Allah's promise to Jews the Land of Israel

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nicolas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
George Sale in his translation of the Qur’an says:

From the identity of names it has been generally imagined by Christian writers that the Koran here confounds Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron; which intolerable anachronism, if it were certain, is sufficient of itself to destroy the pretended authority of this book. But though Mohammed may be supposed to have been ignorant enough in ancient history and chronology, to have committed so gross a blunder; yet I do not see how it can be made out from the words of the Koran. For it does not follow, because two persons have the same name, and have each a father and brother who bear the same names, that they must therefore necessarily be the same whereby it manifestly appears that Mohammed well knew and asserted that Moses preceded Jesus several ages. And the commentators accordingly fail not to tell us, that there had passed about one thousand eight hundred years between Amran the father of Moses and Amrean the father of the Virgin Mary: they also make them the sons of different persons; the first, they say, was the son of Yeshar, or Izhar (though he was really his brother) the son of Kahath, the son of Levi; and the other was the son of Matthan, whose genealogy they trace, but in a very corrupt and imperfect manner, up to David and thence to Adam. It must be observed that though the Virgin Mary is called in the Koran, the sister of Aaron, yet she is nowhere called the sister of Moses.[1]

In the Bible, Elizabeth was called daughters of Aaron(P). Was she literally a daughter of Aaron?

In the days of Herod, King of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. [Luke 1:5, RSV]

Or Jesus(P) was addressed as Son of David in the Bible. Was he literally Son of David(P)?

And the crowds that went before him and that followed him shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” [Matthew 21:9 RSV]

But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant; [Matthew 21:15 RSV]

If we take that literally then it is also a contradiction in the Bible.
 
meedo said:
It is not Muslims fault if Christians feel weak. This is a part of arab histiory and written in one of the most authentciated books. If they didn’t feel weak may be they should have taken teh chanllenge.

Muslims can sin and wear Gold and silk and Muhammed wouldn’t have a problem . He Ddid his part. If muhammed wanted to own Gold and silver he would have been the richest man because the arabs offered him that in exchnage to not preach islam .

He refused.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but i do not consider Hadiths as historical records since a Hadith’s main purpose is to bolster the claims of the Qu’ran and to be used as a cross-reference in religious context. Muslims themselves acknowledge there are inauthentic Hadiths - naturally they disregard ones that question Mohammad’s authority and his religion (even if it was written by other Muslim narrators) and only accept ones that makes Islam shine. The Hadith you quoted is reminiscent of the latter. Any normal person can tell what is propaganda and what isn’t.

Obviously Mohammad’s (the supposed seal of prophets) message failed miserably as millions of Muslims around Asia have long adorned gold and silk since the 7th century onwards.
 
meedo said:
They seem to diagree with you because if hey kew they would have said that .

But they didn’t.

O and by the way , he word ‘‘Sabi’’ in arabic means ‘’ a person who left somthing’’ it doesnt mean the Christian sect or whatever you are talking about .

Just klike the word Hasheesh ‘’ means grass, the word Hasshasheen ( Assassins ) doesnt really mean the people of teh grass!!!

Sabi = Person who leaves or renounces somthing

sabeen = a sect between syria and iraq

Your Christian polemic teachers are ignorant of arabic and they cause you shame. Change them.
Click to expand...
I know the modern definitions of a Sabi, Sabian and a Sabean. Actually very little is known about them and the above quotes are from eye-witnesses who lived around Mohammad’s time. They wrote what they seen and heard. The above quotes are from a non-Christian source (people who are purportedly Sabians) and not from ‘Christian polemic teachers’. Incidently the word “Islam” does not mean “Peace” either.
 
cathopologist said:
Sorry, but i do not consider Hadiths as historical records since a Hadith’s main purpose is to bolster the claims of the Qu’ran and to be used as a cross-reference in religious context. Muslims themselves acknowledge there are inauthentic Hadiths - naturally they disregard ones that question Mohammad’s authority and his religion (even if it was written by other Muslim narrators) and only accept ones that makes Islam shine. The Hadith you quoted is reminiscent of the latter. Any normal person can tell what is propaganda and what isn’t.

Obviously Mohammad’s (the supposed seal of prophets) message failed miserably as millions of Muslims around Asia have long adorned gold and silk since the 7th century onwards.
Click to expand...
It is funny how you will accept history if it only shows muHammed in a bad ligh and refuse it if it shows him in a good light.

The Authentication of hadeeth does not look at the context bu the credebility of the narrators. There has been thousands and thousands of hadeeth that praised Muhammed that were rejected because the narrators are not of credebility based on charectaristics tested by islamic scholars of hadeeth.

Bu you will believe what you want to believe.
 
cathopologist said:
I know the modern definitions of a Sabi, Sabian and a Sabean.

the above quotes are from eye-witnesses who lived around Mohammad’s time. They wrote what they seen and heard. The above quotes are from a non-Christian source (people who are purportedly Sabians) and not from ‘Christian polemic teachers’. Incidently the word “Islam” does not mean “Peace” either.
Click to expand...
It is funny how you quote the hadeeth that talks about Abu Lahab walking behind muhammed and calling him a Sabi. Why do you pick this one and claim it is authentic?

Well the definitions are knows and you are not the only one who knows what a sabi is . The probblem is that the polemic guys of Chrisrtianity used that definition in a hasty way thinking that they can confuse .

They thoyght that the word Sabi is only mean to be the sect in Iraq, bieng ignorant in the arabic language they didn’t know that teh word sabi also simply means ''one who left ‘’ which was normal to call Muhammed because he decided to go against and preach against his tribes beliefes and worship the God of Abraham.

Such basic knowledge that you nor the guys you get information from know.

forum.amrkhaled.net/showthread.php?t=76018

والصابئة جمع **صابئ **، اسم فاعل من صَبَأ يصبَأ ، **إذا خرج من دين إلى آخر **.

If the polemics teachers know arabic let them translate the above for you.
 
meedo said:
It is funny how you will accept history if it only shows muHammed in a bad ligh and refuse it if it shows him in a good light.

The Authentication of hadeeth does not look at the context bu the credebility of the narrators. There has been thousands and thousands of hadeeth that praised Muhammed that were rejected because the narrators are not of credebility based on charectaristics tested by islamic scholars of hadeeth.

Bu you will believe what you want to believe.
Click to expand...
Some of those Hadiths also mention how Jews are sons and daughters of apes and pigs, or that Shaytan spends the night in the interior of your nose, etc, whilst praising Allah for knowing best and his favoured son, Mohammad. FYI, i too prefer credible sources, but which Hadith doesn’t praise Mohammad? A Hadith is a Hadith - a religious compendium and not a historical record.
 
meedo said:
It is funny how you quote the hadeeth that talks about Abu Lahab walking behind muhammed and calling him a Sabi. Why do you pick this one and claim it is authentic?

Well the definitions are knows and you are not the only one who knows what a sabi is . The probblem is that the polemic guys of Chrisrtianity used that definition in a hasty way thinking that they can confuse .

They thoyght that the word Sabi is only mean to be the sect in Iraq, bieng ignorant in the arabic language they didn’t know that teh word sabi also simply means ''one who left ‘’ which was normal to call Muhammed because he decided to go against and preach against his tribes beliefes and worship the God of Abraham.

Such basic knowledge that you nor the guys you get information from know.

forum.amrkhaled.net/showthread.php?t=76018

والصابئة جمع **صابئ **، اسم فاعل من صَبَأ يصبَأ ، **إذا خرج من دين إلى آخر **.

If the polemics teachers know arabic let them translate the above for you.
Click to expand...
A “Sabi” can also mean a Sabean. The eye-witness sources also state how the rituals of Islam is similiar with those found in the Sabean religion, indicating there was a ‘borrowing’ of rituals and customs and even some of its beliefs.

This is not a 21st century discovery. This fact of Islam’s beginnings and how it came about was well-known during its early years. For example, Saint Simeon Stylites found peculiararities in the Qu’ran that indicated Islam borrowed many of its beliefs from other Eastern religions that existed before Islam, including Christianity. Even the early Muslims acknowledged this - but of course, you disregard what they wrote because it proves Islam is an evolving religion that tries to cover its tracks.
 
cathopologist said:
Some of those Hadiths also mention how Jews are sons and daughters of apes and pigs, or that Shaytan spends the night in the interior of your nose, etc, whilst praising Allah for knowing best and his favoured son, Mohammad. FYI, i too prefer credible sources, but which Hadith doesn’t praise Mohammad? A Hadith is a Hadith - a religious compendium and not a historical record.
Click to expand...
here are many hadeeths tha are authentciated that details the hatred tha the pagans had for muhammed . i mentioend some above. if muslims weanted to supprress everything they could have supressed the very hadeeth you have quoted above ( and diddn’t understand its meaning btw)

Just because the history of islam is documented by islamic scholarrs extensively doesnt make it ‘‘not’’ history. Especially when you depend on those same islamic scholars to try to prove otherwise.
 
cathopologist said:
A “Sabi” can also mean a Sabean. The eye-witness sources also state how the rituals of Islam is similiar with those found in the Sabean religion, indicating there was a ‘borrowing’ of rituals and customs and even some of its beliefs.

QUOTE]

I gave you the arabic words and its meaning in arabic . What you say don’t make any sense . A pagan man walking around muhammed saying that he belongs to a sect that lives 2000 km away in a place that Muhammed never went!!! lets assume that is what the pagan guy means , why do you think that makes much foa difference to the other people on teh street?!!

1- Muhammed never went to Iraq

2- It is not known whatsoever that muhammed belonged to the Sabeen sect ,if it was known it would have been propagated , which was never said

3- if muhammed was from that sect he would have preched their religions , which he never did .

The man walking behind muhammed was simply trying to shame him by saying that he left teh faith of his forefather thus he has ‘’ Saba¨´’’ or became a Sabi , which means he left teh faith of his forefather which was paganism. This what meant somthing for the arabs who were at that time attached to their pagan Gods. the concept that one of them has renounced his faith

If teh word means sabi like you say it would never makes sense. It is as if you walking in the streets and sombody behidn you calling that you are catholic … well… so what ?!!

It is evident here that the woprd sabi ( as i proved what it means ) is intended to shock the listener by implying that he left the faith of his forefathers.

secondly :

You keep talking about borrowing, islam is a relighion from the God of Abrraham and it is natural that it will have commonalities with previous revelations from God . This sect in iraq was influenced in itself by Christianity and judaism and it is very normal that there would be similarities to them as well as islam.

It is as if two people walikng on teh street wearing a red shirt , thus oen of them must have deliberately copied the other!!! This is way childish!

and who is this eye witness you keep alking about any way ? and what ‘‘exclusive’’ evidence did this eye witness see that others didn’t?
Click to expand...
 
cathopologist said:
This is not a 21st century discovery. This fact of Islam’s beginnings and how it came about was well-known during its early years. For example, Saint Simeon Stylites found peculiararities in the Qu’ran that indicated Islam borrowed many of its beliefs from other Eastern religions that existed before Islam, including Christianity.

Even the early Muslims acknowledged this - but of course, you disregard what they wrote because it proves Islam is an evolving religion that tries to cover its tracks.
Click to expand...
the whole paragraph doesnt make sense because muslims never said that islam came from a different God and muhammed never said he is soming with somthing totally new . In fact islam and Muslims always professed that the Quran and Islam is a revelation from the God fo Abraham and that islam is not a novelty.

With All due respect for saint Simeon, he was trying to show people that if you let a stone fall ,. it will go down :eek: what a discovery:rolleyes:

And here is teh Quran replying to The Saint before even he thinks ,

046.009
YUSUFALI: Say: "**I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear."
PICKTHAL: Say: I am no new thing among the messengers **(of Allah), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.
SHAKIR: Say: I am not the first of the messengers, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you: I do not follow anything but that which is revealed to me, and I am nothing but a plain warner.

The Quran clearly states that this message is not intended as a new revoloutionary thing . In fact it is intended by God because the Author of teh laws of the Quran and the Torah is teh same.

here are the verses.

005.048
YUSUFALI: To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, **confirming the scripture that came before **it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

PICKTHAL: And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.

SHAKIR: And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;

I think this whole borowing thing has none existing evidence, if the pagan people knew he was borrowing it they woudl have neever believed in him.

Even his enemies testifioed fo Muhammed’s Honesty

read teh story by Abu Sufyan above when hurculese asked him if he is ever known of lying.
 
meedo said:
Hello again,

listen , whoever you are getting yoru information from doesn’t know about the basic history of Islam.

Muhammed wasn’t surrouneded by Chrisians , and if he was he would have been exposed by his own people. We have the islamic history itself written by people eho narrate their period before Islam and after Islam . Many Muslims knew muhammed personally before he had revelations from God . Mecca is no bigger in space than Vatican city , if somebody was attending regular clases in ‘’ heretical or non heretical Christianity ‘’ it would have been known in no time. You woudl never hear anything of that sort from the testemony of arabs.

You can see their previous hatred . You can see their plots, you can see their jelousy , you can see their disagreement, their confessions fo killing their own daughters out of shame , etc etc .

But NEVER they accused him of bieng an imposter or dishonest .

let me quote you an incident i will write it in a separate post because it is long.

It is mentioned in one of teh most authenticated books of islam

Sahih Al Bukhari
Click to expand...
Well as you know the history of Islam is very well known and it does include Muhammed being impacted by heretical “christians”. These heretical Christians were thrown out of the True Church and many migrated to the Arab Pennisula.

Here are two secular sources:

United Arab Emirates by Ibrahim Abed page 61

“Christianity certainly survived some decades after the Muslim conversion, for Stephen, Bishop of Mazun, attended a synod in Mesopotamia in 676. The apostay of the Christian community; however, was rife in this period, a fact amply documented by a series of letters sent by the Nestorian Isho yahib III to Simeon of Rev-Ardushir in Iran complaining of the conversion of your people. Christianity probably did not survive the 7th century.”

Arabia before Muhammed by page 137

"The first beginnings of Arabic scholarship … used the scholarship that which existed in Syriac translations and which was used in Nestorian schools. "

“Bearing in mind that the Arabs of Hira were an integral part of the Arab community, not a mere offshoot, but recognized leaders and, in the sixth century admitted to a titular suzerainty over the whole Arab race, we can see that this Nestorian influence must have told upon the Arabs generally. Nestorian missions penetrated Arabia itself.”

“The Quran, obliged to introduce many new words to deal with theological and philosophical ideas which had no recongnied terminology in Arabi, most often employs loan-words from Aramiac and we may assume that such words entered the Arab vocabulary through the medium of Nestorian teachers.”

In your post you stated that Muhammed and Islam did not learn Christianity. As you can see the secular world has proven with archeology that in fact the Muslim world derived much of its thoughts and learning from heretic christians.

Here is an exceprt showing their beliefs:

Nestorianism, historical doctrine espoused by Nestorius, archbishop of Constantinople from 428 to 431. Nestorius preached a variant of the orthodox doctrine concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. The orthodox doctrine is that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human, which although distinct are joined in one Person and Substance; Nestorius claimed that in Christ a divine and a human Person acted as one, but did not join to compose the unity of a single individual. Also, according to Nestorius, the Virgin Mary could not be called Mother of God, as she was termed by more orthodox Christians, because her son, Jesus, was born as a man, his divine nature being derived not from her but from the Father who begot him.

Do you see how your faith took heretic christian beliefs and incorporated them? Muhammed evently rejected Christian Heretics and he was right in doing this. The problem is Muslim’s now reject the true faith because Muhammed rejected christian heretics. He never rejected true Christianity. He never was exposed to it.
 
meedo said:
witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/25_ali_bin_talib.htm
The Christian deputation
A deputation of the Christian priests headed by their chief Aqib accordingly arrived in Madina. They were dressed in fine silken robes, and wore golden rings on their fingers. When dressed thus, they waited on the Holy Prophet in the mosque, the Holy Prophet did not pay any attention to them, and did not even return their salutation. Greatly puzzled they left the mosque, and upon meeting Othman complained to him that the Prophet of Islam had invited them to Madina, but he had paid no attention to them when they had visited him in the mosque. Othman took them to Ali, he told them that indifference of the Holy Prophet was due to the fact that they were dressed in silk finery, and were loaded with jewelry. He advised them to cast off their jewelry and be dressed in simple cotton robes. When they had changed their dress, Ali took them to the Holy Prophet in the mosque.

Dispute with the Christians
This time, the Holy Prophet welcomed them and made them sit near him. He told them that when they had first come to him, he had turned his head away because Satan accompanied them with finery and jewelry. Thereafter the Holy Prophet entered into the discourse with them, and the talk centered round the personality of Jesus Christ. The Christians wanted to know what was his opinion about Jesus Christ. The Holy Prophet said that like other Prophet he was a Prophet of God. The Christians next asked whether he regarded Jesus Christ as a son of God. The Holy Prophet said the God is far above having a wife or a son, and as such Jesus is not a son of God. The Christians then posed the question: if Jesus had no father and his mother Mary had not sinned, what then is the status of Jesus if he is not the son of God. The Holy Prophet said that they would have their answer the following day. At night the Holy Prophet had a revelation about the true nature of Jesus. When the Christians met the Holy Prophet the following day, he told them that the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the links of Adam. Adam was born without a father and so was Jesus born without a father, but neither Adam nor Jesus was the son of God.

The Mubahila
At this reply of the Holy Prophet, the Christians priests felt stranded, but to keep up appearances, they desired that a Mubahila be held. The Christians named five priests who were to take part in the Mubahila. The Holy Prophet nominated five persons who were to take part in the Mubahila on behalf of the Muslims. These included the Holy Prophet himself, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain. The Holy Prophet did not dominate any of his wives in this behalf. The nomination was confined to such persons who had blood relation with him. The Holy Prophet declared that the Mubahila would be held the following day. At night, the Christians could get no sleep. They felt that truth shone in the eyes of the Holy Prophet and to invoke the curse of God with people like these would invite destruction for the Christians. The following day when the Christian priests waited on the Holy Prophet, they said that they had neither the conviction to profess Islam, nor the strength to enter into any disputation or fight with the Muslims. They said that while maintaining their own faith, they would accept the dominance of the Muslims and pay an annual tribute. The Holy Prophet accepted the offer, entered into a treaty with them, and allowed them to return to Najran. The way in which the Christians gave the challenge of Mubahila in the first instance, and then backed out of it, was a confession of failure on the part of the Christians, and their acknowledgment of the supremacy of Islam as a faith.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 663:
Narrated Hudhaifa:

Al-'Aqib and Saiyid, the rulers of Najran, came to Allah’s Apostle with the intention of doing Lian one of them said to the other, “Do not do (this Lian) for, by Allah, if he is a Prophet and we do this Lian, neither we, nor our offspring after us will be successful.” Then both of them said (to the Prophet ), “We will give what you should ask but you should send a trustworthy man with us, and do not send any person with us but an honest one.” The Prophet said, “I will send an honest man who Is really trustworthy.” Then every one of the companions of Allah’s Apostle wished to be that one. Then the Prophet said, “Get up, O Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah.” When he got up, Allah’s Apostle said, “This is the Trustworthy man of this (Muslim) nation.”

usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/059.sbt.html
Click to expand...
These people you are talking about were not true Christians. They were heretics. So these people refusing to take the oath would be no surprise. Unfortunately your faith believes they were true Christians.

You also must admit that Muhammed was a conqueror and even had people assassinated that did not follow his beliefs. I am sure you know of the three poets he had killed because they did not profess his beliefs. I am sure that Islam has some excuse for these deaths. In your heart you know these three simply wrote poetry against him and he asked people to kill them. His life was the exact opposite of everything that Christ believed in. Christ would never have had people killed for writing poetry. God is not fearful of poetry. God does not fear people professing against him.
 
meedo said:
Note these were ‘‘ARAB Christians’’ . If Muhammed has taken his message or has been studying with other arab christians wouldnt they have known??!!!
Click to expand...
They did know. In fact that is one of the reasons Christ has to be in the Quran. Even though the Islamic belief of Christ is not what Christ professed it had to be included because heretical Christians were teaching the Muslims.

Here is another book discussing the influence of heretics on your religion.

Word of God in the Quran by Thomas O’Shaugnessy page 21

"There are not wanting ecclesial writers who make explicit mention of the doctrines found in the Quran concerning Christ the word. John of Damascus living within a lifetime of Muhammed’s death and on the scene of a still primitve Islam, relates these origins in general terms “The false… prophet Muhammed… after consulting with a certain Arian monk founded his own sect, " and continues almost immediately with the Quran account of the Word. For the word of God and the Spirit says Muhammed having entered into Mary, begot Jesus. The Damascene’s statements were afterwards amplified by Bartholomew of Edessa and Euthymia Zigabenas. From the Arian… Muhammed learned that the Word and the Holy Spirit were creatures, from the Nestorians that a man, a human person should be adored. Muhammed… on a trip to Palestine learned from the Arian that the word and the spirit are creatures.
The Quran teaching on the word of God resembles the tenets of those heretics.”

Beliefs of Arianism and the founder Arius.

Arius posed the question, “Is Jesus unbegotten?” In other words, he taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally. Further, Arius taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by (and possibly inferior to) the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist. In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a “creature”;

Again Muhammed learned what he thought was Christianity from heretics. That is what he rejected and not true Christianity. Note though much of his thoughts are based upon these heretical Christians. Supposed Christians kick out of the true Church. Supposed Christians that had no true link to the Church, Apostolic Succession and the true word.
 
meedo said:
005.048
YUSUFALI: To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, **confirming the scripture that came before **it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

PICKTHAL: And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.

SHAKIR: And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;

I think this whole borowing thing has none existing evidence, if the pagan people knew he was borrowing it they woudl have neever believed in him.

Even his enemies testifioed fo Muhammed’s Honesty

read teh story by Abu Sufyan above when hurculese asked him if he is ever known of lying.
Click to expand...
The apologist you chose seem to be of recent days. We have shown from ancient writers that your faith was and is based upon heretics.

Your response that Muhammed knew nothing of religions far away is just not factual. Muhammed was a raider of caravans. These carvans were in touch with many different civilizations. As you probably know India was converted by following the silk trade. To state that Muhammed was not aware and participated in these other religions is not factual. You even know the Kabul was a pagan site prior to Muhammed. You also know the satanic verses were based upon him trying to incorporate pagan beliefs to appease some followers. Your own Quran shows how other faiths impacted Muhammed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top