SAM wrote:Remember, you failed to claim that Muhammad copied the Qur'an from the Bible and the Torah. You also said that Muhammad learned from Waraqah, who was a Christian. And also said that Muhammad learned from the angel that you claim is the Satan and more allegations without concrete evidence. You all still struggling to find evidence of how Muhammad received the revelation of Allah.
I think it needs fixing SAM:SAM wrote:You all still struggling to find evidence of how Muhammad received the revelation of Allah.
That's the way to do it.Muslims are still struggling to find evidence that Muhammad received the revelation of Allah.
First, you need to prove that Ismail existed - only then is there any point in worrying about whether he had a book - or whether he could have read one, for that matter.SAM wrote:If you can prove that Ishmaell has taught his 12 sons with books/scriptures, then you can claim that Muhammad had learned from his own people. Allah was wrong and Muhammad is not the first warner or messenger of the descendants of Ishmael. And also answer me what is the name of the book that belongs Ishmael.
Who the hell do you think you are, even though the People Of Books (Jews, Christians, Sabians etc) failed to deny that Allah and Gabriel, does not exist. And today, haters of Islam, Allah, Muhammad and Muslims surely their hard works are fruitless, useless, futile and in vain to disprove the truth of the Quran.sum wrote:Hello SAM
Your quote -
You all still struggling to find evidence of how Muhammad received the revelation of Allah.
He didn`t receive any revelation from Allah. Allah does not exist nor does Gabriel. If you disagree with me prove that Muhammad received revelations as we only have his word and not a scrap of corroborating evidence.
First you need the approval of Rabbi, Ishmael and his 12 sons didn't exist in the Old Testament...You fools!Fernando wrote:First, you need to prove that Ismail existed - only then is there any point in worrying about whether he had a book - or whether he could have read one, for that matter.
But since you are now assuming that he hadn't, but nonetheless taught his tribes: was he - or his father - not a messenger with knowledge from Allah, that the subject matter was there to be taught in the first place?
Dear me, all these interlocking puzzles - it's getting like a game of chess: no wonder Mohammed called it a sin! Mustn't upset the Muslims by making them think!
Oh dear me, this is getting as complicated as a good game of chess!ISLAM_rules wrote:Ishmail prophet Ishmail people. Arabs later. idiots.
ISLAM_rules wrote:Ishmail prophet Ishmail people. Arabs later. idiots.
Behold, their brother Hud said to them: "Will ye not fear (Allah)?"I am to you a messenger worthy of all trust: "So fear Allah and obey me.
Behold, their brother Salih said to them: "Will you not fear (Allah)? "I am to you a messenger worthy of all trust. "So fear Allah, and obey me.
manfred wrote:Allah says this about the Arabs to Mohammed:
But We had not given them Books which they could study, nor sent messengers to them before thee as Warners.
There are three other Arab prophets Shu’ayb, Salih and Hud. As far as I know Shu'ayb, Salih and Hud, they do not come from the descendants of Muhammad's tribe.ISLAM_rules wrote:it mean Mohammed pbuh was the first prophet sent to the Quraish.manfred wrote:And "islam-rules" comment is also not helping... if the story of Abraham, Ishmael and the Kaaba is to be believed then obviously the Arabs, INCLUDING the Quraish, had previous "warners".SAM wrote:There are original Arabs before Ismail. ISLAM_rules again say correctly.ISLAM_rules wrote:Very simple... First Ishmail he go live with the Arabs, and then prophet there. Then Ishmail has make FATHER (=anchenntar) of all the Arabs, mean now new Arabs, not the same as old Arabs who live with Ishmail, no warner yet until Mohammed pbuh come
And now, please prove to me where in the Quran states that Ishmael was given books or scriptures and also the messenger or warner to Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, or his ancestors?
28.46-47 "Nor wast thou at the side of (the Mountain of) Tur when we called (to Moses). Yet (art thou sent) as Mercy from thy Lord, to give warning to a people to whom no warner had come before thee: in order that they may receive admonition. If (We had) not (sent thee to the Quraish),- in case a calamity should seize them for (the deeds) that their hands have sent forth, they might say: "Our Lord! why didst Thou not sent us a messenger? We should then have followed Thy Signs and been amongst those who believe!"
You obviously don't have answers to my questions. You're clueless. Where in the Quran does it state that Ishmael was a messenger to the prophet Muhammad's people or their fathers?manfred wrote:When we get to the pretty colours and big print, it usually means you have run out of things to say....And now, please prove to me where in the Quran states that Ishmael was given books or scriptures and also the messenger or warner to Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, or his ancestors?
For the umpteenth time, as nobody has been given books by any deity, that really is a silly demand. Did Mohammed stand up and read from a book to his people? Moses? Jesus? David? The Qur'an calls Ishmael a prophet. What else is needed?
As to being sent to the Quraysh, that is also a red herring. Why not then argue that no warner was sent to a particular street, or house, or even room? In what territory of the Arabs do you find the Kaaba, and who helped to build it according to Islamic tradition? Did Mohammed not claim to be a descendant of Ishmael? If he was a descendant of Ishmael then very obviously Ishmael was sent also to them.
now as to your main response, the verses:
Sure there are some more verses saying Mohammed was the first warner, as well as speaking of Ishmael the prophet. Repeating the same muddle several times does it not make any better. But I want to pick you main argument here:28.46-47 "Nor wast thou at the side of (the Mountain of) Tur when we called (to Moses). Yet (art thou sent) as Mercy from thy Lord, to give warning to a people to whom no warner had come before thee: in order that they may receive admonition. If (We had) not (sent thee to the Quraish),- in case a calamity should seize them for (the deeds) that their hands have sent forth, they might say: "Our Lord! why didst Thou not sent us a messenger? We should then have followed Thy Signs and been amongst those who believe!"
That is a passage speaking of Moses, for quite some time, and then similar to the way it is done in surah 26, switches suddenly speaking about Mohammed. It also says that Mohammed has been sent to "a people to whom no warner has come before you". Who these people are is not further specified here, and the "sent the to the Quraish" is an addition by Yusuf Ali, the translator, and neither the Arabic text has that nor any other translation I looked at.
So that line of defence really is very thin indeed, based on a translator's interspersion.
What does the Qur'an use, is the term "people" or "nation". Is a tribe a nation, SAM?
Who are those two warners? Hud and Saleh.And why are you not talking about the other two warners the Qur'an says were sent to the Arabs? I wrote something about that specially for you, SAM, just above. All you say is you assume they come from the wrong tribe. In fact we don't even know the tribe. Then, by the same argument, Mohammed is not from Singapore, so he does not count, right?
In reality, these other two warners were obviously known to the Quraish, as how otherwise could Mohammed speak of them the way he did? If there were known, then their warning, if there was one, was also known.
The ‘Ad people lived in an area between Yemen and Oman. Prophet Hud. He was from an Arab tribe living in Al-Ahqaf in Yemen on a land called Ashar.
The tribe of Thamud, another Arab tribe,
No connection has been established between the ancestors of the Muhammad and the prophets Arabic.
You list the tribes of the sons of Ishmael. Ismael is the father of Arabs, but he isn't Arab.manfred wrote:SAM, first of all, mind your manners.
OK look what you yourself said:The ‘Ad people lived in an area between Yemen and Oman. Prophet Hud. He was from an Arab tribe living in Al-Ahqaf in Yemen on a land called Ashar.
The "'Ad" were ARABS, and HUD was an ARAB. He was known to the other ARABS too.
About Saleh, the prophet of the Thamud,The tribe of Thamud, another Arab tribe,
Another ARAB Prophet to an ARAB tribe.
And then you say:No connection has been established between the ancestors of the Muhammad and the prophets Arabic.
Well here is the genealogy Muslims say show the ancestry of Mohammed:
Syed Yusuf: (for example)
1 Abraham Hanifa (AS) was the father of
2 Isma'il (AS) was the father of
3 Kedar was the father of
4 "Adnaan was the father of
5 Ma'add was the father of
6 Nizaar was the father of
7 Mudar was the father of
8 Ilyaas was the father of
9 Mudrikah was the father of
10 Khuzaimah was the father of
11 Kinaanah was the father of
12 Al-Nadr was the father of
13 Maalik was the father of
14 Quraysh was the father of
15 Ghaalib was the father of
16 Lu'ayy was the father of
17 Ka'ab was the father of
18 Murrah was the father of
19 Kilaab was the father of
20 Qusayy was the father of
21 "Abd Manaaf was the father of
22 Haashim was the father of
23 "Abdul Muttalib was the father of
24 "Abdullah was the father of
25 Muhammad (SAW)
There are various versions, but ALL say Ishmael was an ancestor of Mohammed. If he was an ancestor of Mohammed it means he was a prophet to the SAME people as Mohammed at an earlier time.
You're always off topic.frankie wrote:SAM:
In the greater scheme of Islamic doctrine, it matters not a jot whether Ishmael is part of the Islamic narrative, but what does matter, and what does connect Islam is an alleged respected prophet called Jesus, who taught a very different message to the one Mohammed taught,which should not be the case, as they allegedly both represented the same god.
Jesus used the Ten Commandments as His reference point, to teach people to have unconditional love for each other.
Mohammed took Allah's commands for his authority to teach people to have "love "and fellowship only for those who have faith in Allah,i.e.Muslims,anyone else must be excluded from this "love" as they are viewed as enemies, who must be fought against, to bring them into submission to Allah's rules, in other words, to coerce them to become Muslims, which is as far away from unconditional love as you can get.
If unconditional love is preached as a bona fide religious instruction from Jesus, (who took His authority from the Ten Commandments,) was good enough for Jesus, why was it not good enough for Mohammed, who claimed to represent the same god?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest