Jews--Christians--Muslims...same God?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Molly Mac thank you so much for cleariing that up from your posts 683-684.

Yours; Gabriel of 12:thumbsup:

 

[daler]

I think what this poster is taking to be preaching has been the expression of opinion on how God works, not preaching. It may sound that way to some, but I doubt if that was the intention of those that posted. I was accused of doing that and I sure as heck was only stating my beliefs formed from reading the Bible and numerous commentaries on the Bible, and the reading I have done on religious topics and, also, through experience.

Are people supposed to freely express themselves or need we worry that others may not like what they write because they don’t find it interesting, agree with it or that their style of expression may not appeal to some people? Is that to be a concern when posting? I mean this is a website that is dedicated to those that want to discuss the Father and that is going to bring up waves and waves of emotion. I would hope that it does.

Personally, I enjoy the posts that come from the hearts of the posters. Additionally, I thought that all posts were for the benefit of all other posters, not one in particular. Am I missing something or is the author of the above quote in charge of determining the proper direction for content?

Back on topic, I have said it once and I still firmly believe that God is God no matter what you may call your religion and even if you believe all others are praying to someone different than you. There is but one God.

Very good comments, Little Star. Bravo!!

There is such a thing as “herd pressure”, which in one sense is positive and protective, and conformity can be both good and bad. We tend to be mostly rewarded for not rocking the boat, but when the boat gets hung up on the rocks, sometimes somebody has to rock the boat a little in the process of setting it free.
Jesus was a boat rocker. Big time! The greatest beneficiaries of the herd tend to silence anyone whom they perceive as a threat. I’m not saying that in reference to any comments made here pertaining to lengthy dialogues. That may well be a valid statement from time to time.
What strikes me about those we call “Prophets”, or in Baha’i terminology, “Manifestations of God”, is that they always bring something new and unexpected to the table, tangent to the common way of looking at things. They “rock the boat” of so-called solid thinking of the day, which sets a whole lot of things in motion.
There is a reason why the term “Revelation” is used regarding the “Message” which these Prophets or Manifestations bring to humanity. They “reveal” something new to us, that wasn’t part of our world of thought and understanding prior to Their revealing it to us.
Jesus said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bare it now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you unto all truth.”
That, Baha’is believe, is a reference to the coming of another Manifestation of God, and whom we believe to be Baha’u’llah (Glory of God).

 

[daler]

According to the rules of this forum, excess verbiage is undesirable. This includes quotes of entire messages longer than a couple hundred words. To compound the problem by adding your own thousand word answer to a thousand word quote is to completely ignore the principle of using as few words as possible to make your point.

I learned in a graduate school expository writing course that I was using too many words. Since then, I have recognized excess verbiage as a barrier to communication, especially in a dialogue.

nmgauss. Your words are helpful to assist some of us to reduce excess wording. Abraham Lincoln was once asked to speak, and he said, “For how long?”
The person said, “Oh, not long, just a few minutes.” To which Lincoln said he would need a very long time to prepare. A long speech he could do without much thought.

It is also true at times, however, that some of us require more words than others usually need to express our thoughts, from one end to the other, but your point is well taken. Thank you.

 

[Little_Star_1]

According to the rules of this forum, excess verbiage is undesirable. This includes quotes of entire messages longer than a couple hundred words. To compound the problem by adding your own thousand word answer to a thousand word quote is to completely ignore the principle of using as few words as possible to make your point.

I learned in a graduate school expository writing course that I was using too many words. Since then, I have recognized excess verbiage as a barrier to communication, especially in a dialogue.

I don’t believe anyone considers themselves to be engaged in formal writing, such as one learns in expository writing, on this site. To review the posts as if they are supposed to be written in this manner is completely unfair and silly. The site limits the size of posts. As long as people are making it within the parameters established by the site, anyone that does not appreciate long posts can just skip over them, particularly when they feel they can gain nothing by reading them. Part of the art of writing, and the art of living with people, is knowing what is the right approach to take in writing or in developing relationships with folks.

Posts in a forum like this will take all forms and they will be as diverse as the people that come on here for diverse reasons. It does not make sense for a poster to attempt to censor the other members, unless they are being insulting or abusive. There are administrators to handle those situations.

As for your posts, I still cannot tell, and nor have you made it clear, what point you are aiming with your cutting and pasting of Karen Armstrong’s book. Especially when you supply text completely out of context. You want a dialogue, yet you get upset when people do not respond exactly as you deem appropriate. It makes one wonder what is up with it all.

God be with you and may He reveal Himself to you if He has yet to do so.

 

[nmgauss]

As for your posts, I still cannot tell, and nor have you made it clear, what point you are aiming with your cutting and pasting of Karen Armstrong’s book. Especially when you supply text completely out of context. You want a dialogue, yet you get upset when people do not respond exactly as you deem appropriate. It makes one wonder what is up with it all.

I am not slanting my quotes of Karen Armstrong to make a point nor am I quoting out of context. She is a respected scholar and writes from a historical view using historical sources. One book, “A History of God”, gives an extended history of the divine through the last 3-4 thousand years. It provides glimpses of the nature of the divine, as regarded by various types of humanity, including pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and deists. Anybody who only knows Catholic teachings should be aware of the history of the divine.

Another book, “The Bible: a Biography”, traces the creation of the Hebrew Bible and the Catholic Bible (there are differences) and the Protestant Bible (again there are differences). Anybody who regards the Bible as the final word of God should at least know the history of it.catholic-resources.org/Bible/Heb-Xn-Bibles.htm

Armstrong’s “Islam: A Short History” is also valuable reading for anyone wanting to understand Islam.

Again, my goal is to apprise narrowly informed thinkers of other more widely considered views.

 

[daler]

Karen Armstrong’s book, “A History of God”, glimpses of the nature of the divine, as regarded by various types of humanity, including pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, etc
Another book, “The Bible: a Biography”, traces the creation of the Hebrew Bible and the Catholic Bible (there are differences) and the Protestant Bible (again there are differences).
Armstrong’s “Islam: A Short History” is also valuable reading for anyone wanting to understand Islam.
Again, my goal is to apprise narrowly informed thinkers of other more widely considered views.

nmgauss I’ve heard of that first book you mentioned. There was a good interview on NPR about it when it came out. It is excellent to be informed of the varied religions, not only to speak intelligently about them, but for the intrinsic value.

If I may suggest to anyone, “Some Answered Questions” by Abdul Baha. It is very readable and shows the continuity or religions, a brief history of the major Prophets, etc.

 

[Little_Star_1]

I am not slanting my quotes of Karen Armstrong to make a point nor am I quoting out of context. She is a respected scholar and writes from a historical view using historical sources. One book, “A History of God”, gives an extended history of the divine through the last 3-4 thousand years. It provides glimpses of the nature of the divine, as regarded by various types of humanity, including pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and deists. Anybody who only knows Catholic teachings should be aware of the history of the divine.

Another book, “The Bible: a Biography”, traces the creation of the Hebrew Bible and the Catholic Bible (there are differences) and the Protestant Bible (again there are differences). Anybody who regards the Bible as the final word of God should at least know the history of it.catholic-resources.org/Bible/Heb-Xn-Bibles.htm

Armstrong’s “Islam: A Short History” is also valuable reading for anyone wanting to understand Islam.

Again, my goal is to apprise narrowly informed thinkers of other more widely considered views.

I did not accuse you of slanting your quotes. I stated that you post them completely out of context, which you do. Karen Armstrong is giving a historical account that traces the development of the religion over time. In one of your posts you stated that her book “reveals” that Abraham and Moses did not worship the same God. Further along in the book, she explains that in their minds it was possible that they believed the identity of the God that had revealed Himself to them was one that was being worshiped by different groups. However, she explains that she believes that this was only because God had revealed Himself to them in a manner where He displayed strikingly different personas.

To Abraham He was a friend with whom He made a promise. With Moses, He was pushing Moses to go beyond what Moses himself believed he could do. She by no means comes to the conclusion which you suggested. Hence, I said you took it out of context and made a statement which was, in fact, not true to her book. You don’t slant the text, but present an erroneous conclusion.

Finally, she says that religion serves a purpose in society. However, to reach God, to know God, one must go inside. However, she makes a statement that I believe to be wrong minded. She said that in order to do this, one must involve oneself in an intellectual pursuit of the divine. Frankly, God does not work this way. One does not have to be an intellectual to find God within. Indeed, a person could get quite lost if they approach God in this way. After all, He makes it clear that He will use the foolish to confound the wise. Then there is the thing about having to become like a child to see God.

She was a nun. So, she has received training from a long tradition of God seekers. However, many of the mystics were uneducated people. In fact, a person doesn’t even have to be able to read to find God. God is inside of us. If what she said is true, most of humanity would be lost. Our Father did not set things up that way.

When I read any book by any author, I never accept their conclusions as fact. They are only that–conclusions. Another person could go to the same sources she used and come away with another view. Her book articulates her view after intense research. I admire and respect her. However, I would not go to her or any Biblical scholar for spiritual direction. I don’t think she writes for that purpose. She offers a glimpse into what MAY have been going on back then. Her work is based on some of the best research out there. But, it is still just her opinion. There is no way for any one to know for sure how accurate she is.

And, again I stress, the history of a religion is the history of a religion. It does not present anything closely resembling, nor can it, the reality of the character of God. Most of what we think we know about God is more than likely wrong as our minds can’t hold Truths of that level. We weren’t made for that. Yet, He loves us anyway.

 

[Little_Star_1]

I am not slanting my quotes of Karen Armstrong to make a point nor am I quoting out of context. She is a respected scholar and writes from a historical view using historical sources. One book, “A History of God”, gives an extended history of the divine through the last 3-4 thousand years. It provides glimpses of the nature of the divine, as regarded by various types of humanity, including pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and deists. Anybody who only knows Catholic teachings should be aware of the history of the divine.

Another book, “The Bible: a Biography”, traces the creation of the Hebrew Bible and the Catholic Bible (there are differences) and the Protestant Bible (again there are differences). Anybody who regards the Bible as the final word of God should at least know the history of it.catholic-resources.org/Bible/Heb-Xn-Bibles.htm

Armstrong’s “Islam: A Short History” is also valuable reading for anyone wanting to understand Islam.

Again, my goal is to apprise narrowly informed thinkers of other more widely considered views.

I should clarify that she actually said that they may have known God by different names, not that they actually may have worshiped different Gods. She does present it at first as if she is introducing that possibility. I think she does this to be provocative in her writing. Yet, she clarifies it right away. See page 14 of her book.

Also, you stated that anyone that knows Catholic teachings should know the history of the divine. What I think you mean is that they should know the history that has been given or taught. The Divine was around long before mankind even began to think about developing a belief system and writing it down to preserve it. What is written is a history of a belief system, not an actually history of the Divine. To do this would be impossible…

 

[daler]

“One does not have to be an intellectual to find God within. Indeed, a person could get quite lost if they approach God in this way. After all, He makes it clear that He will use the foolish to confound the wise. Then there is the thing about having to become like a child to see God.”

Peter, a simple fisherman, recognized his Lord, while the great intellectuals of the day, the Sanhedrin, could not get past their own notions of limiting God to what rote traditions they had memorized, downsizing Him, as it were, to fit inside their own finite minds. Such veils, have always, and will always, deflect souls from turning to their Lord.

 

[nmgauss]

“One does not have to be an intellectual to find God within. Indeed, a person could get quite lost if they approach God in this way. After all, He makes it clear that He will use the foolish to confound the wise. Then there is the thing about having to become like a child to see God.”

Peter, a simple fisherman, recognized his Lord, while the great intellectuals of the day, the Sanhedrin, could not get past their own notions of limiting God to what rote traditions they had memorized, downsizing Him, as it were, to fit inside their own finite minds. Such veils, have always, and will always, deflect souls from turning to their Lord.

There is a strong effort in Christianity to get people to believe dogma about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The ancient Jews also made a similar effort concerning Yahweh. After the Jewish wars with the Romans that were instigated by zealots, the Pharisees began to see Yahweh differently. Today, Judaism concentrates on the Torah and the Law therein. It does not concentrate on dogmas about God dictated by infallible authority.

The focus in Christianity is adhering to the dictates of the Church about God and Jesus so that one can go to heaven. The focus is on the afterlife. If one does not follow the dictates, one cannot expect to be admitted to heaven. If one publicly teaches opposition to the dictates, one is committing heresy and is doomed unless one repents. This is definitely unfriendly. Mysticism is emphasized over practical matters.

In Judaism, following the Law as written in the Torah is paramount. One’s standing is enhanced by following the Torah as much as possible. Much of the Torah focuses on life here on Earth. It is more respectful of people’s belief and does not tell them what to believe, except that there is only one God, and that is the God of Abraham. Going to heaven, although a concern of Jews, is not dwelled on the way it is in Christianity.

Islam is similar in its lack of dogma. Its only belief requirement about God that I am aware of is that there is only one God, and one must surrender to the will of God. The lack of a central authority leads to differences and eventually enmity. Perhaps an Islamic central authority would reduce the violence.

 

[Little_Star_1]

There is a strong effort in Christianity to get people to believe dogma about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The ancient Jews also made a similar effort concerning Yahweh. After the Jewish wars with the Romans that were instigated by zealots, the Pharisees began to see Yahweh differently. Today, Judaism concentrates on the Torah and the Law therein. It does not concentrate on dogmas about God dictated by infallible authority.

The focus in Christianity is adhering to the dictates of the Church about God and Jesus so that one can go to heaven. The focus is on the afterlife. If one does not follow the dictates, one cannot expect to be admitted to heaven. If one publicly teaches opposition to the dictates, one is committing heresy and is doomed unless one repents. This is definitely unfriendly. Mysticism is emphasized over practical matters.

In Judaism, following the Law as written in the Torah is paramount. One’s standing is enhanced by following the Torah as much as possible. Much of the Torah focuses on life here on Earth. It is more respectful of people’s belief and does not tell them what to believe, except that there is only one God, and that is the God of Abraham. Going to heaven, although a concern of Jews, is not dwelled on the way it is in Christianity.

Islam is similar in its lack of dogma. Its only belief requirement about God that I am aware of is that there is only one God, and one must surrender to the will of God. The lack of a central authority leads to differences and eventually enmity. Perhaps an Islamic central authority would reduce the violence.

On this we agree. Except I am not quite sure how you mean that mysticism is emphasized in Christianity. In the Catholic church, it is given much respect but the Protestant denominations tend to regard mystics with mistrust and see it as supernatural, dangerous, or the person that reports having such experiences is a nut case. From what I have observed, Catholics emphasize daily living and living with regard to the teachings of the church, its traditions and rules. Protestants seem to give the teachings a great deal of importance and place little value on individual experience.

I don’t know about the other faiths. I stopped studying comparative religion when I realized that I was doing it to get a handle on God’s true identity. I spent way over a decade pouring over such books. During that time, I was stuck at how all the faiths, even those that seemed very, very different, all depicted God’s will for us the same way. So, I came to believe with certainty that we are all worshiping the same God . But, I got no where in my own relationship with Him, how I expressed my love to Him and in recognizing His for me within my life. Then, it was clear that all along I had seen that He was with me already and that he thought my efforts to find Him in text books was a bit humorous. Indeed, the words of the Bible have little meaning until one can feel their oneness with God. I just was not aware of my own ability to feel Him.

One does not need religion to find God. Religion does help to clarify methods of worship that will bring us closer to Him. It conceptualizes God for us and, having a concept of God helps us to recognize Him within us. We breathe air and we experience God if we are aware of Him being in all things. However, there are groups of people, natives or aboriginal, that are aware of His presence without a need for a formal and official institutionalized church setting. He is just There, and He is. I think they are far more advanced than the rest of us that were born into societies that saddled us with dogma. To really feel His grace, we have to get beyond the dogma, become like children.

Religion also gives us a code of conduct that, those that have yet to find their way to being immersed in God, constant awareness,can follow until the love He has placed in their hearts is fully opened and thriving. For instance, I read the writings of the Christian Mystics to help me remain aware of His presence and grace.

I have a story for you. One clear summer night when my son was eight, he asked me a question about God. I said, well lets go outside and see. So we went out and laid down in the grass and looked up at the stars. I said “Do you want to feel God?” He said “Yes”. I said then ask Him to show Himself to you. He asked. Immediately afterwards something quite indescribable came down from the sky, like a surge of energy that was felt within a type of pressure. My son got up and ran as fast as he could into the house. He had just felt the power of the Holy Spirit just for asking for it.

Good one nmgauss, thank you!

 

[daler]

There is a strong effort in Christianity to get people to believe dogma about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The ancient Jews also made a similar effort concerning Yahweh. After the Jewish wars with the Romans that were instigated by zealots, the Pharisees began to see Yahweh differently. Today, Judaism concentrates on the Torah and the Law therein. It does not concentrate on dogmas about God dictated by infallible authority.

The focus in Christianity is adhering to the dictates of the Church about God and Jesus so that one can go to heaven. The focus is on the afterlife. If one does not follow the dictates, one cannot expect to be admitted to heaven. If one publicly teaches opposition to the dictates, one is committing heresy and is doomed unless one repents. This is definitely unfriendly. Mysticism is emphasized over practical matters.

In Judaism, following the Law as written in the Torah is paramount. One’s standing is enhanced by following the Torah as much as possible. Much of the Torah focuses on life here on Earth. It is more respectful of people’s belief and does not tell them what to believe, except that there is only one God, and that is the God of Abraham. Going to heaven, although a concern of Jews, is not dwelled on the way it is in Christianity.

Islam is similar in its lack of dogma. Its only belief requirement about God that I am aware of is that there is only one God, and one must surrender to the will of God. The lack of a central authority leads to differences and eventually enmity. Perhaps an Islamic central authority would reduce the violence.

nmgauss You make some very good points here with clarity. While the afterlife of the soul is of great importance, there is also putting our house in order here on earth. Of particular difficulty is synchronizing “competing” systems of beliefs. The Prophets of the same One God are not in competition with each other, and God is not in competition with God, it is men’s differences and lack of a common vision which separates and divides humanity.
In Islam, the central authority which was conferred upon Ali was rejected by Umar, who said, “Verily, the Book is sufficient unto us”. This, on the day of Muhammad’s death, permanently split the followers of Islam down the middle and was the cause of infinite schism and the resultant bloodshed down through the centuries.

 

[daler]

I have a story for you. One clear summer night when my son was eight, he asked me a question about God. I said, well lets go outside and see. So we went out and laid down in the grass and looked up at the stars. I said “Do you want to feel God?” He said “Yes”. I said then ask Him to show Himself to you. He asked. Immediately afterwards something quite indescribable came down from the sky, like a surge of energy that was felt within a type of pressure. My son got up and ran as fast as he could into the house. He had just felt the power of the Holy Spirit just for asking for it.

WOW!!!

 

[nmgauss]

I have a story for you. One clear summer night when my son was eight, he asked me a question about God. I said, well lets go outside and see. So we went out and laid down in the grass and looked up at the stars. I said “Do you want to feel God?” He said “Yes”. I said then ask Him to show Himself to you. He asked. Immediately afterwards something quite indescribable came down from the sky, like a surge of energy that was felt within a type of pressure. My son got up and ran as fast as he could into the house. He had just felt the power of the Holy Spirit just for asking for it.

WOW!!!

Was this a pleasant experience or was he afraid?

 

[Little_Star_1]

Was this a pleasant experience or was he afraid?

He was afraid. It wasn’t that it was threatening in any way. It was the fact that he asked and was answered within seconds. It surprised him to have the unseen made real to him and to feel the power of what is unseen. I had to explain that God must really love him to respond to him so quickly. Also, you have to keep in mind that my son was born sure that he knew everything there was to know and is quite willful. When he was two. he told me that I should listen to him because in very important ways he was much older and smarter than me. I asked how did he know this. He said because you are you and I am me.

So, that God manifested himself in a mighty way, with a forceful type of energy, indicated to me that God truly wanted the fella to take Him seriously. My son is one of those people that you have to come down on in a very serious way in order for him to take you seriously. He is an extremely bright knucklehead. He is 24 now and has a very clear memory that night. He has also experienced he peace that God will bring when needed.

 

[nmgauss]

nmgauss You make some very good points here with clarity. While the afterlife of the soul is of great importance, there is also putting our house in order here on earth. Of particular difficulty is synchronizing “competing” systems of beliefs. The Prophets of the same One God are not in competition with each other, and God is not in competition with God, it is men’s differences and lack of a common vision which separates and divides humanity.
In Islam, the central authority which was conferred upon Ali was rejected by Umar, who said, “Verily, the Book is sufficient unto us”. This, on the day of Muhammad’s death, permanently split the followers of Islam down the middle and was the cause of infinite schism and the resultant bloodshed down through the centuries.

In those days, Muslims had different ideas as to who should succeed Muhammad. Thus the schism began. Similarly different ideas of what Christianity should be permeated the three centuries of Christianity after Jesus’ crucifixion. Differences were settled by conferences of the bishops until unanimity was arrived at.

This never happened in Islam. One side wanted the successor to be elected by the ulama This became the Sunni position. Another side wanted succession to be determined by heredity. This became the Shi’i position. However, Muhammad’s only surviving offspring was female, and when she married Muhammad’s cousin Ali, he was the preferred successor among the Shi’ites. But the first caliph was elected and he was Abu Bakr. Meanwhile, Ali was still touted by the Shi’ites. When Abu Bakr died, Umar was chosen and he sponsored the empire building throughout the Middle East. But he was assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war. The next caliph was Uthman, but he was assassinated by rebels of the opposition during the first civil war. Finally Ali was chosen, and became the Shi’ites first Imam. But he in turn was assassinated, triggering another civil war.

So Islam was fraught with violence from the beginning.

 

[daler]

…Muhammad’s cousin Ali, he was the preferred successor among the Shi’ites. But the first caliph was elected and he was Abu Bakr. Meanwhile, Ali was still touted by the Shi’ites. When Abu Bakr died, Umar was chosen and he sponsored the empire building throughout the Middle East. But he was assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war. The next caliph was Uthman, but he was assassinated by rebels of the opposition during the first civil war. Finally Ali was chosen, and became the Shi’ites first Imam. But he in turn was assassinated, triggering another civil war.

So Islam was fraught with violence from the beginning.

nmguass, Yes, the forces of mischief were always there, unfortunately. The traditional tribal ways prevailed over Muhammad’s verbal appointment of Ali to be His Successor, and this changed the course of history. Sunnis deny this. Shi’ites uphold this belief. The Meccan Idolators “professed” belief in the Prophet once His authority had been established and they could not stop it, but saw an opportunity and seized it, grabbing temporal power to further their earthly gains.
Interestingly, on the Shi’ite side, the Imams existed for 260 years, but like Ali, were all murdered. There are Muslim traditions of a thousand years to follow before the coming of the Qa’im. Thus 260 plus 1000 years equals 1260 years. The year 1260 AH is the year 1844 AD, and coincides with what the Adventist Movement determined to be the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Book of Daniel about the 2300 days (years).
Also, in Revelation are the several predictions of the 42 months, which times 30 days per month equals 1260, and also the 3 1/2 days, also referred to by Daniel as as 3 1/2 times (3 1/2 times 360 again equals 1260). Daniel’s great vision took place in Susa, in Elam, which is SW Iran today. Jeremiah also said that “The Lord shall set His throne in Elam”.
Hence, the appearance of the Bab (Gate) in 1844, or 1260 AH, as the Qa’im took place in Shiraz, Persia, or ancient Elam. He was killed by a firing squad of 750 Muslim soldiers on July 9, 1850 before a crowd of several thousand people, including diplomats of several countries, who witnessed and recorded the event.
By Umar’s words, “Verily, the Book is sufficient unto us” became the cause of most of the bloodshed throughout the history of Islam, including the Martyrdom of the Bab, according to Abdul Baha, who also referred to the Ummayyads as the Beast mentioned in Revelation, and the great red dragon.

 

[daler]

So, that God manifested himself in a mighty way, with a forceful type of energy, indicated to me that God truly wanted the fella to take Him seriously. My son is one of those people that you have to come down on in a very serious way in order for him to take you seriously. He is an extremely bright knucklehead. He is 24 now and has a very clear memory that night. He has also experienced he peace that God will bring when needed.

Ha Ha Ha!! You’ve got a great kid there, Little Star…

 

[Little_Star_1]

“Yes, the forces of mischief were always there, unfortunately.”

We shall overcome even this in the time to come.

 

[nmgauss]

islam was fraught with violence from the beginning.

nmguass, yes, the forces of mischief were always there, unfortunately. The traditional tribal ways prevailed over muhammad’s verbal appointment of ali to be his successor, and this changed the course of history. Sunnis deny this. Shi’ites uphold this belief. The meccan idolators “professed” belief in the prophet once his authority had been established and they could not stop it, but saw an opportunity and seized it, grabbing temporal power to further their earthly gains.
Interestingly, on the shi’ite side, the imams existed for 260 years, but like ali, were all murdered. There are muslim traditions of a thousand years to follow before the coming of the qa’im. Thus 260 plus 1000 years equals 1260 years.

You seem to have a bias against the “Meccan idolators”. Are you touting the Shi’ite position here?

I don’t follow your point of the last part of your post. It goes into great detail about something, but the thrust of your statement is vague.