The problem with Islam

[unknownuser]

Is that how you feel that you being mocked?

Facts speak for themselves

mquran and tanveer had nothing in the end except to throw quranic verses at you, to frighten into accepting their version of events
That is a cowards way out for them!!!
(and I think they are fairly competent at it!)

You did not answer my question - do you feel being mocked ?
How does facts speak for themselves?
Throwing verses - thats what you have been doing, giving us verses instead of answering Riz's question.

3010 Then the end of those who did evil was evil, that is because they denied God's signs, and they used to mock them.
4533 And the evils of their works will become evident to them, and the very thing they ridiculed will be their doom.
4064 Thus, those who used to deny God's Revelations were deviated.
651 And those who deny Our revelations, the retribution will inflict them for their vileness.

God's Sign is the Whole Universe Tanveer! Why do you make Idol out of Quran?

4912 O you who believe, let not a people ridicule other people, for they may be better than they. Nor shall any women ridicule other women, for they may be better than they. Nor shall you mock one another, or call each other names. Evil indeed is the reversion to wickedness after attaining faith. And anyone who does not repent, then these are the transgressors.

You have been disregarded as per The God's command

But if you understood God fully, if you looked beyond scripture Tanveer then you would have known that God does not do this. He can't disregard you like humans do because everything is His creation -)

5329 While they had no knowledge about this; they only followed conjecture. And conjecture is no substitute for the truth. So disregard he who turns away from Our reminder, and only desires this worldly life.

There are many millions of people who does not desire the worldly life Tanveer? Many millions of Buddhist, Monks and even ordinary people too -)

[unknownuser]

A question for Riz, I say Sunnah is invented after Muhammads death - What say you on this matter?

Regards,

[Riz]

I have had that stance for the past two years, but now when I think more about it, I think I have been a bit extreme on the matter. As I mentioned earlier, assuming and thinking that every Muslim including Muhammads best friends, disciples, and family betrayed him is very very hard to imagine. That is why I am trying to find out what really happened during Muhammads time and soon after his death and that is what I have been trying to discuss for much of this thread.

Much of the Sunnah we have today has existed since the very early days of Islam. Even non-muslims record this. As I stated earlier, there are non-muslim accounts from about 28 years after Muhammad which describe much of the sunnah being practiced today. That is why I think Mecca and the Kaba did have a significance in the life of Muhammad. There are parts of the sunnah, such as bowing to the Kaba and much of the Hajj ritual which I have severe doubts about, but besides that there is not much which I contend with. Five prayers are questionable as well, but are not completly out of the question. I can see how a person could get 5 prayers out of the Quran. As for the method of prayer, this is something I have doubts about as well. Standing up, reciting the Quran seem fine, but bowing down to the Kaba, saying Amen, looking left&right at the end don't have any basis in the Quran. A prophet bowing down to a stone structure seems highly unlikley.

So to sum it all up, I think parts of the Sunnah are genuine. Throwing it all away would be implying that all Muslims betrayed Muhammad following his death.

What do you think of that?

[truth_seeker]

Salam all,

I know how Riz is feeling, exactly same things popped in my head a while back. I dont think that throwing verses is a good idea when you are dumbfounded.

Can anybody here tell for sure that he is guided ? No. We only can explore together to get some clues. Is it not too stubborn to say that ALL HISTORY IS CONJECTURE.. WE ONLY NEED QURAN ! Quran is a word of Truth, as LoteTree says, but not the ONLY TRUTH.

Personally, I find it hard to digest that GOD requires us to bow down 5 times a day to a particular direction. This could have been formulated later on .. I m sure many of you might have heard about zoroastrian mode of prayer, which is similar to the one in Islam.

I once read in Dr.Shabbir's forum that Namaz was canonised by Khaizran (Zoroastrian influence). Khaizran, mother of the then Ruler , distributed silver and gold to popularize the Zoroastrian Namaz into Islam. In the same post it was mentioned Hanbal was flogged because he opposed to this innovation in Islam. Not sure about where he got these details.

Regards,
Truth.Seeker

[ayman]

Peace Riz, all,

Thank you for you detailed analysis.

The Quran says "The foolish from amongst the people will say ?What has turned them away from the focal point that they were on??

Notice that the foolish people describe what they can see. They said "what has turned them away from the focal point A that they were on". They did not say "what turned them from the focal point A to focal point B". We can understand from this that focal point A is physical because people can see them turning away from it. Please see a few verses before to 2137 to see that "wala/turning away" means "rejecting". So what this is talking about is rejection of focal point A.

From this we can see that originally Muhammad had some focal point other than the one he had at the point that verse was revealed. As the later verses reveal, Muhammad no longer had a focal point and was therefore turning his face up to the sky (during his prayers?).

The "turning of the face in the sky" is true for turning to any physical focal point since the earth is turning and you are actually looking into the horizon (the sky).

I suspect that the reason Muhammad no longer had a focal point was because the original focal point was where he fled from. Somewhere up north perhaps. So after having fled and no longer having a focal point, God assigns a new focal point, Masjidal Haram. Where was this place?

The prophet no longer had a physical focal point. He now had a non-physical focal point. We are clearly told that "al-masjid al-haram" IS "the truth from our Lord". So the command is to turn our direction to the truth from our Lord, wherever we are.

I suspect it was in Mecca. Now just bear with me here and I will explain my reasons.

There is absolutely no evidence of a pre-quranic town called Mecca. The only time the word "mecca" is mentioned in the great reading is in 4824 as a common noun. If you look in the Lexicons, it means "destruction". Here is Yusuf Ali's translation but instead of leaving "mecca" untranslated, I translated it as a common noun using the meaning of Lexicons and the context of war

048.024
YUSUFALI And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

As you see, the meaning fits perfectly.

I think we can all agree that stone structures such as a Shrine are not something to be venerated and there is nothing particularly holy about them. Whether they are built by Abraham, Muhammad, or anyone else.

I totally agree.

So now lets look what a Masjidal Haram is.
"The idea that certain spaces - whether because of their great height, outstanding beauty, lush vegetation or the like - are occupied by divinities is very ancient, and such spaces were legion in Arabia. The terms for them had usually to do with protection and prohibition(hima, haram, mahram), for within them all living things were considered inviolable and all use of violence was forbidden. In much of Arabia sanctuaries would be open-air, the natural features of the spot being sufficient to distinguish it. This might be a spring with its margin or rich vegetation, a patch of forest haunted by lions, a shady cleft in the mountainside or a solitary eminence rising from the desert. The borders of the holy ground would usually be drawn somewhat widely, skirting the sacred center on all sides, the whole roughly marked off by pillars or cairs. In cities and where money was available, the sacred place might be bounded by walls and filled with ornate structures, then constituting what we would call a temple." (Hoyland 156-157). Such sanctuaries are documented by Diodorus, Antoninus Placentinus and others.

Yes all man-made religions have physical focal points. The pre-quranic pagans faced the sun. Likewise, pagan Trinitarians faced the sun. The Jews faced the Temple in Jerusalem.

So perhaps the new focal point which God assigned, this particular Majidal Haram, was the one in Mecca.

As I said, there was no town named Mecca and "al-masjid al-haram" is the "truth from our Lord". The truth is non-physical and is not restricted to a certain place. This is why, unlike a physical place, we can face it WHEREVER we are. It is an indisputable fact that one CANNOT face a physical place WHEREVER he or she is.

Afterall, the shrine there was dedicated to Allah.

There is no evidence that the shrine in Mecca was "dedicated to Allah". In fact, all the evidence points to the shrine in Mecca being dedicated to the Nabataean pagan idol Dhu Al-Shaara, which according to the best evidence available was the sun. The focal point of the shrine of Kaaba is the black stone, which is located in the southeast corner precisely facing the winter sunrise. From archeological evidence, we know that the Nabataean represented their idols with stone cubes exactly like the one in present day Mecca. They celebrated the birth of Dhu Al-Shaara on the winter solstice (the shortest day of the year when the sun is reborn). Those celebrations culminated with the pagans spinning SEVEN times around the inner sanctuary of the Temple.

This is verified by the Quran when it says to the Quraysh "serve the Lord of this shrine." Once again, the Shrine wasn't built by Abraham on any special person, but it was a Shrine to God(Allah) and God had made this shrine a Shrine for the people (597).

The word "bayt" simply means "house" and it is not the same thing as "masjid". We are told that the purpose of the "house" is for people to gather safely. I don't think that you can gather many people safely inside the room-sized black stone cube in Mecca. In fact, as in pagan times, the Kaaba is the one place that pilgrims NEVER enter.

Once this Shrine was set, the pilgrimage was owed to it as the Quran records. (397) This verse, however, is referring to the Shrine built by Abraham which still existed in Becca. The Quran says that God is owed the pilgrimage to this shrine whoever can make a path to it. I think what this implies is whoever can actually find it. Otherwise, we should make the pilgrimage to the Shrine set for us by God. This as mentioned earlier in verse 597 is the Kaba.

The common noun "kaaba"/heel simple means "base" (like the heel is the base of the foot and the shoe). So 597 is simply telling us that "al-bayt al-7aram" is the base. This is a confirmation of 2125 where we are told that its purpose is to be a kind of base where people can gather safely. As for "7ajj", it means "debate". Naturally, when people gather they meet one another and debate and exchange ideas.

So once this Shrine is set and the pilgrimage is set, Muhammad and his followers would have tried making a pilgrimage there. The pagan Meccans didn't want these Monothiests in making a pilgrimage to their town so at some point they prevented them from doing it. This is a part of the traditional story and is also related in the Quran "And why should God not punish them when they are turning others away from the restricted Temple, and they were never its protectors! Its protectors are the righteous; but most of them do not know. " 834

The word "masjid" doesn't mean "temple" and is never used in the great reading to mean a physical place but it means an insitution of authority such as government. Our institutions of authority should be built on the truth from our Lord. In 834, we are told that the rejecters were turning away people from the truth from our Lord. We see this everyday when self-appointed religious and political authorities who claim to be the custodians of the truth, actually turn people away from the truth.

Even in modern times, the true meaning of the word "masjid" as an institution of authority survives. Hence, we hear about "al-masjid" issuing a fatwa. Do the phsyical building and walls and ceilings issue a "fatwa" or does the institution of authority issue a "fatwa"?

So what happens now? Well the rest of the Surah deals with fighting these unbelievers. It gives the believers advice and uplifting words for the battle. So eventually Muhammad and the believers would have gone and taken Mecca and ever since the followers performed the pilgrimage there.

The fight is one of liberation from people such as political and religious elite who claimed authority over people by assuming the roles of custodians over the truth from our lord.

What did this pilgrimage consist of? I don't know.

Because "7ajj" doesn't me pilgrimage.

Does the Quran describe what the pilgrimage should consist of? It describes the call to the pilgrimage Abraham made which consisted of people coming togethor to rejoice the blessings of God and performing "the rites." What were these rites? I don't know. Animal sacrifice maybe.

Would Muhammad have to perform the Pilgrimage the same way Abraham did? Not necessarily. God says for every nation he has made certain rites (2267). The rites Muhammad performed might have just been what he knew of the pilgrimage performed by the Arabs which from what I understand was a sort of a festival, like Abrahams, anyways.

The pre-quranic Arab pagans performed pilgrimages for their main idols, which were Dhu Al-Shaara, Allat, Al-Uzza, and Manwat. The pagan pilgrimage was conducted around the winter solstice in celebration of the birth of Dhu Al-Shaara. Those celebrations culminated with the pagans spinning seven times around the inner sanctuary of the temple.

While it is documented in the great reading (2227) that it is Abraham who originally invited people to "7ajj", there is no evidence that any of the previous Abrahamic religions performed such pilgrimages or rituals at any point of time. In fact, quite to the contrary, the evidence shows that previous Abrahamic religions frowned on those pilgrimages and considered their rituals purely pagan. So this cannot be what Abraham invited people to.

On the other hand, it is an old Semitic custom that is even referred to in the older parts of the Pentateuch, to have a gathering three times a year (See Encyclopedia of Islam II ). This matches well with the four restricted full-moons, with the first scorching full-moon being that for fasting while the next three signaling the gathering of "7ajj" three times a year.

According to Classical Arabic dictionaries, "7ajj" means "debate". We are told in 2227 that Ibrahim invited all people "WITH/BI al-7ajj" to witness benefits. You can only invite ALL people with something beneficial and non-discriminatory. We are told in 2827 that Moses was hired to work for 8 "7ijaj". What was he hired to do? Clearly, he was hired to work and tend for sheep (2823-24) and NOT for any pagan religious pilgrimage. What does working and tending sheep has to do with "7ajj"? Naturally, people work and produce so that they can BARGAIN with their products. Bargaining is a kind of debate and it results in witnessing benefits by the seller and the buyer.

Hence, "7ajj" is more likely to be a gathering like the annual fair. People work all year and then come from all over to trade their products, get benefits, meet other people, and be reminded of The God's favors. Mid summer - fall is the natural time for such markets because produce and livestock are plentiful. The large gathering of "7ajj" simply provides a good opportunity to remind as many people as possible of The God. It is also an opportunity for the advantaged to donate and provide for the disadvantaged. This view is attested to and is consistent with what is known about pre-quranic annual markets such as the market of 3ukaz (See Encyclopedia of Islam II ).

What can we see as being added onto this pilgrimage by later generations?
-Associating it with Abraham
-The footprint of Abraham
-Bowing down to the Kaba

The meaning of "7ajj" as "pilgrimage" itself was added by later generations so that they can continue their pagans practices under the guise of following the great reading.

About the Black meteor, I think this might have been left there by Muhammad because in a way, that meteor is sign of the wonders of God. It is a rock from outerspace, so in that way it is another sign for the people, but not in anyway to be venerated as it is now. But this can not be backed up by the Quran so I don't know.

The so-called Black Stone is NOT a meteor. It is a kind of stone called Tektite. Tektites are earthly stones that result from the melting and solidification of the earths' stones after high velocity impacts from meteors. But they are not meteors.

Moreover, it is not actually "a rock" but it is a bunch of rocks (three large pieces and some smaller fragments) that are tied up together with a silver strap.

Tektites have been idolized for a long time before the revelation of the great reading. For example, the Semites venerated black stone Tektites that represented a triple-aspected female goddess.

Seeing things like this, the Islamic history or the Kaba and Mecca make a lot more sense.

The archeology shows that the history and the practices that continue to this day are in fact "pagan" and not "Islamic".

In this situation, we don't have to assume that all of Muhammads family, companions and every Muslim who knew him betrayed him and God.

I have had that stance for the past two years, but now when I think more about it, I think I have been a bit extreme on the matter. As I mentioned earlier, assuming and thinking that every Muslim including Muhammads best friends, disciples, and family betrayed him is very very hard to imagine. That is why I am trying to find out what really happened during Muhammads time and soon after his death and that is what I have been trying to discuss for much of this thread.

Haven't we learned anything from what Jesus' family, companions and most people who knew him did after he died? Why should Ahmed be given a better treatment by people than Jesus?

Much of the Sunnah we have today has existed since the very early days of Islam. Even non-muslims record this. As I stated earlier, there are non-muslim accounts from about 28 years after Muhammad which describe much of the sunnah being practiced today.

NO ONE knows exactly when the prophet was born or died. How did you calculate the "28 years" figure?

Also, what "non-muslim" physical archeological evidence are you referring to?

Please remember that "hearsay" is not evidence. Perhaps you are talking about non-muslim reports about early sects that they perceived as "monotheistic". Interestingly, those early sects were called other things besides Muslim.

According to Sunnis, the only early archeological evidence of a Hadith or Sunna is the Sahifa of Hammam which they say dates to the late first century AH so this is much longer than 28 years later. However, the dating is tenuous and no independent verification through, for example, carbon dating has been conducted. You then don't get anything for close to two hundred years. In fact, there are many versions of Malik's Muwataa (the earliest Hadith collection) and NONE of them was written by Malik. So, we don't really know exactly who wrote the Muwataa or when.

That is why I think Mecca and the Kaba did have a significance in the life of Muhammad. There are parts of the sunnah, such as bowing to the Kaba and much of the Hajj ritual which I have severe doubts about, but besides that there is not much which I contend with. Five prayers are questionable as well, but are not completly out of the question. I can see how a person could get 5 prayers out of the Quran. As for the method of prayer, this is something I have doubts about as well. Standing up, reciting the Quran seem fine, but bowing down to the Kaba, saying Amen, looking left&right at the end don't have any basis in the Quran. A prophet bowing down to a stone structure seems highly unlikley.

The problems that you are describing are concerned with what Sunnis consider the most important "pillars". They are not some minor systemic problems. They are fundamental problems that expose the systematic deep and widespread corruption in Sunnah and other hearsay sources.

So to sum it all up, I think parts of the Sunnah are genuine. Throwing it all away would be implying that all Muslims betrayed Muhammad following his death.

The Sunnah can only give us a glimpse of the kind of religious programming that people listened to during the period of decay of the Abbasid Empire. This decay continues to this date. It doesn't tell us anything about the actual practices of the prophet or his followers at the time of the revelation of the great reading.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

[unknownuser]

Peace Ayman, Riz, all,

Brother Ayman, thank you for your detailed and enlightening exposition of the facts, may The God bless you for your efforts.

I agree with the understanding of masjid alharam being a non physical focal point. Correct me if I am wrong but there was no physical building by the name of masjid alharam in Makkah at the time of revelation of the "focal point" ayaat. That building was constructed much later and given the name "masjid alharam" much later. Hence the focal point could not have been that physical building as it was non existent at that time.

Brother Riz,

I am glad to see that you are making an effort to base your analysis on concrete true facts (based on Qur'aan and archeological evidence). yay God willing we all will be able to find the truth with this approach. D

Incognito, that verse is talking about the former people such as the Jews. To say, by using that verse, that Muhammads followers did the same is speculation. It is possible and I am not ruling it out, but I want to keep all possibilities open.

I agree that ayat is talking about Jews, but Qur'aan is a universal message for all times and its message and principles are applicable to all nations at all times.

-Abraham was in Becca, not Mecca.
-Mecca was never Becca.

Agreed. yes

-Muhammad is not related to Abraham. Is there any solid Quranic evidence I am missing about this last point?

It does not matter for our guidance if Muhammad is related to Abraham or not; however Arabs are descendants of Abraham, and Muhammad was originally from that nation so IMO he must have been from Abraham's progeny.

The following ayaat could be an evidence of that

2151 As We have sent a messenger to you from amongst yourselves to recite Our revelations to you, and purify you, and teach you the Scripture and the wisdom, and teach you what you did not know.
3165 God has bestowed favour upon the believers by sending them a messenger from amongst themselves reciting His revelations and bettering them and teaching them the Scripture and the wisdom, and they were before in manifest darkness.
623 He is the One who sent to the Gentiles a messenger from among themselves, to recite to them His revelations, and to purify them, and teach them the Scripture and the wisdom. And before this, they were clearly astray.

Much of the Sunnah we have today has existed since the very early days of Islam.

The word "sunnata" has been used only pertaining to The God in the Qur'aan, and no one else (1778, 3339, 3363, 3544-45, 4085, 4824), so "sunnah of The God" is the only "sunnah". The word used in the Qur'aan for example of the messenger is "uswatun", and all the true examples of the messengers necessary for our guidance are recorded in the Qur'aan.

FEW MORE POINTS

1. According to 1088, qibla is only related to the subject of salat and has no bearing on the location of kaaba or the hajj/debate/conference/symposium.

1088 And We inspired to Moses and his brother "Let your people leave their homes in Egypt, and let these homes be your focal point and uphold the contact-method. And give good news to the believers."

2. The traditional muslims acknowledge that masjid alharam and bayt alharam are not one and the same. They place masjid alharam as the area surrounding the ?kaaba?, while making the bayt alharam as the "kaaba" (the black cube idol) itself.

Herein lies the dilemma? hmm

929 O you who believe, those who have set up partners are impure, so let them not approach almasjid alharam after this calendar year of theirs; and if you fear poverty, then God will enrich you from His blessings if He wills. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

Almasjid alharam has been made off-limits to the idolaters and to those who have set-up partners. While the ?restricted sanctuary? (bayt al-haram) is open to all mankind and has no such restriction (Qur'aan 2226)

2226 And call out to mankind with the Hajj, they will come to you walking and on every transport, they will come from every deep enclosure.

Thus, by choice of location, they have inadvertently cut-off access to the bayt alharam by the people (as per the command in 2226) and have in essence nullified the entire purpose of the hajj being a gathering for all mankind!

This clearly proves that the actual masjid alharam cannot be the so called "Masjid Al-Haram" surrounding the black cube idol.

3. To quote you from another thread

To me, Islam is the only Universal religion out there because its creed is so simple and can be applied whether you are on earth, on the moon, or elsewhere.

Agreed. Now if masjid alharam is a physical focal point, which direction will you face if you are located in a spot on Earth directly opposite to the masjid alharam ? Also which direction will you face if you are in space or on Moon or some other planetary system ? hmm

2115 And to God belongs the east and the west, so wherever you turn, there is God's presence. God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable.
2142 The foolish from amongst the people will Say "What has turned them away from the focal point that they were on?" Say "To God is the east and the west, He guides whomsoever He wishes to a straight path."
2177 Piety is not to turn your faces towards the east and the west, but piety is one who..........

Peace and best regards, >-

Tanveer

[ayman]

Peace Tanveer, all,

Thank you for your comments.

I agree with the understanding of masjid alharam being a non physical focal point. Correct me if I am wrong but there was no physical building by the name of masjid alharam in Makkah at the time of revelation of the "focal point" ayaat.

I agree and let me add that there wasn't even a town called Makkah at the time of the revelation of the great reading.

That building was constructed much later and given the name "masjid alharam" much later. Hence the focal point could not have been that physical building as it was non existent at that time.

There was a small insignificant town in that location with a small pagan shrine. The town was renamed to Makkah after the revelation of the great reading and the shrine was renamed to Kaaba.

To clarify, this is the same scenario that happened with Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa. We know and Sunnis acknowledge the fact that the building named Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa was built during the Ummayad dynasty long after the revelation of the great reading. Hence, it cannot be "al-masjid al-aqsa" talked about in Chapter 17. This is indisputable and as I said even Sunnis are forced to admit this fact when it is presented. So we know that post-quranic Arabs very quickly introduced those types of corruptions that are based on renaming their shrines after common concepts in the great reading.

1. According to 1088, qibla is only related to the subject of salat and has no bearing on the location of kaaba or the hajj/debate/conference/symposium.

1088 And We inspired to Moses and his brother "Let your people leave their homes in Egypt, and let these homes be your focal point and uphold the contact-method. And give good news to the believers."

Actually, there is no indication in 1087 that "qibla" is only related to "salat". Hence, the passage doesn't stop at "salat" but continues "and give good news to the believers". Since, unlike "masjid", houses/"biyut" are physical, this is a physical target/focal point. If you continue to read in 1088-90, you see that the exodus from Egypt comes shortly after. So having all the followers of Moses gather at communal homes that Moses and his brother setup makes sense because the command for the exodus was coming soon and they didn't want to leave anyone behind. So "qibla" is not just related to "salat". Hence, we don't hear anything about "salat" in 2142-150.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

[Riz]

Hey Guys,

I wouldn't say there is no proof that Mecca didn't exist. Look at this linkhttp//religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/construction.htm
If the Arabs really wanted to confuse people, they would have named the city Becca instead of Mecca or atleast renamed it. Either way, Abraham was never in Mecca and I won't argue that.

Going back to Abraham. If the bayt of Allah is not a physical place, but rather a system of God, then why did Abraham build the first bayt of Allah at Becca? Wouldn't this mental or spiritual place have been established when he first discovered God?

396 says "The first bayt established for the people is the one in Bakk?a, "
So your saying the first house made for people was in Bakka? Clearly the first house was not in Bakka. There were many other people living in houses before Abraham. So then do you say the bayt is a spiritual way of life in which we submit only to God? This way of life was nothing Abraham established, its been there since Adam. So what is the bayt?

You speak of Jesus' family and disciples as though they betrayed him. They didn't, it was Paul who never even knew Jesus that invented the tales which then grew out of control.

Regarding the non-muslim evidence. I was speaking of the writings of Jacob of Edessa, Sebeos, John bar Penkaye, Anastasious of Sinai, Germanus, Thomas the Presbyter, and John Moschos. All of whom wrote during the first centure AH. The earliest being 660, 28 years after Muhammad was supposed to have died.

The Sunnah as practiced today has existed way before the coming of the Abbasid empire. As I stated above, much of the core Sunnah practices have been witnessed even by non-muslims starting in 660.

Its true that we don't know when exactly Muhammad lived. But would you agree that it was because of his efforts that the Quran spread? Would you agree that somehow, through someone or some people God preserved the Quran? If so then lets look at what the picture is starting to look like.

-Muhammad was the messenger of God through whom the Quran was revealed.
-He wrote down the Quran.
-There were enough Muslims in Muhammads time that they were able to fight battles. Battles involve a lot of people on both sides.
-Arabia went from being a pagan region, to a Monothiestic region.
-Eventually pagan ideas and rituals came into the religion. Nevertheless, people never went back to full blown polythiesm.

Its very hard to imagine that everyone Muhammad knew betrayed him and included pagan rituals in the religion as traditional history would lead us to believe. Traditional history records that some of the closest disciples became the leaders of Islam. It is recorded by Muslims as well as non-Muslim sources that it was under these early leaders under whom Islam expanded. It is also recorded by both that there were civil wars that took place under some of these disciples.

My conclusion I draw from this. Muhammad lived before these people and these people were NOT his disciples and probably never even knew him. They shed the blood of many Muslims which is prohibitted in the Quran. These people did not have the traits of rightous people. They were not people whose hearts were united as the Quran records. Mecca did have the Kaba and pilgrimages being made to it by the Muslims under these leaders(last 3 anyways) and this is recorded by both mus/non-mus sources. So how did these people come to know the Quran? How was the Quran perserved even through all the corruption which happened under them? The only scenerio which makes sense to me in this case would be that Muhammad lived 2, 3 or perhaps more generations before these people. Their community, their parents already had the Quran well preserved and practiced it well. Slowly, like with all other major religions, pagan influences crept in. Muhammad became more of a legend and many mythical stories were attached to him such as his breast being torn open and all impurities being removed when he was a child. His geneology linked with one of the great peoples of the Qurans, and Bible Abraham. Muhammads story was now located in Arabia, namely Mecca. Nevertheless, the legend of Muhammad and his Quran had become major parts of the region because when the Arabs started to conquer other lands, they spread this corrupted faith of theirs.

Islam could not have been corrupted after these people. Islam was practiced the same way in the outer regions the same way it was practiced in the inner Arab regions. Meaning it grew from inside out, not the other way around.

This is the most sensible situation to me. As Lote-tree mentioned earlier, Islam did not come into being in a vacuum. It was not created overnight. What I am trying to discuss here is the birth and expansion of Islam. What I have stated are my theories based on the Quran, historical documents both Muslim and non-Muslim, and reality as it is today. Feel free to point out flaws in my logic.

[unknownuser]

Muhammad became more of a legend and many mythical stories were attached to him such as his breast being torn open and all impurities being removed when he was a child. His geneology linked with one of the great peoples of the Qurans, and Bible Abraham. Muhammads story was now located in Arabia, namely Mecca. Nevertheless, the legend of Muhammad and his Quran had become major parts of the region because when the Arabs started to conquer other lands, they spread this corrupted faith of theirs.

This is more plausible Riz, Muhammad must have "Islamised" many of the Pagan rituals such as going round that Kaba seven times and sacrificing animals, as these rituals were dear to the Arabs at that time. But clearly all Sunnah that relates to vernerating Muhammad must be clear invention because it is unlikely that Muhammad would pray to himself! -) and as the stories go, further Pagan rituals enevitably crept in as Islam progressed.

Regards,

[Riz]

Lote, what do you think about Muhammad having lived before the time he is recorded to have lived and the 4 "rightly guided" caliphs actually living much later?

[unknownuser]

Lote, what do you think about Muhammad having lived before the time he is recorded to have lived and the 4 "rightly guided" caliphs actually living much later?

Is this hinted by any non-muslim sources Riz?

Regards,

[Riz]

It is what I conclude from the evidence presented. I talk about it in my 2nd post above this one.

From non-muslim sources it is quite clear that the Islamic cult did exist during the time of these people. I argue that these people could not have been Muhammads discipes because all they seemed to care about was power and they did not fight the Islamic heresy.

[unknownuser]

From non-muslim sources it is quite clear that the Islamic cult did exist during the time of these people. I argue that these people could not have been Muhammads discipes because all they seemed to care about was power and they did not fight the Islamic heresy.

I think we should start giving more credibility to these non-muslim sources, sources that back up traditional accounts. I think this is a better approach since many scholars have concluded that muslim sources by itself is not very reliable.

I need to look at this again Riz, you have raised very interesting points -)

Regards,

[ichephren]

About this enrire matter, I have several comments

1. We cannot use the Bible as evidence if we refuse to do the same with the Quran
2. Concerning Layth's article on Hajj, does 928 not suppose that the belivers had control of access to the "sacred masjid"? If this masjid was the temple mount as Layth advises, then wouldn't Muhammad have had control of it, such as to restrict others from going near it? Please correct me if this is a wrong interpretation on my part.
3. It is my understanding that the bayt is physical considering that rites are supposed to be performed there. It would not make sense were it a mental bayt.
4. Maybe Muhammad did not destroy the ka'ba b/c he knew that it would not fall to idol worshipping again and is therefore neturalised as a house of polytheism.
5. Hadith concerning Muhammad's worship of the black stone, etc. can be rejected as make believe by later liars.
6. There is no history of the ka'ba before the 4th century...Why is there no mention of this structure anywhere in the Bible or any semetic work before Islam? At least someone would have mentioned it even if he/she did not think of it as God's house.
7. Had Muhammad gone to Jersualem to pilgrimage, would he not have preached there as well? If he had, we would have documentation of his visit, and the visit of earlier muslims as well.
8. Does the Quran not say that it was revealed in Arabic for those who received it? Wouldn't this point to Muhammad living in Mecca/Medina?
9. It doesn't make sense to me that Muhammad would want to Islamize polytheism as Lotetree has theorized. If he is following the way of previous prophets, thsi would not make sense. No prophet has conceded to polytheism and adapted it to Islam! Whart makes most sense is that after Muhammad's death, muslims moved the qibla from Jerusalem(or the real qibla) to mecca as a result of growing conflicts betweeb muslims and jews. It is part of hadith that muslims were commanded not to do certain things b/c it resembled the mannerisms of other religions. This would follow the idea that muslims later took polytheistic elements into the religion.
10. Riz, the nonmuslims writings that you point to were written in the late 7th century and ealr 8th century, which is more than enough time for muslims to change a lot of their deen in favor of a more polytheistc bent.
11. We should also keep in mind that no prophet has made pilgrimage to the ka'ba as far as I know, though the pilgrimage was also enjoined on them.
12. Some poeple keep citing a verse that mentions that the ruins of Lot's city can be seen in the morning and at night by those who received the message. However, I do not think that this means that they lived near the Red Sea. If Mu's people were traders, etc. then they would have gone up and down the Red Sea all the time, when they could in fact see Lot's ruins when it is morning and at night.
    -My take on the situation thus far is that Muhammad was actually born and raised in Mecca. He preached in Mecca and Medina and mosty of traditional history is true. However, I think that the pilgrimage was to another place entirely different that had been known to Jews and others who had received the Message. I think that after his death, his lesser followers added many polytheistic elements to the deen. I do not think that M's family and disciples were in the wrong, but there is little that a few poeople could do against a large number of ignorant people( same went for Isa's disciples versus the large number of early ignorant christians). I think that a lot was made up abotu Muhammad and his family/disciples later to add legitimacy to their later concoctions. Much later on some scholars came along to legitimize the concoctions, and there you have sunnism. That is my reasoning thus far, but I am a bit rushed(excuse the typos) and I have much to read on early Islam. This is a great thread!

[unknownuser]

9. It doesn't make sense to me that Muhammad would want to Islamize polytheism as Lotetree has theorized. If he is following the way of previous prophets, thsi would not make sense. No prophet has conceded to polytheism and adapted it to Islam! Whart makes most sense is that after Muhammad's death, muslims moved the qibla from Jerusalem(or the real qibla) to mecca as a result of growing conflicts betweeb muslims and jews. It is part of hadith that muslims were commanded not to do certain things b/c it resembled the mannerisms of other religions. This would follow the idea that muslims later took polytheistic elements into the religion.

But if you look at history you will find that Judaic Temples built by King David and later kings were almost a replica of the temple of Baal and other deities worshipped by the Pagans in Biblical times. They even had a sacrificial altar just like the Pagans! So too are many of the Pagan rituals of animal sacrifices and mode of worship incorporated into the "Monotheism" preached by Biblical prophets. So it is not hard to imagine that Muhammad would have "Islamised" some of the Pagan rituals of his times like going around the Kaba seven times etc. since it does not undermine monotheism in anyway. The adoption of the crescent moon into Islam is also a Pagan symbol that has been Islamised.

If you look back in history you will also realise that Abraham, Jacob and Moses were not monotheist in the terms we understand it. They took the existence of other deities for granted. It just that they promised to worship only Yahweh and not any other Gods. There is not a single monotheistic element in the Old Testament.

As for the Qibla, it is plausible that Muhammad did indeed faced towards Jerusalem at the start of his mission as the Jews did when he was exiled to Medina. Perhaps he believed that by doing so the Jews would accept him as their Prophet since he was preaching the same message as the Patriach Abraham. There are many verses in the Quran which extols the Jews as the people of the book in the early Medinan Verses. But things go sour perhaps due to Jews refusal to accept Muhammad as a Prophet. So as an act of creative genius (as many scholars have noted) Muhammad changed the direction of the Qibla to Mecca to separate himself from the religion of Judaism and proclaim as independent of both Judaism and Christianity.

Regards,

[ichephren]

If you look back in history you will also realise that Abraham, Jacob and Moses were not monotheist in the terms we understand it. They took the existence of other deities for granted. It just that they promised to worship only Yahweh and not any other Gods. There is not a single monotheistic element in the Old Testament.

• That may be true, however, the Quran clearly states that they were all purely monotheistic. Furthermore, I doubt that the OT is an accurate depiction of the previous prophets' religious sentiments considering that we do not even know for sure who wrote the books. It may have the historical facts right(or for the most part), but religious data is usually confused. I have heard others say this and I always ask why anyone would believe that Abraham just chose one idol above other idols. That is nothing special. There have always been polytheists who choose to follow only one idol, so what made Abraham different if that was the case?

But if you look at history you will find that Judaic Temples built by King David and later kings were almost a replica of the temple of Baal and other deities worshipped by the Pagans in Biblical times. They even had a sacrificial altar just like the Pagans! So too are many of the Pagan rituals of animal sacrifices and mode of worship incorporated into the "Monotheism" preached by Biblical prophets. So it is not hard to imagine that Muhammad would have "Islamised" some of the Pagan rituals of his times like going around the Kaba seven times etc. since it does not undermine monotheism in anyway. The adoption of the crescent moon into Islam is also a Pagan symbol that has been Islamised.

• I do think that Islamising the Ka'ba is disruptive to monotheism. If God never authorizes the kissing of a black stone, then doing it for the sake of God would still be haram. If He never authorizes you to walk around the ka'ba 7 times, then doing so is also haram. So Islamising something does not make it okay. Also the incorporation of the cresent moon into Islam was most likely done after Muhammad, which does not count as him introducing pagan traditions into Islam. We do not say that the celebration of Christmas by Christians is a pagan element that can be attributed to a relenting Isa, so why do we say the same for Muhammad?
  -Could you describe in what ways the temple of Baal resembled the temples built by King David or Solomon? Having a sacrificial altar does not make a temple pagan since muslims do perform a sacrificial rite during hajj.

[Riz]

Hey people,

Ichepren you bring up interesting points. If the masjidal haram is infact a physical place, then I don't think the temple mount is it. If Muhammad was from that region then the Quran would have been in Aramaic. And if Muhammad had so much control of the area that he could restrict non-believers from entering it, then Muhammad would have rebuilt the temple mount to a certain degree, but as we know the temple mount has been ruins ever since it was destroyed by Rome. For more info on the temple mounts history refer to http//askelm.com/temple/t000601.htm

Had Muhammad gone to Jersualem to pilgrimage, would he not have preached there as well? If he had, we would have documentation of his visit, and the visit of earlier muslims as well.

This is a good observation. Jerusalem was under the control of the Byzantines before it was conquered under the Arab leader Umar. Prior to this point there was no mention of Muhammad or Islam here. It was Christians and Jews.

Your 8th point was that the Quran was revealed in Arabic and therefore Muhammad was in Mecca and Yathrib. Muhammad was in Yathrib and this is recorded even in the Quran(3313). He wasn't necessarily in Mecca. He could have been from anywhere else. I argue that if he conquered Mecca at any point, he either destroyed all the idols there including the Kaba, or didn't destroy any of them. There would be no reason to leave the Kaba standing when it was the biggest idol of them all.

In your 10th point you say that the writings are late enough for there to have been a corruption within Islam. Let me restate, the earliest document from a non-Muslim source verifying that the Kaba was indeed associated with Abraham and the Arabs were making pilgrimages there comes 28 years after Muhammads supposed death. At this time Muhammads disciples, parts of his family, and many Muslims who would have known Muhammad would still have been alive. This implies that the pilgrimage existed even during the lives of these so called disciples who took over and they had no problem with it nor did they try to fight it. Not only did they not try to stop this spread of corruption, but they were also divided amongst each other and spilled the blood of many other Muslims. These are not the qualities of rightous disciples and believers who the Quran says God was happy with and their hearts were united. What he have here are different people. These were not the disciples of Muhammad and I doubt they ever knew Muhammad much like Paul never knew Jesus.

Some poeple keep citing a verse that mentions that the ruins of Lot's city can be seen in the morning and at night by those who received the message. However, I do not think that this means that they lived near the Red Sea. If Mu's people were traders, etc. then they would have gone up and down the Red Sea all the time, when they could in fact see Lot's ruins when it is morning and at night.

I agree with this. This is a possibility.

Regarding the aftermath of Muhammads death. I don't think a comparison between the situation of Jesus and Muhammad is fair or equal. Jesus preached to a small group of people and was only there for a short period of time. His message did not reach the masses under his supervision. It spread under Paul who never knew Jesus and he never preached the message of Jesus. Muhammad on the other hand was a very public figure. His message did reach the masses, so much infact that he and his followers had to fight battles. The message he spread was under his supervision and the Quran records that God was happy with the believers meaning they were on the right path. How many believers were there during Muhammads time? Well as I stated there were enough that they fought battles. Surah 110 can shed some more light on the matter

"When God?s victory and conquest comes.
And you see mankind entering into God?s system in flocks.
You shall glorify your Lord?s grace, and seek His forgiveness. /He is the Redeemer."

As it records, there were a lot of people. So if there was a corruption after Muhammad, the believers would have outnumbered the small growing corruption and 28 years would not have been sufficient time for such a big change to have happened. Especially not if Muhammads own disciples were leaders of the Muslims and powerful enough to conquer other lands. And as I said earlier, the Sunnah as practiced today was there when these early Leaders conquered other lands. The spread these practices with them because we don't find the Sunnah spreading randomly across the region or growing from outside in. It grew from the inside out.
As I mentioned above, I don't believe these conquerers were Muhammads actual disciples for a number of reasons. That is why after closely examining the situation, I think Muhammad lived earlier that what has been recorded in tradition. His disciples, family members, as well as the early Muslims were no longer around the time the Islamic cult started to expand. The conquerers who expanded Islam must have been a much later generation of Muslims. Maybe 3rd, 4th or later generation.

Was masjidal-haram, qibla, bayt of Allah physical places? I'm sure. Maybe, maybe not. Whatever they were I would like to find out. Ayman and Tanveer have both stated some good points, but they aren't completly convincing because there are still problems with those interpretations. Personally when I read the Quran and read verses speaking of masj-haram, qibla, bayt of Allah, the verses don't make much sense if the places were physics, but there are other verses which don't make sense to me if the places were not physical.

Also I would like to make an analogy of something here. People suggested that some of these words should be looked at as the literal meanings, like masjidal haram meaning sacred submissions and the kaba meaning ankles. While that way of looking at is fine, one must remember that some of these words and phrases might have had more of meaning than just the literal one. In an earlier post I quoted from the book "Arabia and the Arabs from the bronze age to the coming of Islam" which had a detailed description of what majidal harams were. The fact that there were many masjidal harams cannot be overlooked. Here is my analogy, not a great one, but I think it will demonstrate my point.
"Riz used to often pass by Red Robins." As some of you may know, Red Robins is a restaurant. There is a Red Robins where I live and I do often pass by it. Now the Red Robins chain might go out of buisiness in a few years and no longer be remembered except by my 'followers.' So then someone living much later might argue that the tale of Red Robins existing is fabricated. Riz didn't used to pass by some place called Red Robins, rather he used to pass by birds called Red Robins. Both are valid, but the latter theory is wrong. It disregards history and assumes all tradition is fabricated. Do you see my point? It is true that the tradition of Riz passing by a place called Red Robins was fabricated, but its not necessarily fabricated.

[unknownuser]

If you look back in history you will also realise that Abraham, Jacob and Moses were not monotheist in the terms we understand it. They took the existence of other deities for granted. It just that they promised to worship only Yahweh and not any other Gods. There is not a single monotheistic element in the Old Testament.

• That may be true, however, the Quran clearly states that they were all purely monotheistic.

But it is easy for Quran to claim that they were monotheist isn't it, because Quran needs to root itself in the supposed "monotheism" of Abraham to give its legitamacy and a sense of history and continuity?

But Abraham's God Elohim/Yahweh are names of Pagan Gods that have been recorded in non-biblical sources. Elohim is clearly the Pagan God El, the "El of the Mountains". Even today place names such as "Isra-El" and "Beth-El" echoes this pagan origins. And Yahweh is clearly seems to be a Tribal Midinite Pagan God, since he is known as "Yahweh Saboeth", the God of the Armies. But Abraham, Jacob and Moses choose to worship only Yahweh and make Yahweh their "Elohim", the only God that mattered.

Furthermore, I doubt that the OT is an accurate depiction of the previous prophets' religious sentiments considering that we do not even know for sure who wrote the books.

If you doubt the authenticiy of the Old Testament records (and indeed you should because they were written by human beings) then you should also doubt the authencity of Islamic records including the Quran because Quran too came through a human being. And if you believe that all hadiths and sunnah are fabricated then you must also consider the possibility that Quran too may have undergone additions, deletions and revisions.

I have heard others say this and I always ask why anyone would believe that Abraham just chose one idol above other idols. That is nothing special. There have always been polytheists who choose to follow only one idol, so what made Abraham different if that was the case?

In ancient times God's were teritorial, for example "El of the Mountain". When people went abroad they would normally worship the local God as this God would have jusrisdiction over that area. Even today in primitive society this is the case. But Abraham and Jacob's God promised that he would look after them even when they went abroad. So when Abraham left Ur, the ancient Sumerian city, he took his God with him. He trusted in his God. And as he travelled, he indeed found that his trust in this God worked for him so he decided to make Yahweh the only God that mattered. But the Isralite would in time transform this Pagan God into a figure of Transcendence.

But if you look at history you will find that Judaic Temples built by King David and later kings were almost a replica of the temple of Baal and other deities worshipped by the Pagans in Biblical times. They even had a sacrificial altar just like the Pagans! So too are many of the Pagan rituals of animal sacrifices and mode of worship incorporated into the "Monotheism" preached by Biblical prophets. So it is not hard to imagine that Muhammad would have "Islamised" some of the Pagan rituals of his times like going around the Kaba seven times etc. since it does not undermine monotheism in anyway. The adoption of the crescent moon into Islam is also a Pagan symbol that has been Islamised.

• I do think that Islamising the Ka'ba is disruptive to monotheism. If God never authorizes the kissing of a black stone, then doing it for the sake of God would still be haram. If He never authorizes you to walk around the ka'ba 7 times, then doing so is also haram. So Islamising something does not make it okay.

Also the incorporation of the cresent moon into Islam was most likely done after Muhammad, which does not count as him introducing pagan traditions into Islam. We do not say that the celebration of Christmas by Christians is a pagan element that can be attributed to a relenting Isa, so why do we say the same for Muhammad?

But these rituals must have existed before Islam as Riz claims? And this claim is supported by non-Muslim sources so Muhammad must have performed these rites?

-Could you describe in what ways the temple of Baal resembled the temples built by King David or Solomon? Having a sacrificial altar does not make a temple pagan since muslims do perform a sacrificial rite during hajj.

The prototype for the Temple of Solomon was the Canaanite temple of Baal-Hadad in the Lower City of Hazor (c.1500-1200 BC). "The Hazor temple was build of three elements - a porch, a main hall and a Holy of Holies - situated one behind the other, on a north-south axis. The Holy of Holies lay to the north; it was a large room, measuring about thirteen by nine meters, with a deep niche in its northern wall. In the porch, or vestibule, were found two basalt pillar bases just in front of the entrance to the main hall.

• Magnus Magnusson, BC - The Archaeology of the Bible Lands

Is animal Sacrifice not a Pagan Tradition? This tradition continues even today in Islam where all other religions have abandoned this Pagan rite.

Does it have Quranic Support for Animal Sacrifice?

Regards,

[ichephren]

But it is easy for Quran to claim that they were monotheist isn't it, because Quran needs to root itself in the supposed "monotheism" of Abraham to give its legitamacy and a sense of history and continuity?

-So, to you the Quran concocts stories to fit its aim? Obviously I have missed something...I thought that by engaging with muslims on a muslim board one can assume the superceding authority of the quran.

But Abraham's God Elohim/Yahweh are names of Pagan Gods that have been recorded in non-biblical sources. Elohim is clearly the Pagan God El, the "El of the Mountains". Even today place names such as "Isra-El" and "Beth-El" echoes this pagan origins. And Yahweh is clearly seems to be a Tribal Midinite Pagan God, since he is known as "Yahweh Saboeth", the God of the Armies. But Abraham, Jacob and Moses choose to worship only Yahweh and make Yahweh their "Elohim", the only God that mattered.

• Is this not the same claim of people who think that Allah is a pagan god? It is also recorded in pre-Ilsamic times as a deity worshipped by pagans, but it does not mean that Muslims are indeed also pagan, only monotheistic pagans. It is a case of the chicken or the egg. Considering the scanty evidence we have of those times, there is no certainty in what you claim.

If you doubt the authenticiy of the Old Testament records (and indeed you should because they were written by human beings) then you should also doubt the authencity of Islamic records including the Quran because Quran too came through a human being. And if you believe that all hadiths and sunnah are fabricated then you must also consider the possibility that Quran too may have undergone additions, deletions and revisions.

-That is where we differ. I come with the assumtpion that the Quran was not written by humans, it was recorderd by humans. The OT was actually written by humans. Even if I were to agree with you that the OT was inspired as well, there is no evidence of who received this inspiration or what authority that individual wrote on. Considering the immense number of inconsistencies in the OT, it is not going far for me to claim that it was neither inspired nor properly recorded. I think everyone can agree that comparing the sunnah and the quran is not a wise idea on this forum.

In ancient times God's were teritorial, for example "El of the Mountain". When people went abroad they would normally worship the local God as this God would have jusrisdiction over that area. Even today in primitive society this is the case. But Abraham and Jacob's God promised that he would look after them even when they went abroad. So when Abraham left Ur, the ancient Sumerian city, he took his God with him. He trusted in his God. And as he travelled, he indeed found that his trust in this God worked for him so he decided to make Yahweh the only God that mattered. But the Isralite would in time transform this Pagan God into a figure of Transcendence.

-Please provide proof of this claim.

Is animal Sacrifice not a Pagan Tradition? This tradition continues even today in Islam where all other religions have abandoned this Pagan rite.

-Yes, after Hajj the community is to sacrifice some animals to feed the poor. I personally do not see what is pagan about that considering the purpose of the killings. It would be pagan if the sacrifice was intended to appease an angry god or wash away sins with blood, etc. Lastly, who cares if other religions have done away with ritual killing of animals? Christians only did away with it b/c they believe in an even larger sacrifice made by a human being. All in all, I suggest that you make up your mind since it is quite clear that you do not judge by any criteria except scanty logic. It begs the question of why you continue to be on a muslim forum when you do not think that the quran holds any water.

[unknownuser]

But it is easy for Quran to claim that they were monotheist isn't it, because Quran needs to root itself in the supposed "monotheism" of Abraham to give its legitamacy and a sense of history and continuity?

-So, to you the Quran concocts stories to fit its aim? Obviously I have missed something...I thought that by engaging with muslims on a muslim board one can assume the superceding authority of the quran.

I am sorry I don't understand you. I thought we are having a open discussion where we consider all possibilities. Are you telling me it is wrong to question the ligitamacy of the Quranic text? and yet you can do the same with other scriptures - Is this not hypocrisy?

This is an "Open Forum" where people of faiths including atheist are invited to discuss openly about God and religions. What you are implying is that you can only speak your mind as long as it does not question the Quran. How is this Free-Minds? How do you understand truth if you have a closed attitude like this?

But Abraham's God Elohim/Yahweh are names of Pagan Gods that have been recorded in non-biblical sources. Elohim is clearly the Pagan God El, the "El of the Mountains". Even today place names such as "Isra-El" and "Beth-El" echoes this pagan origins. And Yahweh is clearly seems to be a Tribal Midinite Pagan God, since he is known as "Yahweh Saboeth", the God of the Armies. But Abraham, Jacob and Moses choose to worship only Yahweh and make Yahweh their "Elohim", the only God that mattered.

• Is this not the same claim of people who think that Allah is a pagan god? It is also recorded in pre-Ilsamic times as a deity worshipped by pagans, but it does not mean that Muslims are indeed also pagan, only monotheistic pagans. It is a case of the chicken or the egg. Considering the scanty evidence we have of those times, there is no certainty in what you claim.

What difference does it make if Allah was a Pagan God? So was God of Abraham, Jacob and Moses! Though these Gods may have Pagan origins but they have been transformed into a figure of transcendence. This is what history hints at. Should we close our mind to that? Our idea of God has indeed been evolved, the more we question God the more we understand about God. We have come a long way since the pagan understanding of God.

If you doubt the authenticiy of the Old Testament records (and indeed you should because they were written by human beings) then you should also doubt the authencity of Islamic records including the Quran because Quran too came through a human being. And if you believe that all hadiths and sunnah are fabricated then you must also consider the possibility that Quran too may have undergone additions, deletions and revisions.

-That is where we differ. I come with the assumtpion that the Quran was not written by humans, it was recorderd by humans. The OT was actually written by humans. Even if I were to agree with you that the OT was inspired as well, there is no evidence of who received this inspiration or what authority that individual wrote on. Considering the immense number of inconsistencies in the OT, it is not going far for me to claim that it was neither inspired nor properly recorded.

I have no such assumptions. I am here to talk about God and religions.

I think everyone can agree that comparing the sunnah and the quran is not a wise idea on this forum.

Why? Why is this fear of questioning the Quran? Tell me what scares you?

In ancient times God's were teritorial, for example "El of the Mountain". When people went abroad they would normally worship the local God as this God would have jusrisdiction over that area. Even today in primitive society this is the case. But Abraham and Jacob's God promised that he would look after them even when they went abroad. So when Abraham left Ur, the ancient Sumerian city, he took his God with him. He trusted in his God. And as he travelled, he indeed found that his trust in this God worked for him so he decided to make Yahweh the only God that mattered. But the Isralite would in time transform this Pagan God into a figure of Transcendence.

-Please provide proof of this claim.

Read some books on history of religion.

Is animal Sacrifice not a Pagan Tradition? This tradition continues even today in Islam where all other religions have abandoned this Pagan rite.

-Yes, after Hajj the community is to sacrifice some animals to feed the poor. I personally do not see what is pagan about that considering the purpose of the killings. It would be pagan if the sacrifice was intended to appease an angry god or wash away sins with blood, etc.

Animal Sacrifice is Pagan ritual. If it was to do with feeding the poor it would not be called "Sacrifice".

Here is a definition

Sacrifice (from a Middle English verb meaning 'to make sacred', from Old French, from Latin sacrificium sacer, sacred; sacred + facere, to make) is commonly known as the practice of offering food, or the lives of animals or people to the gods, as an act of propitiation or worship.

Lastly, who cares if other religions have done away with ritual killing of animals?

In fact a lot of people do! To give up Animal Sacrifice is to abandon our primitive past.

All in all, I suggest that you make up your mind since it is quite clear that you do not judge by any criteria except scanty logic.

I make up mind after having evaluated all evidence, after having questioned all evidence. I am not frightened to question the very basis of my beliefs and my life.

It begs the question of why you continue to be on a muslim forum when you do not think that the quran holds any water.

Come on chap ( or chapess) how can you say this when you are fearful of questioning the Quran? How do you know Quran is the word of God? What proof do you have it is the word of God?

Is it OK to hold an assumption that it is the word of God and thats it and not question it?

But I tell you as I said many times before. All religions are man made. More you delve into history of religions the more you realise this is the case.

All scriptures are a human reading, a truth but not the WHOLE TRUTH. Scriptures are a guide to finding God, but Scritpure is not GOD. We should not make Idol out of the Quran but see it for what is It is a Guide....

Regards,