• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,993
London, UK
✟1,001,925.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think that the best evidence that Mohammed did exist lies in the early Sunni-Shia split. This was all predicated on who was to be the successor to Mohammed, and to have a successor there must have been someone there in the first place to take his place.

That's the best argument yet I have heard for his existence.

Almost certainly though, whoever Mohammed was, the birth of the religion was more the working of political need than of angelic revelation. From very early there were thousands upon thousands of sayings attributed to him as Koranic, and it was a very arbitrary task that the early leader of the movement made to choose some and eliminate others, even eliminating the copy that the widow of Mohammed held in her possession. This is to say that the religion of Mohammed already existed, in the lore of the Persians and the Christians and the Jews and the Christian apocryphal writings. The model of government in those days was a theocracy, and when the Arabs(Hagarites) found themselves with a world-class empire, they scrambled to create a religion with which to govern it.
The earliest leader of the movement even said as much as he went about picking and choosing which elements to put into the new religion, and which to leave out, all in the overt intent to not repeat the political divisiveness of the Christian world over what version of the religion was authentic and which were not.

Create an empire of conformity and pretend it was a work of God. Yes there are distorted echoes of earlier Christian writings in the Quran. In fact the religion was a means of establishing political unity and a reason for conquest. Seems an accurate summary to me. Mohammed may well have existed but a myth was crafted from his life and words which has little to do with God.

I was thinking this today. In Christ we have a freedom. In each person there is a universe of possibility. What Christ releases when we enter into his grace can appear incredibly messy and disorganised to someone from the outside looking in. Each person is different and the song of praise that they sing is different too. Christian pluralism and diversity is a distraction to those who want an earthly unity and kingdom. The idea that our unity is in Christ rather than an emperor is a problem for many. But in sense that is the essence of freedom. We are not slaves to some earthly imperial order but rather freed to live for Christ. The diversity, creativity and richness of the Christian world by comparison to that of Islam is testimony to the freedom we have in Christ. We are the children of the free woman Sarah not the slave woman Hagar. If Islam has any divine root then it comes from the blessing God gave to the slave child Ishmael. But that blessing was inferior to the one given to the free child Isaac.
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,919
Vancouver
✟162,516.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
That's the best argument yet I have heard for his existence.



Create an empire of conformity and pretend it was a work of God. Yes there are distorted echoes of earlier Christian writings in the Quran. In fact the religion was a means of establishing political unity and a reason for conquest. Seems an accurate summary to me. Mohammed may well have existed but a myth was crafted from his life and words which has little to do with God.

I was thinking this today. In Christ we have a freedom. In each person there is a universe of possibility. What Christ releases when we enter into his grace can appear incredibly messy and disorganised to someone from the outside looking in. Each person is different and the song of praise that they sing is different too. Christian pluralism and diversity is a distraction to those who want an earthly unity and kingdom. The idea that our unity is in Christ rather than an emperor is a problem for many. But in sense that is the essence of freedom. We are not slaves to some earthly imperial order but rather freed to live for Christ. The diversity, creativity and richness of the Christian world by comparison to that of Islam is testimony to the freedom we have in Christ. We are the children of the free woman Sarah not the slave woman Hagar. If Islam has any divine root then it comes from the blessing God gave to the slave child Ishmael. But that blessing was inferior to the one given to the free child Isaac.
While I am not the most religious of men, not one who is quick to believe in supernatural causes, it does seem to me that one of the most extraordinary prophecies that is still playing itself out today, thousands of years after the fact, is the real differences between the blessings given to Isaac, son of Sarah, and Ishmael, son of the Hagar.
It really is all about freedom, even still. Both have had 'great nation' status, with Sarah's progeny counting the Christians among them.
But the 'freedom' afforded to the Ishmaelis has been the freedom of a "wild ass of a man", never self-defined but always defined as kicking back resentfully at any authority.
It is the only freedom possible to a people still stuck in a slave mindset.

And most definitely, freedom is a messy affair. The early caliph who was all about destroying textual diversity for Islam was a keen observer of what Christian affairs really were like. Freedom opens us up to infinite possibilities, and as wondrous as that is, it is not without its share of conflict and noise.

But the price to be paid for by the Hagarites for their submission to the laws that the caliphs set forth for them has been the possibility of freedom entering into their lives.

The infamous quote of the former president was that they hate us for our freedom.

Hagar resents Sarah on account of her freedom, even today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
59
✟50,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
This is not a scientific logical severances at all, these are quackery, juggling, and sorcery
First, Christianity is an older religion than Islam and it dominated the region before Islam came along. The Quran itself refers to Christians and to Muhammad's engagement with them. So it would not be an odd thing if sites now holy to Islam were previously Christian. The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius for example is said to have built on the site of the Dome of the Rock before the construction of the Dome of the Rock.(^ H. Busse, "Zur Geschichte und Deutung der frühislamischen Ḥarambauten in Jerusalem", Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 107 (1991), 144–154. (gere 145f).) The inscription inside the Dome of the Rock is a monarchic view of God that was Christian not Muslim in content and implies that the Caliph who built the building was also a Christian (but one who wanted to distinguish himself from the Byzantines and who did not share their view of the Trinity). The building was almost definitely constructed by Christians because Arabs lacked the skills at that time. It seems it was originally constructed for a heretical version of Christianity and then converted into a Muslim mosque with history rewritten at a later date.

In the Kaaba itself there is a picture of Jesus, Mary and Abraham on the walls. The prophet himself (it is traditionally said by Muslims) urged that these be preserved while pictures of pagan deities were erased. It is therefore perfectly possible that the Christian God was worshipped there before the time of Islam.

"Apart from the icon of the Virgin Mary and the child Jesus, and a painting of an old man, said to be Abraham, the walls inside [Kaaba] had been covered with pictures of pagan deities. Placing his hand protectively over the icon, the Prophet told `Uthman to see that all other paintings, except that of Abraham, were effaced."

Martin Lings, "Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources"
p.300, ref: al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi 834, and Azraqi, Akhbar Makkah vol. 1, p. 107.
Martin Lings is a practicing Muslim.




So where is the earliest complete manuscript of the Hadiths. You will not find one before about 200 years after the event.

Schacht, Joseph (1967). The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 1–20.



It appears very likely that the name did not exist before Muhammad was supposed to have been named.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...d-not-exist-as-a-name-before-Prophet-Muhammad

The name itself means praised(thanked).

The name has been found on seventh century coins in Egypt and Syria with a Christian cross on it. Implying that it was reference to Jesus not to a man called Muhammad:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=15&t=009213
Following are list of errors in your comments:-
  • Christianity was not the dominated religion before Islam at least in Arabic Peninsula. Even is wasn't in the whole world review this map (http://www.mmdtkw.org/CRUS0109-PreIslam.jpg)
  • It never be that sites now holy to Islam were previously Christian
  • Dome of the Rock and Mount Temple were never holy for Christianity. Vice versa, Christians turned the area into dunghill before Moslems opens the city and clean it and turn it to Alaqsa Masjed (Mountain Temple under Byzantines) by Guy Le Strange, History of Jerusalem Under the Muslims
  • Abdulmalik Ibn_marwan the Caliph who built the building was Moslem
  • No one else said that "The building was almost definitely constructed by Christians" except for you
  • It's not true that Prophet kept the painting of El-Messiah and his mother. it's based on a rejected narrated historian
  • Early writing of Hadeeth was during Prophet life. There were a lot but here is a link to one of the earlis one less than 20 years of Prophet's death Sahifa Hamman B. Munabbih It's from mid-first half of Hijri calendar also "The Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq al-San`ani" Early Hadith writings
  • Mohamed محمد name is derived from the verb حمد thank. It's pure Arabic name. I reviewed the subject and found that there are 2 different coins a Byzantine one and an Islamic one there is a false mixing both as if name Mohamed is written and a cross on the same coin which is untrue.
  • Actually, what is written about the name Mohamed in the page refrenced by you is a proof that the name Mohamed is written in the New and Old Testimony is referring to Mohamed not El-Messiah
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
59
✟50,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Arianism is the heresy from which Islam springs. Basically it is the idea that Jesus is a creature and it expresses the view that the Trinity is therefore a misunderstanding of the nature of God. It was commonplace in the region and even during the time of the Byzantines. The Byzantine empire itself supported the Trinitarian doctrine. So if Heraclius following his victories over the Persians established a system of proxy rulers in the region as part of a strategic consolidation plan ( as Pressburg argues) then the local rulers were more likely Arian Christians than Muslims in the time period immediately following that. The Monarchic Christian Arab inscription inside the Dome of the Rock would then be an example of that.
All your information is wrong, why don't you pay small effort in googling.
Local Arab rules of an Arabic Kingdom under Byzantine were called Ghassanids and their religion was Miaphysitism Christological formula of the Oriental Orthodox Churches


You said previously that Arabs chose Arianism as a kind of opposition and now you're saying it was religion of local ruler. choose one opinion.

Christians always call it the Nicene creed. But you are right that the final version was established in Constantinople 381AD. From the point of view of this discussion it is a mute point because 300 years before Muhammad is supposed to have existed the Trinitarian doctrine was established and accepted by the Byzantine Empire. That its tenants were in fact clear in scripture and the practice of the early church from its beginnings is also clear.
You always call things with another name. You always mixing things to confuse people who doesn't know.
You've spent much effort to proof that Arianism is against Trinity even in the above and now you just learnt that Trinity was developed 60 years after Arin - Nicaea conflict

OK so there is no such thing as Ulamas , the Mutaween (Saudia Arabia) or the Basiji(Iran)?
Again and Again, you're mixing things and confuses who doesn't know.
You were talking about "dogmatic enforcement of interpretation" means an a spirtial authority like Vatican or head of the church.
The names above especially the Basiji in Iran is an intelligent department.
Mutaween are Saudis volunteers to watch abidance of people to practice Prayed on time, women to cover their heads
Ulama are scholars who studied Quran and Hadeeth. They enforce no one. Everyone tells his openion
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
59
✟50,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
That fragment seems to suggest that Muhammad is still alive. But also we have no way to be absolutely sure of the dating of the ink on this 6th century Syrian bible or indeed that the battle of Gabitha mentioned in the writing was the same as the battle of Yarmuk.

You look like someone is working in an organization who has to write something.

What God says is all sufficient for me. What must be established is whether God has spoken. God is not a liar and I would not blaspheme Him by suggesting that words which are clearly false are of Him.

I was wondering if you apply what you're saying on your books


The struggle went too and fro between Constantine I (opposed to Arianism) - some emperors in the 4th century who were Arians and Theodosius I who finally established the Nicene creed as the official doctrine of the state church. From 381AD onwards the Trinity was the official doctrine of the Byzantine empire.

I was wondering how the final creed of belief of a certain religion is determined not by discussion between scholars but by imperial creeds.
It's Roman-Christianity, ask George Atwell

The scriptures themselves support the deity of all 3 members of the Trinity. In practice the early church worshipped Christ in a way that would be blasphemous were he not God- the scriptures also testify to angels doing the same (Hebrews 2). There is a difference between the actual church of God and the official state religion of the Byzantine empire. But the creeds finalised in 381AD finalise a Trinitarian understanding of the nature of God which has persisted to this day in the Christian church. When Thomas an apostle of Jesus says: "My Lord and my God" of Jesus the declaration could not be more clear.

Don't be so sure about the scripts support of Trinity as non-Trinity churches are using same scripts.
What is the difference between actual church of God and the official state religion of the Byzantine empire? Byzantine empire creed that determined your creed of belief.

Nobody knows if there was an apostle called Thomas and if he said so or not.
I was wondering if something basic in your belief like "Jesus to be God the Son" or Trinity is depending on a short statement like this. It should have been very clear in your scripts in the first line in the first page.
That Christians have held different views on this over the years is clear but while heresies come and go Arianism was firmly defeated in the 4th century and mainly disappeared until the emergence of Mormons, JWs and Philadelphians in the last 2 centuries. These groups remain cults and the vast majority of Christians are Trinitarian.
Arianism never been defeated, it was not the state religion but Unitarian always existed all over the history till date.

All the Messianic Jews I have met have been Trinitarian so not sure what you meant there.

What Messianic Jews you've met?
Messianic Jews are all apostles, Jews who believed in El-Messiah, their history is in Gospels. El-Messiah himself is a Messianic Jew. They're monotheistic, they know/said nothing about Trinity, they lived and died as a Jew as per Moses Law.


The unity is in Christ Himself. None of the major denominations claim that it is impossible to be saved outside of their own group though historically some of the leaders have done so , often due to unhealthy political influences.
Do you bet on my ignorance?
You've to use the ward "major" as there are many.
There is no agreement about "Who is Christ ?" among different denominations.
Actually the main differences between denominations is about the nature of the Christ.
Denomination.
The discussion on the nature of Christ is the reason for dividing and exile from the heaven
A Christian is one who can confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and died and rose again for us. He is one who follows Christ. A false understanding of the Trinity may not be a barrier to salvation if a person is looking for that salvation through Christ. By this reckoning even Mormons and some Jehovah witnesses may be among the saved.
This is what you and laws in this forum say.

You're not presenting your God, You're not sitting neither on Catholic Peter's chain in Vatican nor on Orthodox Mark's chain in Alexandria nor on many other chairs.

The Popes sits there who are speaking by Holy spirit (according to your and their belief) has a different opinion which is not able to change soon. They are the people who decides with the name of your God(according to your belief) who is going to survive or not.
If they give you "indulgence" then you're survived otherwise you're lost.

If you're neither Catholic nor Orthodox then both see you as non-Christian and will not survive. Sometimes they see Moslem has better chances than you
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
59
✟50,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
It is possible that Mohammed did not exist. The first stories of raids against the Byzantine made no mention of anyone named Mohammed, and instead relayed back stories of raids by Hagarites.
There is nothing about a new religion being introduced in the earliest accounts.

What is most likely, I think, is that a man sporting the name of Mohammed likely did exist, and his biography served as a kernel upon which the entire myth of the Prophet was spun.
It is not as if this disagrees with Robert Spencer either, as Robert Spencer was merely asking the question and looking for evidence.

I think that the best evidence that Mohammed did exist lies in the early Sunni-Shia split. This was all predicated on who was to be the successor to Mohammed, and to have a successor there must have been someone there in the first place to take his place.
Almost certainly though, whoever Mohammed was, the birth of the religion was more the working of political need than of angelic revelation. From very early there were thousands upon thousands of sayings attributed to him as Koranic, and it was a very arbitrary task that the early leader of the movement made to choose some and eliminate others, even eliminating the copy that the widow of Mohammed held in her possession. This is to say that the religion of Mohammed already existed, in the lore of the Persians and the Christians and the Jews and the Christian apocryphal writings. The model of government in those days was a theocracy, and when the Arabs(Hagarites) found themselves with a world-class empire, they scrambled to create a religion with which to govern it.
The earliest leader of the movement even said as much as he went about picking and choosing which elements to put into the new religion, and which to leave out, all in the overt intent to not repeat the political divisiveness of the Christian world over what version of the religion was authentic and which were not.

The earliest reference to Prophet in Non-Islamic writings
Doctrina Jacobi (July 634) :
When the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been killed," and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they are works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed, Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." So I, Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of men's blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is incredible. (Doctrina Jacobi V.16, 209. [p. 57])
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
59
✟50,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
I was thinking this today. In Christ we have a freedom. In each person there is a universe of possibility. What Christ releases when we enter into his grace can appear incredibly messy and disorganised to someone from the outside looking in. Each person is different and the song of praise that they sing is different too. Christian pluralism and diversity is a distraction to those who want an earthly unity and kingdom. The idea that our unity is in Christ rather than an emperor is a problem for many. But in sense that is the essence of freedom. We are not slaves to some earthly imperial order but rather freed to live for Christ. The diversity, creativity and richness of the Christian world by comparison to that of Islam is testimony to the freedom we have in Christ.
You get freedom when you get ride of church authority and Christianity teachings.
Most of US and Europe are Atheist and no longer believe in Trinity God.

Wake-up, Christians world is not limited to US. Christian world includes Latin America, Eastern Europe, Russia, parts of Africa, Philippines,,,,

What unity in Christ where there are more than 80 denominations Churches and countless other Churches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

We are the children of the free woman Sarah not the slave woman Hagar. If Islam has any divine root then it comes from the blessing God gave to the slave child Ishmael. But that blessing was inferior to the one given to the free child Isaac.
What ????
You are children of whom ????
Even not all Jews are children of Sarah.

Hagar was not a slave. Allah asked Ibrahim to marry her. She was a free woman.
Ismail was the first son of Ibrahim.
Ibrahim loved him a lot.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,993
London, UK
✟1,001,925.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Following are list of errors in your comments:-
Christianity was the dominant religion in the area that I was talking about (e.g. Israel, Syria and Egypt). The Dome of the Rock reference should have given you a geographical reference point there. But there was also a Christian presence across the whole Arabian peninsula. With whole towns and tribes being Christian in some places.

  • It never be that sites now holy to Islam were previously Christian
  • Dome of the Rock and Mount Temple were never holy for Christianity. Vice versa, Christians turned the area into dunghill before Moslems opens the city and clean it and turn it to Alaqsa Masjed (Mountain Temple under Byzantines) by Guy Le Strange, History of Jerusalem Under the Muslims
Jerusalem was ruled by the Byzantines. the church of the Holy sepulchre was built there before the Dome of the Rock was built. There is a picture of Mary and Jesus in the Kaaba. The Dome of the Rock was built in an architectural style that echoed that of other churches in the Orthodox world (e.g Chapel of Ascension on Mount of Olives in Jerusalem).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,919
Vancouver
✟162,516.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Until we invent the time machine, we cannot be certain about almost anything in history, especially from such distant past. However, is it really important? Existed or not, fact or fiction, Muhammed does affect the present time. Therefore, he exists.
The idea of Mohammed exist. The myth of Mohammed indubitably exists.
 
Upvote 0

4x4toy

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
3,599
1,772
✟138,525.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You get freedom when you get ride of church authority and Christianity teachings.
Most of US and Europe are Atheist and no longer believe in Trinity God.

Wake-up, Christians world is not limited to US. Christian world includes Latin America, Eastern Europe, Russia, parts of Africa, Philippines,,,,

What unity in Christ where there are more than 80 denominations Churches and countless other Churches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations


What ????
You are children of whom ????
Even not all Jews are children of Sarah.

Hagar was not a slave. Allah asked Ibrahim to marry her. She was a free woman.
Ismail was the first son of Ibrahim.
Ibrahim loved him a lot.

Limo , If Allah sanctioned lying , Al Taqiyya in the Qu'ran how can you know Allah is the God of Abraham .. The God of Abraham does not lie and is not the father of lies ..
 
Upvote 0

4x4toy

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
3,599
1,772
✟138,525.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Limo , How do you know Muhammed was a son of Ishmael , did his genealogy trace back naming each father back to Ishmael or maybe only 3,4 maybe 5 you and I ?

Ishmael was never a Muslim , neither was Abraham .. , neither were any of the Prophets in the Torah , neither was Jesus , neither are you .. Though you may be of Ishmael descent , and I am of Lebanese descent "Grand mother" .. There is only one God and he never revealed his name until Jesus . You cannot dispute the Truth only deny it ..
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,919
Vancouver
✟162,516.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Anything that people believe in, indubitably exists for them.
But, any historical claims, even if believed, may or may not exist, not just in the imagination, but in reality too. People whose worldview rests on the veracity of an historical claim inevitably want to have some historical verification, and to know what the best evidence is.
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
59
✟50,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Limo , How do you know Muhammed was a son of Ishmael , did his genealogy trace back naming each father back to Ishmael or maybe only 3,4 maybe 5 you and I ?

Ishmael was never a Muslim , neither was Abraham .. , neither were any of the Prophets in the Torah , neither was Jesus , neither are you .. Though you may be of Ishmael descent , and I am of Lebanese descent "Grand mother" .. There is only one God and he never revealed his name until Jesus . You cannot dispute the Truth only deny it ..

No body can dispute the truth. The question is "What is the Truth ?"
Even though, whenever you know the Truth, no guarantee that you accept it.

The problem is that your knowledge About Arabs and Jews are a few.
Arabs especially in Arabic Peninsula at the time of the Prophet used to keep track of the genealogy till Ismail if they're descendants of Ismail.
The answer of your question, Yes the genealogy of the Prophet till Ismail is well know and documented. All the Prophet's tribe Quresh is the main descendants of Ismail.

Yes, There is only one God. You must know "Who is he ?" Is he one/two/three ? His name? Capability ? his commands ? his mercy ? punishment ? his penalties to disobedient ?
Otherwise, you'll get lost

On what bases, you say neither Ibrahim, nor Ismail, nor El-Messiah, nor me are Muslims ? Even nothing in your books say so. Can you provide references even from your books ?
My book states (you disbelieve in it ) all of these are Muslims.

I've references but you don't. (What is the truth even for each one for his own ?)
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
59
✟50,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Limo , If Allah sanctioned lying , Al Taqiyya in the Qu'ran how can you know Allah is the God of Abraham .. The God of Abraham does not lie and is not the father of lies ..
Allah is the God of all and everything.

Did I say any lies here ?
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
59
✟50,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Until we invent the time machine, we cannot be certain about almost anything in history, especially from such distant past. However, is it really important? Existed or not, fact or fiction, Muhammed does affect the present time. Therefore, he exists.

I agree with you somehow.
There are always signs for history. If these signs are authenticated then we're certain about history known by these signs.

If somebody didn't exist, then all his production is useless.
It's really matter for believer to be certain about their sources.

The signs of Prophet Mohamed are huge that can't be ignored.

When Michael H. Hart tried to rank the most From the 100, a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History he chose Prophet Muhammad on top for the following reasons:
  • He was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.
  • Muhammad played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity.
  • It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity
  • Furthermore, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time.
  • This unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.
After that someone close his room and eyes and say Muhammad didn't exist
 
Upvote 0

4x4toy

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
3,599
1,772
✟138,525.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Allah is the God of all and everything.

Did I say any lies here ?

Limo , you did lie for side stepping the truth . The question was "did Allah tell you it is right to lie Al "Taqiyya" in the Qu'ran ? If he did then he is a lier and is the father of lies .. The God of Abraham does not lie and has never told anyone to lie .. No need to answer if you can't , it's OK , I know both God and the truth , why did God send the prophets then Jesus in the first place ? There are no ancient prophecies that apply to Muhammed .. All prophesies fit and were prophesied of Jesus alone as the one ..
 
Upvote 0

Limo

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2015
649
70
59
✟50,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Christianity was the dominant religion in the area that I was talking about (e.g. Israel, Syria and Egypt). The Dome of the Rock reference should have given you a geographical reference point there. But there was also a Christian presence across the whole Arabian peninsula. With whole towns and tribes being Christian in some places.
No, you were talking about Arabs.
another mistake, Israel doesn't exist before 1947.
Yes, there was but not dominant.
Jerusalem was ruled by the Byzantines. the church of the Holy sepulchre was built there before the Dome of the Rock was built. There is a picture of Mary and Jesus in the Kaaba. The Dome of the Rock was built in an architectural style that echoed that of other churches in the Orthodox world (e.g Chapel of Ascension on Mount of Olives in Jerusalem).
Church of the Holy sepulchre is completely away from Dome of the Rock. There was never in relationship between both.

Its architecture and mosaics were patterned after nearby Byzantine churches and palaces. The two engineers in charge of the project were Raja ibn Haywah, a Muslim theologian from Beit She'an and Yazid Ibn Salam, a non-Arab who was Muslim and a native of Jerusalem (ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock)

According to the Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land, "Abd al-Malik's purpose was more complex and subtle." He wished to erect a beautiful Muslim building that could compete with the majestic churches of Christendom and would be a symbolic statement to both Jews and Christians of the superiority of the new faith of Islam. "His building spoke to Jews by its location, to Christians by its interior decoration."

I think hist statements have been read by Christians and Jews.

The end result is Holy of Holies never been holy for Pauline-Christianity.
Christians tuned it into dunghill and get cleaned by Muslims.
Jews were more than happy with what Muslims did in Jerusalem when we've taken it over from Christians. They can pray freely and visit the place of Holy of Holies after 500 years of sanction, killing, and destroying their holy places.
 
Upvote 0