Ibrahim stoned the Devil?

[anatolian]

We must take all things into consideration...

It depends on who consider..So many christians I've talked to in internet said to me that Abraham and David were not prophets but it is written in their Bible they were.Ishmaelites are called the brethren of Israelites in Bible but you deny it..etc

 

[Beckyy25]

Originally Posted by Beckyy25
I have one more question: does also the Qur'an mention this throwing of stones or only the Sunnah?

I don't know but I couldnt find myself..

whatever you mean with that... I would just like to have an answer if possible, maybe you could find out the answer for me

 

[anatolian]

whatever you mean with that... I would just like to have an answer if possible, maybe you could find out the answer for me

I said that I couldn't find..

Well don't be that lazy, you can find yourself

 

[Beckyy25]

I said that I couldn't find..

Well don't be that lazy, you can find yourself

Hmm, you couldn't find the answer or you couldn't find the stoning in the Qur'an?

Great, as the OP I ask you a question and you tell me "you can find yourself" ... great discussion basis

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Yes I know.


Let' s think this way, Allah made it a core pillar of Islam because He first ordered it to Abraham?

You christians are decisive of muslims nowdays Let me make a claim about you.. One thing I've found out with christians, they approach to Islam with a reversed logic many times..If you think correctly you will not be in need of asking many things about this religion.

Decisive of muslims? That didn't make any sense. I don't think the questions are being asked because we are in need of learning anything about Islam, the questions are being asked to make you realize that your claims don't add up along with Biblical evidence. I can take it that Allah first ordered to Abraham, now where is the evidence of the practice predating Muhammad?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

It depends on who consider..So many christians I've talked to in internet said to me that Abraham and David were not prophets but it is written in their Bible they were.Ishmaelites are called the brethren of Israelites in Bible but you deny it..etc

Again, you are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization, "so many Christians" at what authority? Also, you have to realize our definition of God's holymen doesn't rely on Islam's understanding of rasool. Ishmaelites might be called brethren of Israelites but they are also called that they will be like wild donkeys, they will be hostile to everyone and everyone will be hostile towards them. And God's covenant will not be made with Ishmaelites, we deny what?

 

[Rascaduanok]

No the Bible does not record everything of course, gospel even records "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

You, by your admission, say that Abraham was there to practice one of the CORE pillars of Islam there, in a timeframe that predates Islam. It is not without great suspicion that this escapes the Jewish practice, history and tradition, it doesn't ADD UP!

Interesting… That has got me thinking! Great points, Bushmaster. Jesus, of course, came long after Avraham. Why, if Ibrahim set up the Hajj ritual, did none of the prophets who came after him perform these rites? Why doesn’t any single source show Jesus travelling to Makkah to circumambulate the K‘abah?

 

[Islam_mulia]

First, there is no where you can find the Christian doctrine calling upon a "three-in-one" God, that was a quickly shotdown heretical attempt. Second, your mockery of this fact doesn't earn you any points other than tainting your credibility even further. Third, this is not a patriarchial issue, I don't know what Jewish practice could NOT have been there, you are the one making the claim, show me what islamic practice as taught by Muhammad, could have been practiced and documented in an era that predated Islam!!!

Interesting… That has got me thinking! Great points, Bushmaster. Jesus, of course, came long after Avraham. Why, if Ibrahim set up the Hajj ritual, did none of the prophets who came after him perform these rites? Why doesn’t any single source show Jesus travelling to Makkah to circumambulate the K‘abah?

Arabs and Jews follow many similar traditions.

Talking about the Ka'aba and the tradition of congregational prayer and oath taking can be traced to the practices of the old prophets. In the past, each prophet designated a place where the followers of the One true God would asemble to pledge their faith and worship together. Prophet Ibrahim/Ishmael built the Ka'aba and Prophet Jacob and others set up the Mizpah. The tradition of visiting the Ka'aba was followed by the Arabs/Muslims but the Mizpahs for the Jews may no longer exist. Pls read http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5591579&highlight=jewish+islam_mulia

The Ka'aba is the only surviving Beth-El in the Arab/Jewish tradition.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by anatolian

It depends on who consider..So many christians I've talked to in internet said to me that Abraham and David were not prophets but it is written in their Bible they were.

What is your point? How does that answer what I asked? The main reason that you will find Christians not knowing or seeing that David and Abraham were prophets is because they are not portrayed as prophets. The mention of them as prophets is obscure. There is only one place that I know of in the OT where Abraham is called a prophet and only one in the NT where David is referred to as a prophet. The other prophets are more widely quoted as being prophets; so, it is easy to see them as such. It is not as if the Bible doesn't recognize them as prophets, but their office is not openly quoted as them being prophets as we see others such as Samuel, Hosea, and Moses. This really has no bearing on what I pointed out to you. It is not what Christians say, rather it is what the Bible says. Not every Christian knows everything.

I said that we must not exclude known information in making our claims. You are trying to create a picture that it is possible for Abraham to go to Mecca and rebuild the Kaaba, take a pilgrimage, or some other Islamically held tradition which only serves to promote Islam despite the obstacles presented by the primary source, the Bible. If you want to throw out the primary source or what it records about a specific thing, then we can make all kinds of arguments both for and against Islam. I am trying to point out to you that you are bordering on using flawed logic. That is why I used the example of Jesus praying towards Mecca since the Bible does not say he didn't. I suppose that you didn't catch that flaw of logic, did you? I could equally say that Jesus went to the moon since the Bible does not say that he didn't, but there would be no reason to believe this based upon known facts about Jesus. Again, the key is to base our thoughts upon what we know and not assert that we do not know, unless there is some substantial evidence to persuade us to believe that it is a possibility in context of what we do know. Even then, we can't go and make it a fact. We can only assign a higher probability to it than we did before. I suggest that you learn how to apply logic and reasoning on these type of issues and know your boundaries so that you don't make assertions that do not have sufficient support for them as if they are true or more probable than we have information to support it with. This increased probability you give to it is unwarranted.

Ishmaelites are called the brethren of Israelites in Bible but you deny it..etc

We don't deny it. What we deny is that you want to insert this definition into any place that supports Islam. You have to read the word in its context before you can decide which definition applies. What you do is to create a logical fallacy that takes one definition and replaces it out of context with another one. Then you argue that both definitions have the same context. You forget that brethren also means those of Abraham's other sons by his wife Ketura as well as the 12 brothers of Jacob whom the 12 tribes of Israel came from. In context of Deuteronomy, brethren refers to those 12 tribes since it is addressing these 12 tribes specifically. How do I know that? A simple reading will reveal that to you since we see that when the term is being used, it is addressing either the Levites or the other 11 tribes; furthermore, the laws that are being given out in Deuteronomy are being given to Israel (the 12 tribes). They are being given a government to obey by God. Naturally, you as a Muslim, don't care about preserving context unless it is your Qu'ran that is being discussed. All you care about is making your religion seem like it speaks truth of Christianity and usurps it, which is a travesty for you. The example of the definition of Muslim has also been done in a similar manner. You use it to refer to historical Islam as well as another definition to mean anyone who submits to God. You can only use this term in one sense and time; otherwise, it becomes a contradiction of terms. The fallacy is that you try to use the historical definition to fit a a historical definition or vice versa. Therefore, the Muslims of the Qu'ran can't simultaneous be the Muslims of the Bible in conclusion. You can't just amalgamate the two terms and use them interchangeably.

 

[peaceful soul]

Arabs and Jews follow many similar traditions.

Talking about the Ka'aba and the tradition of congregational prayer and oath taking can be traced to the practices of the old prophets. In the past, each prophet designated a place where the followers of the One true God would asemble to pledge their faith and worship together. Prophet Ibrahim/Ishmael built the Ka'aba and Prophet Jacob and others set up the Mizpah. The tradition of visiting the Ka'aba was followed by the Arabs/Muslims but the Mizpahs for the Jews may no longer exist. Pls read http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5591579&highlight=jewish+islam_mulia

The Ka'aba is the only surviving Beth-El in the Arab/Jewish tradition.

Bethel means house of God, but you need to apply context to Jacob's meaning of Bethel. I suggest that you go and read the passage and then use a Hebrew lexicon to see what definition of house is being spoken of.

Similarities in cultural practices is not an verification of something having the same purpose and meaning between cultures, religions, etc. Once again, we must look at context. That is what determines who did what and why. I am growing tired of you and other Muslims trying to amalgamate Christianity and Judaism when it serves to help you create a bridge with them. Islam is its own separate thing. It lives on its own merits. It can't be propped up by association and similarities to the others two. You are only fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

 

[peaceful soul]

Interesting… That has got me thinking! Great points, Bushmaster. Jesus, of course, came long after Avraham. Why, if Ibrahim set up the Hajj ritual, did none of the prophets who came after him perform these rites? Why doesn’t any single source show Jesus travelling to Makkah to circumambulate the K‘abah?

I have been using many such points myself when asking questions to them. If Abraham helped Ishmael to build the Kaaba, then why didn't we have any Jews in Mohammad's time going there and claiming it as part of their heritage too. When Mohammad was fighting to get access to the Kaaba from the pagans, why didn't we find Jews in support of him or seeking it for themselves as well? One should expect to see this included in Islamic history. We should equally see the Kaaba being a house of worship in Jewish history since their worship was a primary focus. They are many other things that I could mention, but I think that this should suffice to get over the point.

 

[anatolian]

Hmm, you couldn't find the answer or you couldn't find the stoning in the Qur'an?

Great, as the OP I ask you a question and you tell me "you can find yourself" ... great discussion basis

I used a reversed sentence and thought that you could understand but you didn't understand it..I'm not sure whether the stonning of Devil exist in Quran.I couldn't find it in Quran.

 

[anatolian]

..I don't think the questions are being asked because we are in need of learning anything about Islam...

Well I didn't say it and waited for someone of you to reveal it

..I can take it that Allah first ordered to Abraham, now where is the evidence of the practice predating Muhammad?

It is written in the Arabic history that pre-Islamic arabs who consider themselves as the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael pligramated Kaba.

 

[anatolian]

Again, you are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization, "so many Christians" at what authority? Also, you have to realize our definition of God's holymen doesn't rely on Islam's understanding of rasool.

Still they are prophets in Bible and should be called so..?

Ishmaelites might be called brethren of Israelites but they are also called that they will be like wild donkeys, they will be hostile to everyone and everyone will be hostile towards them. And God's covenant will not be made with Ishmaelites, we deny what?

Humm, in Gen. 49 those interesting animals are used to define the future of the 12 tribes of Israel also

 

[anatolian]

originally posted by anatolian

What is your point? How does that answer what I asked? The main reason that you will find Christians not knowing or seeing that David and Abraham were prophets is because they are not portrayed as prophets. The mention of them as prophets is obscure. There is only one place that I know of in the OT where Abraham is called a prophet and only one in the NT where David is referred to as a prophet. The other prophets are more widely quoted as being prophets; so, it is easy to see them as such. It is not as if the Bible doesn't recognize them as prophets, but their office is not openly quoted as them being prophets as we see others such as Samuel, Hosea, and Moses. This really has no bearing on what I pointed out to you. It is not what Christians say, rather it is what the Bible says. Not every Christian knows everything.

So, I mean it is easy to miss the details and find wrong results.You see David, who lived in the OT times, isn't even called a prophet in OT but only in NT.If we base our knowledge on what the OT litterally says or does not say we wouldn't know whether David was a prophet.Just like this, the pligrimage of Abraham to Kaba might not be mentioned in Bible or might be in details but this doesn't give you right to deny it if it is real.

"Maybe" God wanted this vacation to be hidden or in details in Torah but revealed it in Quran because Torah was for the Jews and God didnt want Jews to pligrimage to Kaba but He wanted Muhammedan muslims to pligrimage Kaba and revealed this event in Quran.This is possible.

Get my point?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Bethel means house of God, but you need to apply context to Jacob's meaning of Bethel. I suggest that you go and read the passage and then use a Hebrew lexicon to see what definition of house is being spoken of.

Very good point.

...I am growing tired of you and other Muslims trying to amalgamate Christianity and Judaism when it serves to help you create a bridge with them. Islam is its own separate thing. It lives on its own merits. It can't be propped up by association and similarities to the others two. You are only fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

Islam's need for Christianity and Judaism is real. This need is out of desperation to fill the gaps Islamic theology can not do so without certain witnesses. Like you said, Islam is its own separate thing. So every attempt to connect it to Christian history would fail. During the early years of Muhammad and Islam, this huge gap was not discovered. Only after this discovery that Christians and Jews were accused of "corrupting" their texts.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Well I didn't say it and waited for someone of you to reveal it

Clarify.

It is written in the Arabic history that pre-Islamic arabs who consider themselves as the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael pligramated Kaba.

It is said that Hodja Nasreddin cut the branch he was sitting on, that is not historical analysis. It is written that pre-islamic Arabs were blood-thirsty pagans who buried people alive. I don't see no connection to Abraham.

Still they are prophets in Bible and should be called so..?

The gist of my post was that, there are people in the Bible who are holy men of God but we don't necessarily call them Prophets, as Islam tags everyone with this title mentioned.

Humm, in Gen. 49 those interesting animals are used to define the future of the 12 tribes of Israel also

I was not interested in name calling, my point was that God didn't make a covenant with Ishmaelites. Muhammad's final testament therefore is invalid. Unless of course you can prove us that Genesis has been tampered with.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

"Maybe" God wanted this vacation to be hidden or in details in Torah but revealed it in Quran because Torah was for the Jews and God didnt want Jews to pligrimage to Kaba but He wanted Muhammedan muslims to pligrimage Kaba and revealed this event in Quran.This is possible.

Did you NOT say this?

It is written in the Arabic history that pre-Islamic arabs who consider themselves as the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael pligramated Kaba


How do you possibly make the connection? If it is a holy location for pilgrimage for descendants of Abraham, how do you exclude Isaac? Why God play with words for Jews but reveal it openly to Arabs? You realize that Muhammad's fave location was Jerusalem not Kabaa!

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by anatolian

So, I mean it is easy to miss the details and find wrong results.

This is not relevant to the question asked. The problem reduces to the issue of whether you using good rational thinking to arrive at your conclusion. You are not. You are avoid using primary sources to answer. You know that if you consider them, you would have to admit that it isn't as likely to have happened. Biblical geography and accounts don't afford this as a legitimate possibility. As already mentioned, God told Abraham to go and settle in the land known as Canaan. As Abraham left Ur, a region in Mesopotamia near the Euphrates River, he traveled to Haran, which is southwest of Ur and was part of the Babylonian Empire. After that, he finally reached Canaan, which is southwest of Haran. At that point God specifically told him that this land will be part of the promise of a dwelling place for him and his offspring, the Israelites. God gave him that land, and most of the history of the Bible takes place in this region of Canaan that became know as Israel. We also see that Abraham went to Egypt-not as a vacation, but to prevent himself from facing the drought in Canaan. Upper Egypt is adjacent to ancient Israel to the west. Afterwards, Abraham was sent back to his home where he remained except for brief periods of time. One occasion was to rescue Lot from Gomorrah, which is also in the same vicinity of Babylonian empire. God kept moving Abraham until he reached the land that He gave him in his promise. There is no reason to suddenly move Abraham down to the far south since God pointed him to a certain piece of land (Canaan) to settle and live.

You see David, who lived in the OT times, isn't even called a prophet in OT but only in NT.If we base our knowledge on what the OT litterally says or does not say we wouldn't know whether David was a prophet.Just like this, the pligrimage of Abraham to Kaba might not be mentioned in Bible or might be in details but this doesn't give you right to deny it if it is real.

I did explain about David already. That does not affect your ability to answer the question asked of you. It is still flawed logic. If there is no mention of an event in the Bible, therefore, it did happen. Do you see what the problem is? You are conveniently leaving out the opposite possibility without considering the known information surrounding it. I just explained some of it in the above paragraph. This tactic of yours is done to absolve yourself of dealing with known information, i.e., primary sources which give us a different picture.

Also consider another possibility: Since there is no mention of a certain event in the Qu'ran, therefore, it didn't happen. Can you equally use this as an alternative? Would you be as enthusiastic to answer with maybe?

I was trying to give you the benefit of a doubt when I last explained it to you. You are just trying to increase your probabilities by putting some doubt in the probability against it. This is being deceptive. If you had an answer for the question, it is your responsibility to say it and let the discussion continue. If you had a legitimate answer, it would have been given by now. I can use the same approach and claim that Jesus went to Kaaba and cursed the grounds and the building. Would you treat this with equal probability? No, you will try to defend that it didn't happen because of X, Y. or Z. The X, Y, and Z would be something of known significance. It wouldn't be something pulled out of thin air.

"Maybe" God wanted this vacation to be hidden or in details in Torah but revealed it in Quran because Torah was for the Jews

The Torah wasn't just for Jews. It included the other tribes as well as non Jews. Noah, Adam, Abraham, Lot and a host of other people were not Jews. God would not be able to hide something from the Jews that they would have been important to their heritage and then have a later prophet tell them that it happened and expect the Jews to accept it without looking back into their history to see if such a thing existed.

and God didnt want Jews to pligrimage to Kaba but He wanted Muhammedan muslims to pligrimage Kaba and revealed this event in Quran.This is possible.

Get my point?

I get your point, but you are not using good reasoning by avoiding what is known. This is irrational. If you only speak of Muslims from the Qu'ran, that is better, but don't try to create a bridge to Jews and Christians by doing this. God gave specific promises to Abraham that lead him to Canaan. Canaan is not in lower Arabia. Upper Arabia is the only place that we see that God sent Him to settle. The geographic names and directions point this out. Before Abraham left Ur, he was a pagan. That means that he couldn't have made the pilgrimage before this time since he was not under God's guidance. God transformed Him on his way from Ur to Canaan. By the time he reached Canaan, Abraham was completely transformed. But we see from Biblical records that he settled in the land that God promised and remained there as part of keeping the Covenant that he agreed to with God in Genesis. All events of his life after conversion kept him close to Canaan.

So, spare yourself the embarrassment and stop playing games. Either you have a good rational response or you don't. Which is it? Also stop trying to bait and switch us to a different topic so that we forget the original question. Questioning our Biblical IQ does not prevent you from answering the question.

 

[humblemuslim]

Quote on quote: Death to Jews, death to Israel, death to America, allahu akbar ... You think they will wake up anytime soon? I doubt it.

Do you honestly believe all muslims hold these views? I for one do not. And I am certainly not alone. Let me guess, are you under the impression a majority of muslims are arabs too?

Decisive of muslims? That didn't make any sense. I don't think the questions are being asked because we are in need of learning anything about Islam, the questions are being asked to make you realize that your claims don't add up along with Biblical evidence. I can take it that Allah first ordered to Abraham, now where is the evidence of the practice predating Muhammad?

And why should that bother us? More like Biblical opinion, not evidence.

Again, you are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization, "so many Christians" at what authority?

As if you are not guilty of this as well? Hypocrisy is not an attractive trait (Refer to the quote you made regarding "Death to INSERT" if you are confused what I'm talking about).

Well, we know what spirit rules their minds-at least for the ones that are heavily trenched in this madness. Their thoughts are purely religious with little or no regard to reality or rationality. It is Allah's cause at all costs while not considering that they are wrong. They lack a mechanism in their brains that triggers humility. Morality becomes that which they believe rather than that which can be understood outside of their mindset. They have no peripheral vision of who Allah is. Allah is as they make him, which the Qu'ran openly allows for unless Muslims can definitively prove that Mohammad was instructed by Allah to execute certain commands in a temporary and limited time frame. That is my 2¢.

The religion has strong ties with humility. Bowing to the floor to honor God's greatness 5 times daily enforces humility, as just a simple example. I live my life by the laws of the Qur'an, where humility and patience are but two important lessons contained within.

More than likely some of the people who you consider muslim are charlatans or hypocrites claiming to be something they are not. Either that or misguided peoples who have lost touch with what Islam is about and what muslims are to follow. Do not make the mistake of associating these people with Islam. There are several good people who are practcing Islam around the world.

“Say, Do you know better or does Allaah?"
Quran 2:140
That is an open ended phrase just like "God can do anything". It is very easy to abuse.

Easy to abuse? anatolian is just pointing out that God knows more than you, him, myself, and every other human on this planet. Recorded history is fallible, God is not. A perfectly valid point. And I'm sure someone is going to comment on whether the Qur'an is fallible or not. Which would be a moot point, because I can just as easily question the Bible.

Even if thou wert to bring to the people of the Book all the Signs (together), they would not follow Thy Qibla; nor art thou going to follow their Qibla; nor indeed will they follow each other's Qibla. If thou after the knowledge hath reached thee, Wert to follow their (vain) desires,-then wert thou Indeed (clearly) in the wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

whatever you mean with that... I would just like to have an answer if possible, maybe you could find out the answer for me

To answer your question, no the Qur'an does not mention the stonning to my knowledge. I am actually reading the entire Qur'an again as a personal refresher. So if I find otherwise I will let you know!

If you want to see some of the verses related to your original question read the following verses of the Qur'an - (2:124-134). If I find others I will let you know.

Peace