Look where mohammad took his stories from.

[r.gonzales]

inJESUS:

how was mohammad able to join them in his prayers when they already dont believe his allah?

firstly, the pagan arabs didn’t partake in muslim prayers, they prostrated when they heard that final verse from the soorah.

secondly, the arab polythiests believed in Allah as the Supreme God and Lord of all. and this is where you err. what they were rebuked for was their associating partners with Allah, their seeking intercession from the angels, the prophets and the righteous people as a means of getting closer to Allah. they affirmed that Allah was the Creator, the Provider and Sustainer of all that existed.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

firstly, the pagan arabs didn’t partake in muslim prayers, they prostrated when they heard that final verse from the soorah.

secondly, the arab polythiests believed in Allah as the Supreme God and Lord of all. and this is where you err. what they were rebuked for was their associating partners with Allah, their seeking intercession from the angels, the prophets and the righteous people as a means of getting closer to Allah. they affirmed that Allah was the Creator, the Provider and Sustainer of all that existed.

Do you have any evidence that the Meccan pagans believed in Allah as the SUPREME GOD and LORD OF ALL? It thought that was Hubal?

Further questions for r.gonzales: why would the pagans bow down to Allah when told to do so by Muhammad, a man they didn’t believe was a prophet? If they believed in Muhammad reciting the Quran then, surely they would believe in his other revelations as well? Why only that instance and not any other time?

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Do you have any evidence that the Meccan pagans believed in Allah as the SUPREME GOD and LORD OF ALL? It thought that was Hubal?

say, “who provides you from the sky and earth? who controls the hearing and the sights? and who extracts the living from the dead and extracts the dead from the living? and who disposes the affair?” so they will say, “Allah.” so say, “do you not then fear [Allah]?” (10:31)

and certainly if you ask them, “who created the heavens and the earth, and subjects the sun and the moon?” they will surely say, “Allah.” then why do they lie [by worshipping other gods]? (29:61)

and certainly if you ask them, “who sends down water from the sky, thus giving life to the earth through it after its death?” they will surely say, “Allah.” say, “the praise is for Allah.” nay, most of them do not have sense. (29:63)

they are amazed that a warner from them had come to them. and the disbelievers said, “this is a lying sorcerer. has he made the gods as one god? indeed, this is surly something truly amazing!” (38:4-5)

it wasn’t prophet muhammad’s calling them to believe in Allah that the makkan polytheists rejected, it was that he was calling the to the worship of Allah alone and to leave the worship of all the other gods they used to worship.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Further questions for r.gonzales: why would the pagans bow down to Allah when told to do so by Muhammad, a man they didn’t believe was a prophet? If they believed in Muhammad reciting the Quran then, surely they would believe in his other revelations as well? Why only that instance and not any other time?

from one of the eye-witnesses to the event, recorded by ahmad bin hanbal and an-nasaa’ee, al-muttalib bin wadaa’ah said, “Allah’s messenger read soorah an-najm in makkah. so he prostrated, and whoever was with him prostrated. i lifted my head and refused to prostrate.” and al-muttalib had not accepted islam on that day, so after that he (al-muttalib) did not hear anyone read it except that he prostrated with him.

nothing is mentioned of them believing in muhammad for this instance or any other. the report simply states that when he reached the end of an-najm (where the command to prostrate is located), everyone prostrated, except a couple of people - who included this eye-witness, al-muttalib bin wadaa’ah.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

cid:

Do you have any evidence that the Meccan pagans believed in Allah as the SUPREME GOD and LORD OF ALL? It thought that was Hubal?

say, “who provides you from the sky and earth? who controls the hearing and the sights? and who extracts the living from the dead and extracts the dead from the living? and who disposes the affair?” so they will say, “Allah.” so say, “do you not then fear [Allah]?” (10:31)

and certainly if you ask them, “who created the heavens and the earth, and subjects the sun and the moon?” they will surely say, “Allah.” then why do they lie [by worshipping other gods]? (29:61)

and certainly if you ask them, “who sends down water from the sky, thus giving life to the earth through it after its death?” they will surely say, “Allah.” say, “the praise is for Allah.” nay, most of them do not have sense. (29:63)

they are amazed that a warner from them had come to them. and the disbelievers said, “this is a lying sorcerer. has he made the gods as one god? indeed, this is surly something truly amazing!” (38:4-5)

it wasn’t prophet muhammad’s calling them to believe in Allah that the makkan polytheists rejected, it was that he was calling the to the worship of Allah alone and to leave the worship of all the other gods they used to worship.

These are from the Quran, which the pagans reject. You’re making a circular argument. The pagans reject 1. Muhammad as a messenger of Allah and 2. Allah as the supreme god.

Your surah 29 example is meaningless. The verse is aimed at the mushrikeen – those who outwardly believe in Allah but inwardly do not.

38:4-5 actually disproves you – the pagans called Muhammad a lying sorcerer for making all the gods into one god. Thus, they reject Muhammad’s notion of Allah.

10:31 is talking to believers in heaven, as Allah has separated the evildoers (i.e. disbelievers) from the believers.

You haven’t proved anything. It is commonly held that the Meccan pagans do not believe in Allah as the supreme god – only the Muslims do. The Meccan pagans believe in Hubal as their supreme god. Allah was a rather insignificant god for them and they certainly didn’t believe Muhammad was the messenger of this insignificant god Allah, so why would they bow to Allah when told to do so by Muhammad? That question remains unanswered by r.gonzales.

r.gonzales:

cid:

Further questions for r.gonzales: why would the pagans bow down to Allah when told to do so by Muhammad, a man they didn’t believe was a prophet? If they believed in Muhammad reciting the Quran then, surely they would believe in his other revelations as well? Why only that instance and not any other time?

from one of the eye-witnesses to the event, recorded by ahmad bin hanbal and an-nasaa’ee, al-muttalib bin wadaa’ah said, “Allah’s messenger read soorah an-najm in makkah. so he prostrated, and whoever was with him prostrated. i lifted my head and refused to prostrate.” and al-muttalib had not accepted islam on that day, so after that he (al-muttalib) did not hear anyone read it except that he prostrated with him.

nothing is mentioned of them believing in muhammad for this instance or any other. the report simply states that when he reached the end of an-najm (where the command to prostrate is located), everyone prostrated, except a couple of people - who included this eye-witness, al-muttalib bin wadaa’ah.

Sure this account says that ONE pagan did not bow. But the other account said the polytheists bowed. So, we know that not all polytheists bowed. It makes no difference. The question remains (as refined by further info): why would SOME polytheists bow after the reading of the surah (associated with the satanic verse)?

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

These are from the Quran, which the pagans reject. You’re making a circular argument. The pagans reject 1. Muhammad as a messenger of Allah and 2. Allah as the supreme god.

yes these verses are from the Quran. and no, the argumentation here is not circular. the Quran is a proof for historical occurances that are mentioned within it, which occurred during the time it was revealed. it is also the main source for islamic history to which all other reports are compared with. if these verses didn’t depict the actual state of contemporary affairs they were describing then both the makkan polytheists, as well as the muslims that followed prophet muhammad, would have noticed the error and prophet muhammad would have been exposed as a fraud. but there was no objection to these statements from the Quran from either the polytheists or the muslims at the time. even many orientalists realise and acknowledge this fact (that the reports given by the Quran concerning events that occurred during the time it was revealed must be used and taken as proofs), which is why they use many verses from the Quran in attempts to prove their assumptions and theories.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Your surah 29 example is meaningless. The verse is aimed at the mushrikeen – those who outwardly believe in Allah but inwardly do not.

right and wrong. yes, the verse speaks of the mushrikeen (which, btw, means polytheists). the verses say that if you ask the polytheists concerning these things, they will reply by saying, “Allah.” as for those who outwardly believe but inwardly do not, those are the munaafiqoon - which means the hypocrites. i suggest you learn the distinction.
Rodrigo Bivar:

38:4-5 actually disproves you – the pagans called Muhammad a lying sorcerer for making all the gods into one god. Thus, they reject Muhammad’s notion of Allah.

wrong again. the makkan polytheists accused prophet muhammad of being a lying sorcerer, not because of his “notion of Allah”, but because he called them to the worship of Allah alone, and to reject their false deities who they worshipped in order to get closer to Allah. as we are informed in the Quran that, “those who took from other than Him (Allah) awliyaa (protectors, guardians, allies) [say]: we did not take them except in order to bring us closer to Allah as a means of approach.” (39:3) and this was the significance behind my quoting of 38:4-5, it shows that the polytheists rejected muhammad’s call to the worship of one God alone and the rejection of the other gods that they worshipped, thus their statement, “does he make the gods as one god?! indeed, this is surely something truly amazing!”
Rodrigo Bivar:

10:31 is talking to believers in heaven, as Allah has separated the evildoers (i.e. disbelievers) from the believers.

actually, no it’s not. it’s a command to prophet muhammad and the believers to ask the polytheists these things and it informs them of what the polytheists’ answers will be. states abdur-rahmaan bin naasir as-sa’dee in his exegesis regarding the command “say” in this verse, “meaning, say to these ones who associate partners with Allah (i.e., the polytheists).” in tafseer al-muyassar it states, “say, o messenger, to these polytheists…” ibn katheer states in his exegesis, “He, exalted is He, uses their recognition of His singularity and His lordship as proof against the polytheists for the singularity of godship.” looks like you’re wrong again.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

It is commonly held that the Meccan pagans do not believe in Allah as the supreme god – only the Muslims do. The Meccan pagans believe in Hubal as their supreme god. Allah was a rather insignificant god for them and they certainly didn’t believe Muhammad was the messenger of this insignificant god Allah

you’re right in that they didn’t rejected prophet muhammad’s being Allah’s messenger… however, you are wrong about your assertion that the arab polytheists didn’t believe in Allah as supreme Lord and God. you should try doing more research…

source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah (emphasis mine)

It was used in pre-Islamic times by Pagans within the Arabian peninsula to signify the supreme creator. Pre-Islamic Jews referred to their supreme creator as Yahweh or Elohim. The pagan Arabs recognized “Allah” as the supreme God in their pantheon; along with Allah, however, the pre-Islamic Arabs believed in a host of other gods, such as Hubal and ‘daughters of Allah’ [the three daughters associated were al-Lat, al-`Uzzah, and Manah]" (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, “The Facts on File”, ed. Anthony Mercatante, New York, 1983, I:61).

this fact is also discussed and explained by muhammad mohar ali, history professor at the islamic university of madinah, in vol.1a of his sirat al-nabi and the orientalists. the excerpt from ali’s book has been posted by m.e.n.j. on his site: here.

as for your unanswered question, as-sindi states in his explanation of this hadeeth from the sunan of an-nasaa’ee, “‘and whoever was with him prostrated,’ meaning from the muslims and the polytheists, and it was as if the polytheists prostrated following the muslims and they have mentioned a long story regarding its reason, and Allah knows best regarding its (the story’s) being established.” whatever the reason behind their prostrating along with the muslims who were present during this incident, a few things are known with certainty according to the authentic reports concerning it; prophet muhammad read soorah an-najm by the ka’bah in the presence of a group of muslims and polytheists. at the completion of the soorah, when prophet muhammad read the verses
thus, in which of your Lord’s blessings do you doubt? this (muhammad) is a warner from the first warners. the time (judgement day) has drawn near. there is not besides Allah an averter for it. are you then amazed at this speech? and you laugh and do not cry, while you are haughty. so prostrate to Allah and worship Him.
he, as well as those present, prostrated–save a couple of people, including one of the eye-witnesses to the event al-muttalib bin wadaa’ah.

added to the fact that the sources for the story concerning these alleged “satanic verses” are spurious and weak, the story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever–especially when you look at the verses that those who prostrated prostrated at, which clearly command prostration to and worship of Allah alone.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

cid:

These are from the Quran, which the pagans reject. You’re making a circular argument. The pagans reject 1. Muhammad as a messenger of Allah and 2. Allah as the supreme god.

yes these verses are from the Quran. and no, the argumentation here is not circular. the Quran is a proof for historical occurances that are mentioned within it, which occurred during the time it was revealed. it is also the main source for islamic history to which all other reports are compared with. if these verses didn’t depict the actual state of contemporary affairs they were describing then both the makkan polytheists, as well as the muslims that followed prophet muhammad, would have noticed the error and prophet muhammad would have been exposed as a fraud. but there was no objection to these statements from the Quran from either the polytheists or the muslims at the time. even many orientalists realise and acknowledge this fact (that the reports given by the Quran concerning events that occurred during the time it was revealed must be used and taken as proofs), which is why they use many verses from the Quran in attempts to prove their assumptions and theories.

You are clearly presupposing the Quran is 1. true, and 2. silence in the Quran means there is no objection from the pagans.

Hey, the Quran is for Muslim ears. It is also not a historical account.

If the pagans accepted Allah as the supreme god and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, then why didn’t they become Muslims? The clear answer is that they did not believe one or either or both.

Please talk sense. Why didn’t the pagans accept Islam?

r.gonzales:

cid:

Your surah 29 example is meaningless. The verse is aimed at the mushrikeen – those who outwardly believe in Allah but inwardly do not.

right and wrong. yes, the verse speaks of the mushrikeen (which, btw, means polytheists). the verses say that if you ask the polytheists concerning these things, they will reply by saying, “Allah.” as for those who outwardly believe but inwardly do not, those are the munaafiqoon - which means the hypocrites. i suggest you learn the distinction.

The word is not polytheists. The word is ‘them’.

and certainly if you ask them, “who created the heavens and the earth, and subjects the sun and the moon?” they will surely say, “Allah.” then why do they lie [by worshipping other gods]? (29:61)

and certainly if you ask them, “who sends down water from the sky, thus giving life to the earth through it after its death?” they will surely say, “Allah.” say, “the praise is for Allah.” nay, most of them do not have sense. (29:63)

You say them = polytheists. I say them = mushrikeen. This is clear because 29:62 has Allah referring to HIS SERVANTS. Polytheists are not his servants. Mushrikeen are Muslim hypocrites. The entire part of this surah is clearly directed at the Mushrikeen – trying to frighten them into full belief.

Use your brain, if the pagans really believed Allah can do those things why didn’t they become Muslims?

r.gonzales:

cid:

38:4-5 actually disproves you – the pagans called Muhammad a lying sorcerer for making all the gods into one god. Thus, they reject Muhammad’s notion of Allah.

wrong again. the makkan polytheists accused prophet muhammad of being a lying sorcerer, not because of his “notion of Allah”, but because he called them to the worship of Allah alone, and to reject their false deities who they worshipped in order to get closer to Allah. as we are informed in the Quran that, “those who took from other than Him (Allah) awliyaa (protectors, guardians, allies) [say]: we did not take them except in order to bring us closer to Allah as a means of approach.” (39:3) and this was the significance behind my quoting of 38:4-5, it shows that the polytheists rejected muhammad’s call to the worship of one God alone and the rejection of the other gods that they worshipped, thus their statement, “does he make the gods as one god?! indeed, this is surely something truly amazing!”

What part don’t you understand? Sure the Meccan pagans believe in Allah as a minor god. They don’t believe in Allah as the Supreme God. That is the point. They believed in Hubal as the supreme God. That verse accuses Muhammad of being a lying sorcerer for ‘making all the gods into one god’. What is this one god? It’s Muhammad’s notion of Allah, not the pagans’ notion of Allah.

When I referred to Muhammad’s notion of Allah I was referring to him ‘making all the gods into one god’.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

cid:

10:31 is talking to believers in heaven, as Allah has separated the evildoers (i.e. disbelievers) from the believers.

actually, no it’s not. it’s a command to prophet muhammad and the believers to ask the polytheists these things and it informs them of what the polytheists’ answers will be. states abdur-rahmaan bin naasir as-sa’dee in his exegesis regarding the command “say” in this verse, “meaning, say to these ones who associate partners with Allah (i.e., the polytheists).” in tafseer al-muyassar it states, “say, o messenger, to these polytheists…” ibn katheer states in his exegesis, “He, exalted is He, uses their recognition of His singularity and His lordship as proof against the polytheists for the singularity of godship.” looks like you’re wrong again.

That is my point. The Meccan pagans never accepted Allah as this powerful deity IN REAL LIFE. The verse refers to Muslims IN HEAVEN on one specific day – see 10:28, asking the dead polytheists these questions. And according to the Quran, the polytheists will accept Allah then. On that day. Not in real life.

r.gonzales:

cid:

It is commonly held that the Meccan pagans do not believe in Allah as the supreme god – only the Muslims do. The Meccan pagans believe in Hubal as their supreme god. Allah was a rather insignificant god for them and they certainly didn’t believe Muhammad was the messenger of this insignificant god Allah

you’re right in that they didn’t rejected prophet muhammad’s being Allah’s messenger…

Huh? I said They REJECTED Muhammad was the messenger of Allah.

Remember this hadith of the signing of the treaty of Hudaybiyya?

Sahih al-Bukari Volume 3, Book 49, Number 863:
Narrated Al-Bara: When the Prophet intended to perform 'Umra in the month of Dhul-Qada, the people of Mecca did not let him enter Mecca till he settled the matter with them by promising to stay in it for three days only. When the document of treaty was written, the following was mentioned: ‘These are the terms on which Muhammad, Allah’s Apostle agreed (to make peace).’ They said, “We will not agree to this, for if we believed that you are Allah’s Apostle we would not prevent you, but you are Muhammad bin 'Abdullah.”…

What does, ‘for if we believed that you are Allah’s Apostle we would not prevent you’, mean? This means they didn’t believe he was Allah’s Apostle.

r.gonzales:

however, you are wrong about your assertion that the arab polytheists didn’t believe in Allah as supreme Lord and God. you should try doing more research…

source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah (emphasis mine)

Quote:
It was used in pre-Islamic times by Pagans within the Arabian peninsula to signify the supreme creator. Pre-Islamic Jews referred to their supreme creator as Yahweh or Elohim. The pagan Arabs recognized “Allah” as the supreme God in their pantheon; along with Allah, however, the pre-Islamic Arabs believed in a host of other gods, such as Hubal and ‘daughters of Allah’ [the three daughters associated were al-Lat, al-`Uzzah, and Manah]" (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, “The Facts on File”, ed. Anthony Mercatante, New York, 1983, I:61).

this fact is also discussed and explained by muhammad mohar ali, history professor at the islamic university of madinah, in vol.1a of his sirat al-nabi and the orientalists. the excerpt from ali’s book has been posted by m.e.n.j. on his site: here.

I don’t believe in wikipedia which is over-run by Muslims. You think I just made up the story about Hubal? I, too, have done my research.

“Among the gods worshipped by the Quraysh, the GREATEST WAS HUBAL…The Quraysh had several idols in and around the Kaaba. THE GREATEST OF THESE WAS HUBAL” (F.E. Peters, The Hajj, pp.24-25, emphasis mine).
“Hubal was the PRINCIPAL DEITY [in Mecca] THE GOD OF THE MOON…” (Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, p.179, emphasis mine).
“…of the 360 idols set up in the Kaaba, the MOST IMPORTANT WAS HUBAL, THE GOD OF THE MOON…IT WAS SET UP IN THE KAABA, and became the PRINCIPAL IDOL OF THE MECCANS…” (ibid., p.161, emphasis mine).
“HUBAL WAS THE CHIEF GOD OF THE KAABA” (George W. Braswell, JR, Islam, p.44, emphasis mine).
“…THE MAIN GOD OF THE SHRINE [was] HUBAL” (Neighboring Faiths, Winfried, Corduan, p.78, emphasis mine).
british-israel.ca/Islam.htm

There are many reports attesting Hubal’s being the most important or one of the most important idols of Mecca during the days of the J¢ahil³ya.[78]
uib.no/jais/v002ht/pavlov.htm

Hubal Chief god of Ka’bah (Allah?)
personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/history/arabic.txt
– reference to Hubal=Allah because some people believe Allah was the Moon god Hubal – see Robert Morey

It is clear your Islamist references have elevated the position of Allah and downgraded Hubal.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

as for your unanswered question, as-sindi states in his explanation of this hadeeth from the sunan of an-nasaa’ee, “‘and whoever was with him prostrated,’ meaning from the muslims and the polytheists, and it was as if the polytheists prostrated following the muslims and they have mentioned a long story regarding its reason, and Allah knows best regarding its (the story’s) being established.” whatever the reason behind their prostrating along with the muslims who were present during this incident, a few things are known with certainty according to the authentic reports concerning it; prophet muhammad read soorah an-najm by the ka’bah in the presence of a group of muslims and polytheists. at the completion of the soorah, when prophet muhammad read the verses thus, in which of your Lord’s blessings do you doubt? this (muhammad) is a warner from the first warners. the time (judgement day) has drawn near. there is not besides Allah an averter for it. are you then amazed at this speech? and you laugh and do not cry, while you are haughty. so prostrate to Allah and worship Him.
he, as well as those present, prostrated–save a couple of people, including one of the eye-witnesses to the event al-muttalib bin wadaa’ah.

added to the fact that the sources for the story concerning these alleged “satanic verses” are spurious and weak, the story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever–especially when you look at the verses that those who prostrated prostrated at, which clearly command prostration to and worship of Allah alone.

It doesn’t matter who the pagans prostrated at. The contention is that they did prostrate.

My question remains, why would they prostrate? Even if we accept your contention that they believe Allah is the Supreme God, even though there are lots of evidence that it was Hubal that was, why would they prostrate when they didn’t believe in Muhammad being Allah’s Apostle.

So the point about Allah being the supreme God is irrelevant. The pagans don’t believe Muhammad was Allah’s apostle. If they don’t believe thus, then why would they prostrate at a revelation he recited?

The whole point hinges on whether they believe he was the messenger of Allah or not. If he was, then I can accept they would accept his message and prostrate. But if they didn’t accept him as Allah’s messenger, then why would they prostrate?

Would you prostrate if I revealed a verse from Allah commanding you to prostrate?

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

You are clearly presupposing the Quran is 1. true, and 2. silence in the Quran means there is no objection from the pagans.

perhaps you don’t understand what i said. it is an acknowledged fact—even amongst orientalists—that the Quran is a proof for the contemporary events it describes, events that occurred during its revelation. if the Quran was wrong in describing the state of contemporary affairs during the the twenty-three years of prophet muhammad’s prophethood, then this would have been a legitimate point of contention against the Quran and muhammad himself. both the polytheists and the muslims would have noticed such mistakes and prophet muhammad would have been exposed as a fraud right then and there. yet there is nothing in any historical records or accounts concerning any such objection or rejection of what’s mentioned.
Rodrigo Bivar:

If the pagans accepted Allah as the supreme god and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, then why didn’t they become Muslims?

perhaps you don’t understand the import and reality of muhammad’s call, which was for the arab polytheists to leave the worship of the idols and the false deities they were worshipping along with Allah. this is the main reason that they rejected his call, not because he was calling them to believe in Allah or even to believe that Allah was the supreme God, Creator and Lord of all.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Please talk sense…

The word is not polytheists. The word is ‘them’.

You say them = polytheists. I say them = mushrikeen. This is clear because 29:62 has Allah referring to HIS SERVANTS. Polytheists are not his servants. Mushrikeen are Muslim hypocrites. The entire part of this surah is clearly directed at the Mushrikeen – trying to frighten them into full belief.

Use your brain…

seems like the one who would benefit from your advices found in the first and last lines of this quote from you would be none other than yourself. you clearly have no clue of what you’re talking about and once again attempt to tell someone who understands the arabic language what certain arabic words mean and who or what they refer to. the word mushrik (pl. mushrikoon/mushrikeen) means one who commits shirk. the word shirk means association, i.e., polytheism, not hypocrisy. the mushrikoon are the arab polytheists, not muslim hypocrites. the muslim hypocrites are called munaafiqoon (sing. munaafiq = one who has nifaaq/hypocrisy). i suggest you review your “islamic study” notes, bivar.

as for 29:62, the word used in the verse is the word 'ibaad, plural for 'abd, which is commonly translated as slave. this word is used to refer to Allah’s creation in general unless there is a clear indication that a specific group from it is intended (i.e., 'ibaadihi as-saaliheen – His righteous slaves). and just as it states in tafseer al-muyassar in explanation of this verse, “Allah, glorified and exalted is He, makes vast the provision for whoever He wills from His creation and restricts it for others from them due to His knowledge of what is good for His slaves. surely Allah is knowledgeable of everything from your conditions and your affairs, nothing is hidden from Him.” so the verse is telling us about the provisions Allah has given to mankind in this life, how He gives more to whoever He wills from them and gives less to others.

con’t…

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

I don’t believe in wikipedia which is over-run by Muslims. You think I just made up the story about Hubal? I, too, have done my research.

no, i don’t think you made it up. what i do think is that your references are wrong. regardless of what you think of my “islamist” references, the fact still remains that although hubal was one of the idols worshipped at the ka’bah and one of the makkan polytheists’ most revered idol, Allah was still thought of as the supreme God, Lord, and creator of all. the ka’bah wasn’t called the house of hubal (bait hubal), it was called the house of Allah (baitullah)—and has been referred to as such since antiquity. you and your erroneous sources would have us believe that despite being their supreme deity, hubal (a mere idol) was housed in the house of a lesser god (Allah, who was in reality considered by the arabs to be the Creator of all that exists)? heck, even the three idols whose mention are found in soorah an-najm, al-laat, al-'uzzaa and manaah were said to have been Allah’s daughters. and hubal according to some was considered to be the son of al-laat (source).

for more on the pre-islamic arabs’ beliefs concerning Allah being the Creator and supreme God, see muhammad mohar ali’s sirat al-nabi and the orientalists, another relevant excerpt has been transcribed and posted here: the ka’bah and the abrahamic tradition.

the makkan polytheists rejected prophet muhammad’s call not because he called them to believe in Allah, or even because he raised Allah above all their idols and gods in status. they rejected his call because he called them to leave off associating parters with Allah in their worship, which they claimed they were doing in order to bring them closer to Allah. this is the “notion” they were rejecting, not the “notion” that Allah was the surpreme God, Lord and Creator of all.
Rodrigo Bivar:

The verse refers to Muslims IN HEAVEN on one specific day – see 10:28

verse 10:28 is part of one passage, and 10:31 is the start of another that follows immediately after the one before it (which contains 10:28). in 10:31, the command “say” is directed to prophet muhammad and the believers who followed him, who were alive at the time of the verse’s revelation. Allah is not addressing the inhabitants of heaven in this verse as is crystal clear from the context of the arabic text. added to this is the fact that all the Quranic exegetes are clear in their explanations of this verse stating that the command is directed to prophet muhammad, not to your baseless assertion that it is directed to the inhabitants of heaven.
Rodrigo Bivar:

Huh? I said They REJECTED Muhammad was the messenger of Allah.

yes, you did. pardon my typo. in the course of editing what i had originally wrote, i forgot to delete “didn’t”.
Rodrigo Bivar:

It doesn’t matter who the pagans prostrated at.

sure it does. you’re trying to make the assertion that the makkan polytheists who were present during this incident prostrated because of the supposed praise of their idols made by prophet muhammad (i.e., the satanic verses), while the verse they prostrated at clearly states, “prostrate to Allah and worship Him.” none of your questions and postulations change the fact that the story is spurious and all its source narrations fail the tests of authenticity.
Rodrigo Bivar:

My question remains, why would they prostrate?
…
Would you prostrate if I revealed a verse from Allah commanding you to prostrate?

for your first question here, i guess you’ll be left speculating over that. for us muslims, we know the power of the Quran and find it perfectly believable that this would happen. as for your second question, you’re not a prophet who was sent by Allah with revelation, so the answer is obviously no.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

cid:

You are clearly presupposing the Quran is 1. true, and 2. silence in the Quran means there is no objection from the pagans.

perhaps you don’t understand what i said. it is an acknowledged fact—even amongst orientalists—that the Quran is a proof for the contemporary events it describes, events that occurred during its revelation.

It’s not fact but opinion.

r.gonzales:

if the Quran was wrong in describing the state of contemporary affairs during the the twenty-three years of prophet muhammad’s prophethood, then this would have been a legitimate point of contention against the Quran and muhammad himself. both the polytheists and the muslims would have noticed such mistakes and prophet muhammad would have been exposed as a fraud right then and there.

The polytheists did notice mistakes – that is one of the reasons why they didn’t believe Muhammad. They didn’t believe Muhammad not his Quran.

r.gonzales:

yet there is nothing in any historical records or accounts concerning any such objection or rejection of what’s mentioned.

Silence is not contradiction. You’re arguing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

r.gonzales:

cid:

If the pagans accepted Allah as the supreme god and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, then why didn’t they become Muslims?

perhaps you don’t understand the import and reality of muhammad’s call, which was for the arab polytheists to leave the worship of the idols and the false deities they were worshipping along with Allah. this is the main reason that they rejected his call, not because he was calling them to believe in Allah or even to believe that Allah was the supreme God, Creator and Lord of all.

1. They didn’t believe he was Allah’s apostle.
2. They preferred to believe in other gods.
3. Whether they believed Allah was the supreme god is contentious.

r.gonzales:

Please talk sense…

The word is not polytheists. The word is ‘them’.

You say them = polytheists. I say them = mushrikeen. This is clear because 29:62 has Allah referring to HIS SERVANTS. Polytheists are not his servants. Mushrikeen are Muslim hypocrites. The entire part of this surah is clearly directed at the Mushrikeen – trying to frighten them into full belief.

Use your brain…
seems like the one who would benefit from your advices found in the first and last lines of this quote from you would be none other than yourself. you clearly have no clue of what you’re talking about and once again attempt to tell someone who understands the arabic language what certain arabic words mean and who or what they refer to. the word mushrik (pl. mushrikoon/mushrikeen) means one who commits shirk. the word shirk means association, i.e., polytheism, not hypocrisy. the mushrikoon are the arab polytheists, not muslim hypocrites. the muslim hypocrites are called munaafiqoon (sing. munaafiq = one who has nifaaq/hypocrisy). i suggest you review your “islamic study” notes, bivar.
Out comes the ‘I know Arabic’ boast again.

Okay, I made a mistake: substitute mushik for munaafiq – makes no difference. The ‘They’ in the verse still refers to pagans.

r.gonzales:

as for 29:62, the word used in the verse is the word 'ibaad, plural for 'abd, which is commonly translated as slave. this word is used to refer to Allah’s creation in general unless there is a clear indication that a specific group from it is intended (i.e., 'ibaadihi as-saaliheen – His righteous slaves). and just as it states in tafseer al-muyassar in explanation of this verse, “Allah, glorified and exalted is He, makes vast the provision for whoever He wills from His creation and restricts it for others from them due to His knowledge of what is good for His slaves. surely Allah is knowledgeable of everything from your conditions and your affairs, nothing is hidden from Him.” so the verse is telling us about the provisions Allah has given to mankind in this life, how He gives more to whoever He wills from them and gives less to others.

So what? The point is that it is talking about his ‘SERVANTS’ plural – meaning the Muslims.

r.gonzales:

cid:

I don’t believe in wikipedia which is over-run by Muslims. You think I just made up the story about Hubal? I, too, have done my research.

no, i don’t think you made it up.

Then don’t infer it please. You have a cutting style and that only elicits a cutting style from me.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

what i do think is that your references are wrong. regardless of what you think of my “islamist” references, the fact still remains that although hubal was one of the idols worshipped at the ka’bah and one of the makkan polytheists’ most revered idol, Allah was still thought of as the supreme God, Lord, and creator of all. the ka’bah wasn’t called the house of hubal (bait hubal), it was called the house of Allah (baitullah)—and has been referred to as such since antiquity. you and your erroneous sources would have us believe that despite being their supreme deity, hubal (a mere idol) was housed in the house of a lesser god (Allah, who was in reality considered by the arabs to be the Creator of all that exists)? heck, even the three idols whose mention are found in soorah an-najm, al-laat, al-'uzzaa and manaah were said to have been Allah’s daughters. and hubal according to some was considered to be the son of al-laat (source).

I agree whether the Meccans believed Allah or Hubal was the supreme god is under contention. I will show it is irrelevant. The point is… if it is under contention it is not fact to presuppose the Meccans believed Allah was the supreme god.

You are aware of the debate of whether Allah was this moon-god Hubal?

r.gonzales:

for more on the pre-islamic arabs’ beliefs concerning Allah being the Creator and supreme God, see muhammad mohar ali’s sirat al-nabi and the orientalists, another relevant excerpt has been transcribed and posted here: the ka’bah and the abrahamic tradition.

More one-sided evidence doesn’t prove anything.

r.gonzales:

the makkan polytheists rejected prophet muhammad’s call not because he called them to believe in Allah, or even because he raised Allah above all their idols and gods in status. they rejected his call because he called them to leave off associating parters with Allah in their worship, which they claimed they were doing in order to bring them closer to Allah. this is the “notion” they were rejecting, not the “notion” that Allah was the surpreme God, Lord and Creator of all.

I have evidence that they rejected him being Allah’s apostle too. So the question is why would they believe in anything he said to have come from Allah, even if they believed in Allah being the supreme god?

r.gonzales:

cid:

The verse refers to Muslims IN HEAVEN on one specific day – see 10:28

verse 10:28 is part of one passage, and 10:31 is the start of another that follows immediately after the one before it (which contains 10:28). in 10:31, the command “say” is directed to prophet muhammad and the believers who followed him, who were alive at the time of the verse’s revelation. Allah is not addressing the inhabitants of heaven in this verse as is crystal clear from the context of the arabic text. added to this is the fact that all the Quranic exegetes are clear in their explanations of this verse stating that the command is directed to prophet muhammad, not to your baseless assertion that it is directed to the inhabitants of heaven.

I don’t share this interpretation. The verse just says, ‘Say……’ …… ‘ask them…’

Secondly, even accepting your interpretation, the Quran claims, ‘and they will say…’

That is just the claim by the Quran to the Muslims that the disbelievers will say such and such. But verse 10:33 says, ‘Verily they will not believe.’ Meaning the disbelievers will not believe the Muslim claims about Allah.

r.gonzales:

cid:

It doesn’t matter who the pagans prostrated at.

sure it does. you’re trying to make the assertion that the makkan polytheists who were present during this incident prostrated because of the supposed praise of their idols made by prophet muhammad (i.e., the satanic verses), while the verse they prostrated at clearly states, “prostrate to Allah and worship Him.” none of your questions and postulations change the fact that the story is spurious and all its source narrations fail the tests of authenticity.

I will show why it doesn’t matter – whether it was Allah or his daughters the pagans prostrated to. I will show that since they didn’t believe Muhammad was Allah’s apostle there is no reason to believe in his words even if they believed in Allah and his daughters.

That is what I meant to say.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

cid:

My question remains, why would they prostrate?

…
Would you prostrate if I revealed a verse from Allah commanding you to prostrate?

for your first question here, i guess you’ll be left speculating over that. for us muslims, we know the power of the Quran and find it perfectly believable that this would happen. as for your second question, you’re not a prophet who was sent by Allah with revelation, so the answer is obviously no.

So you don’t believe I’m a prophet of Allah so you don’t obey me.

So the Meccan Pagans also don’t believe Muhammad was a prophet of Allah so they don’t obey him.

You left out Sahih al-Bukari 3, 49, 863:
…They said, "We will not agree to this, for if we believed that you are Allah’s Apostle we would not prevent you, but you are Muhammad bin 'Abdullah….

Thus I’ve proven that the Meccan pagans DID NOT believe Muhammad was the apostle of Allah. And since they didn’t they won’t prostate as he commanded just as r.gonzales will not prostrate before me if I command him to do so.

Since this is the case, r.gonzales’s contention that the Meccans prostrated because they were commanded to do so by Allah is wrong. They may believe in Allah and his daughters but they sure didn’t believe in the messenger – so why would they believe in the message?

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

So what? The point is that it is talking about his ‘SERVANTS’ plural – meaning the Muslims.

wrong. you misunderstand what i said. just to make it clear to you:

as for 29:62, the word used in the verse is the word 'ibaad, plural for 'abd, which is commonly translated as slave. this word (i.e., 'ibaad) is used to refer to Allah’s creation in general unless there is a clear indication that a specific group from it is intended (i.e., 'ibaadihi as-saaliheen – His righteous slaves).

Rodrigo Bivar:

You are aware of the debate of whether Allah was this moon-god Hubal?

yes, very. and the postulation made by those who try to assert this is ridiculous to say the least.
Rodrigo Bivar:

I don’t share this interpretation.

of course you don’t. otherwise, you wouldn’t have proposed that baseless interpretation of yours. let’s look at the passage in its entirety and see just how valid your new postulation is, shall we?
say, “who provides for you from the heaven and the earth or who controls the hearing and the sights? and who extracts the living from the dead and extracts the dead from the living? and who disposes the affair?” so they will say, “Allah.” so say, “do you not then fear [Allah]? * thus, that is Allah, your true Lord. then what is after the truth except error? then why do you turn away?” * thus your Lord’s word against those who deviated, that they do not believe, is justified.
in the passage Allah commands prophet muhammad to ask the makkan polytheists these questions and then informs him of their reply, which will be “Allah”. the prophet is then commanded to ask them after their acknowledgement of the fact that Allah is their Creator why they won’t fear Him and why after acknowledging who He is, why they deviate and turn away from the call. Allah then informs His prophet and the believers that because of the polytheits’ turning away from the truth, i.e., their worshipping other gods besides Allah despite their knowledge and recognition that Allah is their Creator, is justification for Allah’s saying that they do not believe.
Rodrigo Bivar:

I will show why it doesn’t matter – whether it was Allah or his daughters the pagans prostrated to. I will show that since they didn’t believe Muhammad was Allah’s apostle there is no reason to believe in his words even if they believed in Allah and his daughters.

no one said anything about the makkan polytheists believing in prophet muhammad’s words or his message. their believing in prophet muhammad’s message or that what he was reciting was from Allah is not necessary for them to prostrate. all that is mentioned is that they prostrated when they heard the verse, and as i mentioned, you can speculate all day about why they did until your hair falls out. for me and other muslims, we know the power of the Quran and find it perfectly believable that this would happen.
Rodrigo Bivar:

So you don’t believe I’m a prophet of Allah so you don’t obey me.

no. you’re not a prophet. prophethood ended with the death of muhammad. nothing you can bring forth can even come close to resembling the Quran.
Rodrigo Bivar:

You left out Sahih al-Bukari…

Thus I’ve proven that the Meccan pagans DID NOT believe Muhammad was the apostle of Allah.

perhaps you missed what i said…

r.gonzales:

yes, you did. pardon my typo. in the course of editing what i had originally wrote, i forgot to delete “didn’t”.

which would have made my earlier statement:

you’re right in that they rejected prophet muhammad’s being Allah’s messenger…

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

To cut a long story short, the entire argument boils down to this:

What caused the polytheists to prostrate?

r.gonzales said initially that the Meccan pagans accepted Muhammad was the messenger of their supreme god Allah. So it was no surprise that when Muhammad recited the verse the pagans prostrated to THEIR Allah.

Rodrigo points out that the pagans do not accept Muhammad was Allah’s Apostle. For argument’s sake I will even accept r.gonzales’s contention that the Meccan pagans believed Allah was their supreme God. In other words, there is no reason for the pagans to prostrate themselves when Muhammad recited the verse because they don’t believe what he recited came from Allah.

r.gonzales then claims it is mere speculation on Rodrigo’s part. Huh? When I use the same reasoning, except providing the reverse evidence that the Meccans did not accept Muhammad was Allah’s Apostle, I’m speculating. But when he used the same reasoning it’s not?

The only difference is that I showed the Meccans did not accept Muhammad was Allah’s Apostle. Everything else is the same.