. Read 45:16 in context
Not quite. First we are told that prophets come from a certain lineage, and later we are told this lineage is irrelevant. The reason for this is completely obvious, and I have explained it several times.
Jews believe in the prophethood of non-israelites, non-Jews.
We know of 55 prophets in the bible, 49 men and 6 women. (There are no women prophets in Islam, as far as I know..)
All are Israelites.

Ishmael is NOT considered a prophet, nor is Lot, nor Job, nor Alexander the Great. These are Muslim inventions, as are a fair number of others. Eagle seems to have been missed off the list too...

As to prophets from the goyim, the non-Israelites, this is a MERE OPINION voiced by some rabbis, and there are couple of references to that effect in the Talmud; this is NOT part of universally accepted Jewish teaching, but merely a view. A bit of "tafsir" if you like. However, as the Story of Balaam shows, such "prophets" are always seen as minor, subsidiary figures. They are really no more of a reflection of the actual prophets, like Moses, they are prophets in a metaphorical sense.

If you want me to go over the Jewish arguments in some detail, why Mohammed cannot be a prophet, I am happy to show you.
Deuteronomy is quite specific on this:

If a person speaks in the names of false gods, that person is a false prophet.
If a person delivers a revelation that doesn’t come from God, that person is a false prophet.
We know from Islamic sources that:
Muhammad spoke in the names of false gods.
Muhammad delivered a revelation that didn’t come from God.

So, Muhammad was a false prophet.

In addition Deuteronomy also states clearly that prophets are Israelites.

So Mohammed does not fit the requirements.

He does qualify as a tyrant according to the bible: (See Deuteronomy 17)
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
You see, it seems, in an uncanny way, Mohammed was mentioned in a few places in the bible after all, in a general sort of way.
...deliberate lie...
I have never deliberately lied to you, eagle, and saying such things merely shows you cannot otherwise answer me.


You want Mohammed's fairy story about Abraham and Ishmael having built the Kaaba very badly to be true. I am sorry I am upsetting you, but I am certain that it cannot possibly be true, and any reasonable person would agree with me on that. It is not healthy to force yourself to believe things that can be shown not to be true.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Post by manfred »

Read 45:16 in context
Oh eagle, you old joker... what are you talking about? :barf:

The whole thing is written so badly, you might as well ask me to find context in a telephone book.

The profound "Ha Mim" at the start, is that the context?

When we are told that Allah" directs the winds, and that is supposed to be sign for people that reason, is that the context? (So now we know, it isn't the beans at all, "Allah did it...")

Most of the rest are the usual rants about painful dooms and such, completely unrelated to the quote I gave.

Then we have the verse saying that scripture, judgement and prophecy was given to the children of Israel, the one I quoted.

After that we get a moan that the Jews argued and discussed religion a lot, disagreeing at times. Apparently arguing over religion and discussing it is a bad thing. Well, for Muslims it would be, because Islam does not hold up to much arguing.


Then the topic changes again, going on about how this Qur'an is an "enlightenment", and how judgment day will pan out.

Most tellingly, it also complains about those who laughed at the verses of the Qur'an, like the Jews did, and threatens them with judgement day.

Qur'an 45:33-35
And the evil consequences of what they did will appear to them, and they will be enveloped by what they used to ridicule. And it will be said, "Today We will forget you as you forgot the meeting of this Day of yours, and your refuge is the Fire, and for you there are no helpers. That is because you took the verses of Allah in ridicule, and worldly life deluded you." So that Day they will not be removed from it, nor will they be asked to appease [ Allah ].
So the surah hints at the very thing I told you: It is building up towards finding an excuse to sell Mohammed as a prophet. The Jews argued.

Worse, they laughed at Mohammed. So some "theological" quick adjustments were needed. First, the usual curses and threats, and then, later, Ishmael was promoted to prophet soon after, and so that he had some actual purpose, he became Abraham's travel companion to Mecca in Mohammed's new fairy tale.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

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

Post by Eagle »

manfred wrote:a) Silucus did not speak of a SOLE temple. You made that up. He mentioned "a (indefinite form) temple". "Some temple".
You're not paying attention, as usual. That he spoke of one among many temples is fully part of the argument since he only qualified one temple as being revered by all the Arabs. So im still waiting for a single graffiti or pottery attesting to Siculus' sole temple that was universally worshipped by all Arabs.
manfred wrote:b) I have shown you that his reference cannot refer to Mecca.
Which temple outside of Mecca was ever revered by all Arabs
manfred wrote:based on his text. It says it is coastal.
No, it locates the temple inland, as already shown there viewtopic.php?f=21&t=14684&start=20#p194540" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. But where is the archeology attesting to that coastal temple revered by all Arabs?
manfred wrote:True, it may be possible that Siculus was simply wrong and and this temple did not exist either
For that, you would have to prove that no temple ever served as the central point of pilgrimage of Arabia
manfred wrote:c) Siculus's reference is 2000 years too late anyway.
It doesnt matter, his account doesnt determine the date of origin of Mecca and neither is it used for that purpose. What his quote does, is refute the baseless conjecture about the sole temple universally revered by the Arabs, ie the kaaba only having been established a few centuries prior to the prophet Muhammad.
manfred wrote:d) You surely know by know that there is a place called "valley of Bacca" just a few miles from Jerusalem
Are you clinging to the desperate idiocy uttered earlier by another member about the Lebanese valley, which besides not matching the geographical descriptions of Ps84 in anyway, is in addition written entirely differently (although transliterated similarly)? So David is praising the pilgrimage of Jews through lebanon unto which site in Jerusalem?
manfred wrote:I personally believe that the psalm is using a metaphor
A metaphorical pilgrimage through an imaginary barren valley..surely sounds convenient to keep living in denial
manfred wrote:The analogy is there to ask you to provide a reasoned argument why Moses did not found London.
The analogy fails on multipe levels making it irrelevant. You are trying to disprove the claims of a people (not one man) predating the appearance of the person whom you claim brainwashed them concerning their origins, the origins of their most revered landmarks and of their city. In addition, that claim has independant evidence pointing to its veracity
manfred wrote:Not quite. First we are told that prophets come from a certain lineage, and later we are told this lineage is irrelevant
You keep going on while you've just been shown that the statements on God's indiscriminate choseness of a propet, the exaltation of prophets outside the line of Israel with Muhammad, the last of these chosen noble individuals being the bearer of the same continuous revelation and covenant that was bestowed on past prophets (suras ghafir, al anaam, al shuaara etc) precede the revelation of both 45:16 and 29:27.
manfred wrote:The reason for this is completely obvious, and I have explained it several times.
Your stories fall appart everytime
manfred wrote:As to prophets from the goyim, the non-Israelites, this is a MERE OPINION voiced by some rabbis, and there are couple of references to that effect in the Talmud; this is NOT part of universally accepted Jewish teaching, but merely a view.
The list you've been shown and which you now are forced to accept despite that poor attempt at discrediting it while your see yet another of your stories falling appart, is a universally accepted list in Judaism. They are fully prophets that related God's revelations Numbers22"Balaam replied. “But I can’t say whatever I please. I must speak only what God puts in my mouth.”" Although non Jewish prophets primarly address non-Jews, they also preach to Jews and Balaam's address to the Israelites in Numbers24 is revered until today.
manfred wrote:they are prophets in a metaphorical sense.
The "metaphor" argument again, whenever faced with the unsurmountable problems of your stories
manfred wrote:If you want me to go over the Jewish arguments in some detail, why Mohammed cannot be a prophet, I am happy to show you.
Pour out all your knowledge, ill be happy to teach you some of mine too
manfred wrote:Deuteronomy is quite specific on this:

If a person speaks in the names of false gods, that person is a false prophet.
The prophet Muhammad spoke in the name of the God of Moses and all past prophets.
manfred wrote:If a person delivers a revelation that doesn’t come from God, that person is a false prophet.
That is not what Deut18:22 says, obviously you need tangible proof to know whether the revelation is divine and that proof is explicitly stated as being the success or failure of prophecies. This rules out Jesus (whose end days prophecies failed) and admits the prophet Muhammad into the club
manfred wrote:We know from Islamic sources that:
Muhammad spoke in the names of false gods.
Muhammad delivered a revelation that didn’t come from God.
Both false and will be exactly shown how the moment you bring your alleged sources and quote what they say in details
manfred wrote:In addition Deuteronomy also states clearly that prophets are Israelites.
No, ch17 is speaking of the appointement of Kings above them and it is obvious that the appointed Ruler must be from the same nation as his subjects, not a foreigner. By specifying in which case a brethren to the Israelites is not a foreigner, the OT shows that -unless specified otherwise- when the word "brethren" is used to relate them to another people, these people must be considered by default Israel's brethren and the OT makes use of the word "brethren" repeatedly to relate them with Israelites and non-Israelites alike.
A messenger of God's lineage to his addressees is irrelevant. As already seen, even Judaism recognizes the prophethood of non-Israelites and this is precisely why Deut18 does not stress that such "brother" must be from within Israel contrary to 17:15 speaking of the necessity of appointing an Israelite king.
manfred wrote:He does qualify as a tyrant according to the bible
Like Moses you mean
manfred wrote:I have never deliberately lied to you, eagle, and saying such things merely shows you cannot otherwise answer me.
You have lied deliberately, as you've been shown that Judaism accepts the prophethood of non-Jews and yet you continue with that crucial piece of argument you need to put back afloat that sinking boat of yours
manfred wrote:The whole thing
No need to read the whole chapter, the aversion you feel is perfectly normal as per the divine law regarding those that are bent on denying the truth. Just the 2 verses follwing the one you insidiously snipped out of its context will suffice to establish the fact that prophetood was placed among that line (not "only"), just as it was placed in other lines, including that of the last prophet of God, Muhammad. The obvious implication being that all of them come from the same source and share the same principles. They should therefore disregard their own whims and follow that universal truth.
manfred wrote:Most tellingly, it also complains about those who laughed at the verses of the Qur'an, like the Jews did, and threatens them with judgement day.
Like those "sons of satan" and "race of vipers" that despised and ridiculed Jesus and his teachings although he simply called to the adherance of their own books, and who were subsequently warned of a scourge similar to that of the people of Galilee (Matt3)? Your "telling" stories suddenly sound as ugly to Jesus as they do to Muhammad now dont they

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Post by manfred »

It doesnt matter, his account doesnt determine the date of origin of Mecca and neither is it used for that purpose. What his quote does, is refute the baseless conjecture about the sole temple universally revered by the Arabs, ie the kaaba only having been established a few centuries prior to the prophet Muhammad.
So, after all that you are now admitting that the quote is irrelevant after all. Good. It seems you are at least beginning to see sense. For the umpteenth time, read the source. It speaks of a sanctuary near the sea. It describes coastal features. It says nothing at all about a “sole” temple revered by all the Arabs. I gave you the text to read. Twice. So read it.

It is therefore nonsense to suggest that this quote in any way serves towards establishing the age of Mecca or the Kaaba. Whatever it talks about, it does not matter, because it is very clear that it is NOT Mecca.

As there is no evidence at all of Mecca or the Kaaba being older by more than just 2 or 3 hundred years more than Mohammed, any reasonable person whould accept that. It seems you cannot, or at least not yet.


As to the location of the valley of becca, you have been asked to read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beqaa_Valley

You reacted with abuse, indicating that your smoke screen has been penetrated. Your only argument was that it is a fertile place. The psalm does not tell us if it it is a fertile place or not, so it could well be. It was also a centre for Baal worship, so Israelites would not feel very comfortable passing through. It is rather like someone asking you to take a walk through an abattoir for pigs. As I keep telling you, this location is the best match for the location mentioned in the psalm if we are looking for a real place. It is also a reasonable interpretation to suggest that the text talks about a REAL pilgrimage to Jerusalem, through a metaphorical "place" of suffering.

As to your tu quoque argument about non-Israelite “prophets” mentioned by some Rabbis in the Talmud, you have been told that this idea does not form a belief shared throughout Judaism, or indeed part of the Jewish creed in general.. In Judaism by far the most accepted general consensus is that the period of the prophets started with Abraham and ended with Malachi, about 400 BC. That does not mean that there were no later occasional incidents of prophecy, but effectively the idea of a prophet later than that is an anachronism. This is in fact largely a shared view with Christianity also.

But all of that is really also completely irrelevant. A talmudic rabiis opinion does nothing whatever to change what the Qur’an actually says: Scripture, judgement and prophecy was given to the ISRAELITES. No “also”, no “as well” no "in addition to all these...". Israelites, it says, full stop. We are discussing what the Qur’an says, not what the Talmudic rabbis debated over.

We know that only later Ishmael was promoted to prophet, contrary to Judaism and Christianity, in order to provide a façade for Mohammed’s daft claim to be a prophet. He told everybody (no, it was not generally known before, as the hadith I gave you has shown you) that he was a descendent of Ishmael. He also made the bloomer of saying that prophets should be from the line of the Israelites, and that rules him out, but his own fake ancestry he propagated. So, his solution was simple: suddenly this Ishmael, a minor biblical character, becomes an important prophet. Hey presto, and Mohammed suddenly came from a line of prophets. How you cannot see through this con-trick is beyond me.

BTW, you keep mentioning this, let me point out that NEITHER Jews NOR Christians would class Jesus as a prophet, so why you keep mentioning that I don’t know. It is merely another tu quoque. This is only about the Qur’an’s definition of a prophet, and I really could not care less who else you want to class as a “prophet” or not on the basis of texts outside the Qur’an.

So, after all that, you have still not provided a basis for the age of Mecca, or the story of Ishmael and Abraham as per the Qur’an. This simply cannot be done, because you cannot provide proof for that which is patently false, so the idea of Mecca being 3000 years old must be dismissed a nonsense, alongside with any notion of Abraham and Ishmael having ever been to Mecca, let alone built the Kaaba.

Implicitly you are in fact agreeing as you have been trying very hard to fudge the Qur’anic definition of a prophet, just like Mohammed, so that you can get him to be classed as one.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

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

Post by Eagle »

manfred wrote:So, after all that you are now admitting that the quote is irrelevant after all. Good. It seems you are at least beginning to see sense. For the umpteenth time, read the source. It speaks of a sanctuary near the sea. It describes coastal features. It says nothing at all about a “sole” temple revered by all the Arabs. I gave you the text to read. Twice. So read it
You would love that Siculus quote to be taken away and forgotten, wouldnt you. It is irrelvant in determining the date Mecca was established, which has never been the subject of the discussion anyway, but highly appropriate in demonstrating the fact that contrary to your baseless conjecture, a temple revered by all Arabs did exist long before the last of God's prophets appeared and long before the bogus dating of those weak sites from where you fetched that 300year prior to Islam figure from.
manfred wrote:It is therefore nonsense to suggest that this quote in any way serves towards establishing the age of Mecca or the Kaaba.
Sure it is, and never was it used for that purpose had you been paying attention
manfred wrote:Whatever it talks about,
What it talks about is clear. One temple revered by all Arabs. Show 1 instance in the history of Arabia where that was the case outside of Mecca. Good luck
manfred wrote:As there is no evidence at all of Mecca or the Kaaba being older by more than just 2 or 3 hundred years more than Mohammed
Which evidence dates the city to 300 years prior to the last of God's prophets? Bring it here
manfred wrote:any reasonable person whould accept that.
Sure, anyone would accept that no other city than Mecca was ever the center point of pilgrimage of the Arabs
manfred wrote:As to the location of the valley of becca, you have been asked to read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beqaa_Valley" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So is the verse metaphorical or not after all? You keep wavering in your arguments, back and forth as usual.

And you've been educated, you and your kind about the idiocy of insisting on the above, not only because the Arabic (B-Qaf-alef-ayn) does not conform to the hebrew for Becca (while the Arabic orthograph and meaning for Becca B-K-K does, see the Quran in 3:96) but also because of the geographical descriptions of Psalms, completely excluding that lebanese valley. So there were Jews going on pilgrimage to a phantom site in Jerusalem? What did they visit there and dont you wonder why none of your own scholars, not one ever ventured into claiming David was speaking of Lebanon and preferred opting for a heavenly place
manfred wrote:The psalm does not tell us if it it is a fertile place or not, so it could well be.
Which fertile ground causes pool to form when it rains? That certainly does not happen in the lebanese lushful and fertile valley, neither do people need to make a "well" in it obviously to rest and drink.
manfred wrote:It was also a centre for Baal worship, so Israelites would not feel very comfortable passing through.
How does making a "well" comfort them while passing through that metaphorical valley in direction of a non-existant worship site in Jerusalem. So the Israelites were persecuted at the hands of Baal worshipers, or is it rather the former that destroyed the latter as described in your OT in Deuteronomy?
manfred wrote:It is rather like someone asking you to take a walk through an abattoir for pigs.
Or someone like Jesus who rejected pork meat like the good Jew he was, contrary to you?
manfred wrote:As I keep telling you, this location is the best match for the location mentioned in the psalm if we are looking for a real place. It is also a reasonable interpretation to suggest that the text talks about a REAL pilgrimage to Jerusalem, through a metaphorical "place" of suffering.
And what does that metaphorical suffering consist of, just bove you refered to a real, tangible suffering. Get your story back on track.
manfred wrote:As to your tu quoque argument about non-Israelite “prophets” mentioned by some Rabbis in the Talmud, you have been told that this idea does not form a belief shared throughout Judaism, or indeed part of the Jewish creed in general.. In Judaism by far the most accepted general consensus is that the period of the prophets started with Abraham and ended with Malachi, about 400 BC. That does not mean that there were no later occasional incidents of prophecy, but effectively the idea of a prophet later than that is an anachronism. This is in fact largely a shared view with Christianity also.
A baseless view per the Tanakh, only resulting from the rabbis' desperation regarding the low level of morality of their people because they understood prophecy to be contingent upon the people's unity and high level of holiness, which is why the number of prophets went from many at once to fewer and fewer until the doors of prophecy were supposedly closed with Malachi.

You dont seem to be paying attention and keeping track of the discussion. You speak of tu quoque, probably not really knowing what it entails while you brought the issue of the prophet Muhammad suddenly realizing that as per Jewish belief, only Israelites were entitled to the gift of prophethood. But now that it has been proven wrong without doubt through a list of non Jewish prophets mentionned both in your OT and outside of it and recognized by all Jewish authorities as true prophets despite your baseless claim to the contrary, you have now switched to the issue of prophethood having stopped with Malachi (thus excluding not only Jesus but John the baptist and Zechariah, and even Daniel who is put among the books of prophets by Christians who evidently do not consider prophecy to have ended with Malachi despite your attempt at claiming the contrary), a new argument that is entirely irrelevant to your story about the prophet Muhammad having introduced non-Israelite prophets in order to justify his own claim to prophethood.
manfred wrote:But all of that is really also completely irrelevant. A talmudic rabiis opinion does nothing whatever to change what the Qur’an actually says: Scripture, judgement and prophecy was given to the ISRAELITES. No “also”, no “as well” no "in addition to all these...". Israelites, it says, full stop. We are discussing what the Qur’an says, not what the Talmudic rabbis debated over.
Sure, it was placed among the sons of Jacob (not "only") and read 2 verses later to see how that same gift was extended to the Ishmaelites. The obvious implication being that all of them come from the same source and share the same principles. They should therefore disregard their own whims and follow that universal truth.
manfred wrote:We know that only later Ishmael was promoted to prophet,


The "promotion" occured prior to the revelation of both 45:16 and 29:27 on which your entire little story is based
manfred wrote:He told everybody (no, it was not generally known before, as the hadith I gave you has shown you)


Your gross misinterpretation of that hadith was detailed in the previous post
manfred wrote:that he was a descendent of Ishmael


Along with all Meccans andArabs of hijaz who identified themselves as such prior to Islam
manfred wrote:suddenly this Ishmael, a minor biblical character,
The "only son" of the sacrifice, who was to live "before the lord" (ie in dedication to Him) and be made a blessed and great nation?
manfred wrote:becomes an important prophet. Hey presto, and Mohammed suddenly came from a line of prophets. How you cannot see through this con-trick is beyond me.
The con-trick has collapsed long ago, that is your weak story. For it to work you need those verses about the prophets Ismail and Muhammad to come after 45:16 and 29:27, which isnt the case
manfred wrote:BTW, you keep mentioning this, let me point out that NEITHER Jews NOR Christians would class Jesus as a prophet, so why you keep mentioning that I don’t know.
So Deut18 does not apply to Jesus, contrary to what the author of Acts3 states about Jesus being the fulfillement of the prophecy concerning that particular prophet.

To the Jews he was a false prophet and failed pretendant to the throne of the king messiah like others before him. To some christians he was a god-man, to others something else they're not very sure of. But what matters is what your own NT says, and he was repeatedly identified as a prophet "The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee""
"“He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people"
"I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem"
manfred wrote:So, after all that, you have still not provided a basis for the age of Mecca,
And neither have you refuted it. The absence of evidence (for that particular point regarding Mecca), as anybody can tell you, does not prove that something did not happen or did not exist. It simply means there is nothing found as of yet. It's basic logic. Besides, you are still unable to locate that temple spoken of by Siculus, nor show evidence for its existence anywhere outside Mecca, neither have you pointed the spot of the (sometimes metaphorical, sometimes real, depending on which way you want your story to go) valley of Becca
manfred wrote:you cannot provide proof for that which is patently false, so the idea of Mecca being 3000 years old must be dismissed a nonsense, alongside with any notion of Abraham and Ishmael having ever been to Mecca, let alone built the Kaaba.
Go back to previous posts to see the place where Ismail was settled and where his blessed progeny spread, per your OT.
manfred wrote:Implicitly you are in fact agreeing as you have been trying very hard to fudge the Qur’anic definition of a prophet, just like Mohammed, so that you can get him to be classed as one.
Again, determining who is a prophet and who is not isnt dependant on anybody's whims. Your own scriptures qualify him as a prophet

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Post by manfred »

Eagle I have a lot of stuff to do today. I will try and write to you again later.

In the meantime, please answer sum. He has been waiting a very long time..... I will get back to you as soon as I can...
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

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

Post by manfred »

read 2 verses later to see how that same gift was extended to the Ishmaelites.
???
I gave two verses at the start. 2 verses on, from each of these we have these:

45:18
Then We put thee on the (right) Way of Religion: so follow thou that (Way), and follow not the desires of those who know not.
29:29
"Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?" But his people gave no answer but this: they said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth."
Your assertion is simply not true, is it? There is absolutely nothing here about that.

This seems to go round in circles.

Perhaps I need to remind you of the generally accepted rules of evidence in a discussion. If you want to say that Mecca is older that I said, it is YOU who needs to provide the evidence. I have given you my reasons why I think an older date for Mecca is utter nonsense. The only thing you actually have on the origins of the Kaaba and the age of Mecca is an Islamic tradition, partly hinted at in the Qur'an, amidst a load of other ramblings. The historical and archeological evidence strongly disagrees. As to Abraham and Ishmael having traveled to Arabia even, that really is just plain silly. Again, all you have to support that is old Mo's tall tale. and he is not even a remotely trustworthy person now, is he? And how could he possibly know this anyway? Was he there? No, his invisible friend told him. So you are basing your assertion on the ramblings of the invisible friend of a known criminal, and nothing more at all. in addition, the motivation for Mo's tall tale is as plain as the nose in your face; pure self interest. No other texts, inscriptions, no ruins, graves, graffiti, nothing. And you go on and on....




Finally, I note that you have said that Jesus both is and is not a prophet according to your reading of the bible. :???:
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Post Reply