is Allah forgetful?

[manfred]

OK, if in your version of Islamic tradition Ishmael is the father of all the Arabs, and he also was a prophet, then the obviously also was a prophet for the Arabs.

So it cannot be correct to call Mohammed the first warner of the Arabs....

Can you really not see that the two stories do not fit together?

[SAM]

OK, if in your version of Islamic tradition Ishmael is the father of all the Arabs, and he also was a prophet, then the obviously also was a prophet for the Arabs.

So it cannot be correct to call Mohammed the first warner of the Arabs....

Can you really not see that the two stories do not fit together?

It is not the same as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his twelve sons "tribes of Israel". They have hereditary, prophets and warner's to them until their last Jewish prophet Jesus.

Allah says, no books or scriptures is given to any of Arabs tribes before Muhammad.

If you believe that Ishmael was the first prophet to his 12 sons "Tribes Of Arabs". Tell me, how Ishmael gave the teachings of his father Abraham, to his twelve children.

[manfred]

In the real world of course Ishmael has nothing whatever to do with Arabs, but that is another story. Your claim is a) that Ishmael went to live with the Arabs/ is the ancestor of the Arabs. That in itself is inconsistent. Trump's wife is from Slovenia in Europe and she went to live with the wild Americans. How can she possibly be an ancestor to the American if they already exist? b) that Ishmael was a "prophet". If he did not deliver his message, whatever it was, to the Arabs, where you say he lived, then who to? The Japanese?

And have another look at what "Allah says":

But We had not given them Books which they could study, nor sent messengers to them before thee as Warners.

It is very specific: not merely no books, as you claim, also no messengers or warners.

Let me tell you the obvious explanation, as you seem to struggle to see it.

a) Mohammed wrote the Qur'an.
b) because Mohammed was not blessed with the best of memory or the highest of intelligence, he has contradicted himself. He wanted to raise his own importance by claiming he was the first and last messenger as far as the Arabs are concerned, but he forgot he previously mentioned others..

[SAM]

It is so clear that you have no idea, clueless and no answer to my question, how Ishmael had taught Abraham religion to all 12 of his children without the Books or Scriptures.

This means that Allah is true, no warners has been sent to Arab tribes since Ismael. And Muhammad 'abduhu warasuluh including the Al Quran was sent to both the Arabs and to Mankind.

[manfred]

It is so clear that you have no idea, clueless and no answer to my question, how Ishmael had taught Abraham religion to all 12 of his children without the Books or Scriptures.

This means that Allah is true, no warners has been sent to Arab tribes since Ismael. And Muhammad 'abduhu warasuluh including the Al Quran was sent to both the Arabs and to Mankind.

SAM,
You also do not know how my great aunt Petunia treated her ingrown toenail, which is also totally irrelevant.

Your question is a pointless distraction. And your logic is totally screwed as ever. How does whatever I may know or do not know have any bearings on anything from the past? Hmmm?

It is irrelevant to debate how Ishmael did what, or even if he picked his nose with his left or right hand, it only matters that Islam teaches he obviously was a prophet/warner to the Arabs. Now you say he was a "prophet" who actually totally failed in his task and did nothing at all. It really is getting more and more absurd.

Seriously, SAM, if you have no reasonable response to the topic, why not just say that?

[SAM]

I know, how Ishmael had taught his children the teachings of Abraham without scriptures, which finally was accomplished by Muhammad.

Allah is correct, "And We have given them no scriptures which they study, nor sent We unto them, before thee, any warner."

And Muhammad 'abduhu warasuluh including Al Quran was certainly sent to both the Arabs and to all Mankind.

[manfred]

I know, how Ishmael had taught his children the teachings of Abraham without scriptures, which finally was accomplished by Muhammad.

still at that?

So you say Ishmael "taught his children..." which means Ishmael was a warner BEFORE Mohammed according to you. How he did it is irrelevant. So the verse is a mistake, even according to you.

Look at the text again carefully, it really spells it out, leaving little to interpret:

But We had not given them Books which they could study, nor sent messengers to them before thee as Warners.

NO BOOKS NO MESSENGERS NO WARNERS.

It does not say, "well previously there were only messengers without a book".... it says loud and clear, not only no book, no messenger and no warner. NONE of them.

So you can hop around as much as you want, it really cannot be clearer. For this to be correct Ishmael should have taught nothing at all and not be a prophet in any meaningful sense. But that is not what the Qur'an otherwise says...

Note well, we only speak of the Islamic version of Ishmael here anyway, which in itself is a nonsense. But we need to start with where you are, not the reality.

The QUr'an also says:

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

You already conceded that Ishmael in Islam is the "father" of the Arabs, and a prophet, obviously to the Arabs. So really so far despite all that posturing, you have not provided any way these two verses can be reconciled with each other.

Why not? Because clearly they cannot. Mohammed simply forgot some of his previous rants and got confused. Simple.

[SAM]

Allah said correctly,, no warners has been sent to Arab tribes since Ismael. And Muhammad 'abduhu warasuluh including Al Quran was sent to both the Arabs and to all Mankind.

[manfred]

Allah said correctly,, no warners has been sent to Arab tribes since Ismael. And Muhammad 'abduhu warasuluh including Al Quran was sent to both the Arabs and to all Mankind.

Really? Where does it say that? It seems not only are you very good at ignoring inconvenient hadith, you do the same with verses from the Qur'an...

[SAM]

There has never been a warner has passed among 12 Arab tribes since Ishmael.

ISLAM_rules said correctly that Mohammed was the first prophet sent to the Quraish...

[ISLAM_rules]

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 .

[manfred]

There has never been a warner has passed among 12 Arab tribes since Ishmael.

ISLAM_rules said correctly that Mohammed was the first prophet sent to the Quraish...

SAM, don't be silly. The Qur'an does not say "since ..." whatever. It say there were none before Mohammed.

The verse before makes it clear who is meant, the Arabs:

When Our Clear Signs are rehearsed to them, they say, "This is only a man who wishes to hinder you from the (worship) which your fathers practised." And they say, "This is only a falsehood invented!" and the Unbelievers say of the Truth when it comes to them, "This is nothing but evident magic!"

But We had not given them Books which they could study, nor sent messengers to them before thee as Warners.

And it gets even more muddled after:

And their predecessors rejected (the Truth); these have not received a tenth of what We had granted to those: yet when they rejected My messengers, how (terrible) was My rejection (of them)

So while in one sentence we are told there were no messengers, the next sentence says they rejected them...

Maybe Allah had too much palm wine?

[manfred]

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 .

OK, if the Arabs already existed when Ishmael went to live with them how can he be their "father" and I assume you mean "ancestor"?

You moved from Morocco to Holland, so will you one day be the ancestor of all the Dutch people?

One line you take makes a bit more sense, but not a lot.... You seem to say that the the verse means the current generation of Arabs did not get a warner, whereas past generations did.

Well, if that is the case, were is the warner for those born after the year 2000 in Pakistan? Does every generation need a warner or are "warners" sent to forefathers not enough?

[SAM]

Muslims know more than you know...manfred.

There are original Arabs before Ismail. ISLAM_rules again say correctly.

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 .

[skynightblaze]

@Sam
The explanation given by you and Islam_Rules only shows that you guys are simply making up excuses because your answers do not add up. They create other problems.
I would like to add what Manfred said. If Abraham and Ishmael were NOT warners/messengers to arabs contemporary to muhammad and to the future generations thereafter then there is no reason why you muslims should glorify Kaba or have hajj one of the pillars of islam BECAUSE its connected to teachings of Abraham and Ishmael which you claim were not for people during muhammad's time or thereafter.

[manfred]

Oh dear, SAM, I despair at you. Can you really not see how silly things get, purely to make this one sentence of the Qur'an to stand up? The mental gymnastics required?

So... Ishmael went to live with the Arabs, the tradition goes. Another tradition has it he also was the ancestor of the Arabs. Both cannot be right, as one contradict the other. In really, of course, both are just stories. By definition, if you are an ancestor you are long dead when your descendants become numerous enough to be a people. Ishmael could not live with a people that does not exist yet.

But the Muslim tradition insists that Ishmael went to live with the Arabs, and and also that he was later referred as their father. Islam_rules explains this paradox by saying that has been a population exchange.

There are two possibilities, both equally silly:

A) All the Arabs Ishmael lived with and died out without children and a new people arose also called Arabs. Really? But if that were to be true then Ishmael cannot be related to the "new Arabs" at all, it makes no sense to call him the "father". His theory means not only all the original Arabs died out including children, but also the line of Ishmael died out with them. And of course we have no evidence for such a calamity at all.

B) All the old Arabs died out and were replaced by new unrelated ones. Only some or all of Ishmael's descendent survived, and they intermarried. Then you can possibly uphold the notion of Ishmael being the "father" of at least some of these "new" Arabs, but then you also have to accept that this ancestor was their warner, one, according to yet another tradtion, who left them a lasting reminder in the shape of the Kaaba...

Now, can you not see this would be utterly ridiculous?

There really is a very much simpler and much more plausible answer to this: Mohammed got confused.

[Fernando]

Muslims know more than you know...manfred.

Well, they have had 1400 years to get the story straight, whereas Manfred has only had a few decades to unpick it. I think Manfred is making better progress, though.

[SAM]

@Sam
The explanation given by you and Islam_Rules only shows that you guys are simply making up excuses because your answers do not add up. They create other problems.
I would like to add what Manfred said. If Abraham and Ishmael were NOT warners/messengers to arabs contemporary to muhammad and to the future generations thereafter then there is no reason why you muslims should glorify Kaba or have hajj one of the pillars of islam BECAUSE its connected to teachings of Abraham and Ishmael which you claim were not for people during muhammad's time or thereafter.

manfred believe Qur'an 34:44 about the Arabs ((Ishmaelites) to Mohammed: But We had not given them Books which they could study, nor sent messengers to them before thee as Warners.

This means that Allah has said is correct that that none of the messengers or any warners had been sent by Him to the 12 tribes of Arab descendants of Ishmael, before Muhammad was born.

And manfred have no idea, clueless and no answer to my question, how Ishmael had taught Abraham religion to all of his 12 sons without the Books or Scriptures.

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.

[manfred]

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.

No SAM, sorry, but this simply does not follow at all.

It simply does not say in the Qur'an verse we are discussing that a warner has to have taught people with or from some kind of written text. In fact old Mo himself did not, for the most part do that, and very few of those biblical characters Islam treats as prophets have written anything. Mohammed taught verbally, and some of what he said was written down later, he certainly could not stand up and read a Qur'anic recitation. So if your criterium for a "warner" is that they must read/teach from a written text, then you end up with pretty much cutting the list to zero, and Mohammed himself also would not qualify.

The Qur'an tells us loud and clear that Ishmael was a prophet. That is what matters here, not his modus operandi. If he was a prophet according to Allah and lived with Arabs according to Allah then he was to prophet FOR and TO the Arabs.

The Qur'an unequivocally calls Ishmael a prophet, regardless how he operated. If the traditions Muslims hold are accepted, then the Kaaba is one of Ishmael's testimonies to the Arabs.

And I did not say that Mohamed learnt from his own people, obviously he did not, whatever gave you that idea?

[SAM]

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.