Muhammad’s life at Mecca was model of a peaceful person

[paarsurrey]

Muhammad’s life at Mecca was model of a peaceful person

FIRST CONVERTS

Waraqa evidently referred to the prophecy in
Deuteronomy 18:18. When the news reached Zaid (ra), the
Prophet's (sa) freed slave, now about thirty years of age,
and his cousin ‘Ali (ra), about eleven, they both declared
their faith in him. Abu Bakr (ra), friend of his childhood,
was out of town. As he returned he began to hear of this
new experience which the Prophet (sa) had had. He was
told that his friend had gone mad and had begun to say
that angels brought him messages from God.

Abu Bakr (ra) trusted the Prophet (sa) completely. He did not doubt for a
minute that the Prophet (sa) must be right—he had known
him to be both sane and sincere. He knocked at the
Prophet's (sa) door and on admission into his company
asked him what had happened. The Prophet (sa), fearing
lest Abu Bakr (ra) should misunderstand, began a long
explanation. Abu Bakr (ra) stopped the Prophet (sa) from
doing so, and insisted that all he wanted to know was
whether an angel had really descended upon him from
God and had given him a Message.

The Prophet (sa) wanted to explain again, but Abu Bakr (ra) said he wanted
to hear no explanation. He wanted only an answer to the
question whether he had had a Message from God. The
Prophet (sa) said, "Yes" and Abu Bakr (ra) at once declared
his faith. Having declared his faith, he said, argument
would have detracted from the value of his faith. He had
known the Prophet (sa) long and intimately. He could not
doubt him, and he wanted no argument to be convinced
of his truth.

This small group of the Faithful then were
the first believers of Islam: a woman full of years, an
eleven-year-old boy, a freed slave living among
strangers, a young friend and the Prophet (sa) himself. This
was the party which made the silent resolve to spread
the light of God all over the world.

When the people and
their leaders heard of this, they laughed and declared
that these men had gone mad. There was nothing to fear
and nothing to worry about. But as time went on, the
truth began to dawn and as the Prophet Isaiah (as) (28:13)
said long ago, precept upon precept, precept upon
precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little,
and there a little; began to descend upon the Prophet(sa).

Page 11-12
Life of Muhammad (sa)
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Life-of-Muhammad.pdf

Regards

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

http://sirah.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=204&BookID=160&TOCID=199The Biography of the Prophet by Ibn Hisham p. 93-94Narrated Ibn Ishak : narrated Abe Hakim, he heard from Khadija may Allah bepleased with her, she said to the messenger of Allah: O cousin , would you tell meabout your friend who used to come to you, if he comes to you tell me, then Gabrielcame, the prophet (PUH) said: O Khadija, here is Gabriel now he came to me, shesaid: come on my cousin and sit on my left thigh, then the messenger of Allah sat onher left thigh, then she said: do you see him? He replied: yes, she said: then turn andsit on my right thigh so the messenger of Allah turned and sat on her right thigh,she asked him: do you see him? He replied: yes, she said: then turn and sit in-between my thighs (lap), then the messenger of Allah turned and sat in-between herthighs, she asked: do you see him? He said: yes, she disclosed her form and put offher veil while the messenger of Allah peace upon him was still sitting in between herthighs , then she asked him: do you see him? He replied: No, then she said: O mycousin rejoice, I swear by Allah that he is an angel and not a demon !!!Ibn Ishak rapporte: Abou Hakim raconte qu’il a entendu de la bouche de Khadijaqu’elle a dit au messager dAllah: Ô mon cousin, voudrais-tu me le dire si ton amiqui vient souvent te voir, venait à te voir? Gabriel est venu, alors le prophète a dit: Ô Khadija, voici Gabriel qui vient me voir maintenant. Elle dit: viens, mon cousin,tasseoir sur ma cuisse gauche, alors le messager dAllah sassit là, puis elledemanda: le vois-tu? il dit: oui. Elle dit: tourne-toi et viens tasseoir sur ma cuissedroite. Le messager dAllah se retourna et vint sasseoir sur sa cuisse droite. Elle luidemanda: le vois-tu? il répondit: oui. Elle dit: tourne-toi et assieds-toi entre mescuisses (dans mon giron). Alors le messager dAllah se retourna et sassit entre sescuisses. Elle lui demanda: le vois-tu? Il dit: oui. Alors elle révéla sa forme (sedéshabilla) et enleva son voile tandis que le messager dAllah était encore entre sescuisses, puis elle lui demanda: le vois-tu? Il répondit: non. Alors elle dit: réjouis-toimon cousin, je jure par Allah que cest un ange et non un démon !!!http://www.divshare.com/download

 

[paarsurrey]

There is some part of the above post (#142) not written in English language. I could not understand its contents.

Regards

 

[gnostic]

I am wasting my time in debating with you in any case, because I already know you think it is ok to steal, in time of war.

I never said that.

So you don't believe in taking the 5th in the times of wars?

Doesn't Allah permit Muhammad and his warriors to take the 5th in plunders?

You believe in that taking a fifth of the spoil, don't you?

In Qur'an 8:1, 8:40, 8:68-69, 9:103, your god, Allah, has made stealing legal.

Plunders, loots, spoils, are all stolen properties.

And raiding caravans is what I would "stealing", taking stuffs that don't belong to them.

Let me, put this scenario to you, paarsurrey:

If I was soldier in army that had successfully defeated your country's army, and I went into your home, and loot your home, and took one-fifth of your wealth.
Am I "stealing" from you or do I have the legal right to own a fifth of your properties?​

 

[paarsurrey]

الرئيسة - السيرة - موقع الإسلام Biography of the Prophet by Ibn Hisham p. 93-94Narrated Ibn Ishak : narrated Abe Hakim, he heard from Khadija may Allah bepleased with her, she said to the messenger of Allah: O cousin , would you tell meabout your friend who used to come to you, if he comes to you tell me, then Gabrielcame, the prophet (PUH) said: O Khadija, here is Gabriel now he came to me, shesaid: come on my cousin and sit on my left thigh, then the messenger of Allah sat onher left thigh, then she said: do you see him? He replied: yes, she said: then turn andsit on my right thigh so the messenger of Allah turned and sat on her right thigh,she asked him: do you see him? He replied: yes, she said: then turn and sit in-between my thighs (lap), then the messenger of Allah turned and sat in-between herthighs, she asked: do you see him? He said: yes, she disclosed her form and put offher veil while the messenger of Allah peace upon him was still sitting in between herthighs , then she asked him: do you see him? He replied: No, then she said: O mycousin rejoice, I swear by Allah that he is an angel and not a demon !!!Ibn Ishak rapporte: Abou Hakim raconte qu’il a entendu de la bouche de Khadijaqu’elle a dit au messager dAllah: Ô mon cousin, voudrais-tu me le dire si ton amiqui vient souvent te voir, venait à te voir? Gabriel est venu, alors le prophète a dit: Ô Khadija, voici Gabriel qui vient me voir maintenant. Elle dit: viens, mon cousin,tasseoir sur ma cuisse gauche, alors le messager dAllah sassit là, puis elledemanda: le vois-tu? il dit: oui. Elle dit: tourne-toi et viens tasseoir sur ma cuissedroite. Le messager dAllah se retourna et vint sasseoir sur sa cuisse droite. Elle luidemanda: le vois-tu? il répondit: oui. Elle dit: tourne-toi et assieds-toi entre mescuisses (dans mon giron). Alors le messager dAllah se retourna et sassit entre sescuisses. Elle lui demanda: le vois-tu? Il dit: oui. Alors elle révéla sa forme (sedéshabilla) et enleva son voile tandis que le messager dAllah était encore entre sescuisses, puis elle lui demanda: le vois-tu? Il répondit: non. Alors elle dit: réjouis-toimon cousin, je jure par Allah que cest un ange et non un démon !!!http://www.divshare.com/download

Please quote from some source written within the life time of Muhammad.
Regards

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

According to Ibn Hisham's biography "biography" is the oldest and healthiest biography, in volume I, under the heading of "premature and exam proof guardian" include: Khadija Muhammad can tell me bshabk that comes when a man? He told her Yes, what of her, she has to do less on the left, the fkhazei did she him you have seen him now? He said yes, she had turned and was sitting on the right thigh of fifa said the push for him to see? He said yes, "garner said, and threw her Messenger of God sitting in her lap!!! He said do you still see ya Muhammad? They told her no, she has demonstrated and preach by God that the Angel and demon as he sheepishly from view if the demon was not ashamed. And same story listed for Muslim historians mention them: 1 – Ibn katheer in the beginning and the end "2 – Ibn Al-Atheer in" full history "3 – Aaron nose" and one of the most famous biography for Ben Hicham walshili 4 – injuries in the sahabah "son of Hagar. And modern references "the life of Muhammad" Dr. structure and Fiqh book biography of the Prophet of the women "said Ashour, which gives no doubt reality" exam Khadija and proof of revelation "of previous villain story understands the following: first, he was spending months at the Grotto for worship, as usually people of quraish, the way he worships? Christian monks and worshipers of idols? Second is premature until this role and prove to this creature that the spiritual, Angel, not devil? Isn't this a great mind trick. To talk the rest.

 

[gnostic]

If Muhammad's was a model of peaceful man, then why did he upset, threaten and offended the non-Islamic Meccans, preaching that Muslims should destroy idols everywhere.

The only reason why the Meccans reacted against Muhammad and small group of Muslims back then, was because Muhammad was the first to make threat against the other side, so it is quite understandable why the Meccans acted the way they did.

It weren't the Meccans who threatened Muhammad first; it was the other way around, with Muhammad's preaching.

 

[paarsurrey]

If Muhammad's was a model of peaceful man, then why did he upset, threaten and offended the non-Islamic Meccans, preaching that Muslims should destroy idols everywhere.

The only reason why the Meccans reacted against Muhammad and small group of Muslims back then, was because Muhammad was the first to make threat against the other side, so it is quite understandable why the Meccans acted the way they did.

It weren't the Meccans who threatened Muhammad first; it was the other way around, with Muhammad's preaching.

gnostic said: ↑[Muhammad was the first to make threat against the other side]

Please give details of such threats that Muhammad gave to Meccans while he lived in them at Mecca . Please don't indulge in conjectures.

Regards

 

[gnostic]

Please give details of such threats that Muhammad gave to Meccans while he lived in them at Mecca . Please don't indulge in conjectures.

It is not conjecture, paarsurrey.

Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi (784 - 845 CE), a Sunni scholar, who wrote biography on Muhammad, in Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra ("The book of The Major Classes"), book I & II (bks I & II are about Muhammad).

From what I understand, Ibn Sa'd is a respected Muslim scholar and historian/biographer.

Whether you believe what Ibn Sa'd wrote or not, is up to you.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is not conjecture, paarsurrey.

Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi (784 - 845 CE), a Sunni scholar, who wrote biography on Muhammad, in Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra ("The book of The Major Classes"), book I & II (bks I & II are about Muhammad).

From what I understand, Ibn Sa'd is a respected Muslim scholar and historian/biographer.

Whether you believe what Ibn Sa'd wrote or not, is up to you.

This is not something written in Muhammad's life time.

Regards

 

[gnostic]

This is not something written in Muhammad's life time.

Did I say anything about any biography or history written in his lifetime?

Heck, paarsurrey, the Qur'an wasn't even written in Muhammad's lifetime.

According to Islamic traditions, Muhammad's closest followers supposedly wrote down what Muhammad had supposedly taught them about the Qur'an in whatever materials they have acquired, BUT none of these original materials or sources for the Qur'an were ever preserved. All original materials recordings were destroyed when the Qur'an was written in the alleged final version by Caliph Uthman.

We have no way of knowing what Muhammad actually taught because those (original) sources have been destroyed by Uthman. We have no way of knowing how much interpolations were made the original scribes of Muhammad, because Muhammad himself didn't write a single damn thing, so we can't compare anything. And we don't know how much interpolations were done in the Ultman's final version, because we don't have those original sources, nor Muhammad's own written words, to compare them with.

I may be an amateur when it come to history, but even I know that the authenticity of Ultman's Qur'an can't be verified and confirmed because some bl@@dy idiots began destroying evidences and source materials that we don't know what had Muhammad had originally taught.

So the Qur'an itself, what we have now, is unconfirmed written scripture.

Muslims don't understand about how history is written, and that is made clear by the Qur'an, the hadiths and whatever biographies or supposed history of Muhammad.

And we certainly can't confirm that God wrote the Qur'an, because we can't confirm any claims that Muhammad had made about the visitations by angel Gabriel, nor we can confirm anything about him and his Night Journey.

Saying that God is the author of child, is tactic of ignorant child, so it is understandable why no non-Muslim historians or scientists would touch the Qur'an, because it is neither a history book, nor a science book.

So everything about the Qur'an fall back to faith and belief, and faith and belief are not evidence.

 

[paarsurrey]

Did I say anything about any biography or history written in his lifetime?

Heck, paarsurrey, the Qur'an wasn't even written in Muhammad's lifetime.

According to Islamic traditions, Muhammad's closest followers supposedly wrote down what Muhammad had supposedly taught them about the Qur'an in whatever materials they have acquired, BUT none of these original materials or sources for the Qur'an were ever preserved. All original materials recordings were destroyed when the Qur'an was written in the alleged final version by Caliph Uthman.

We have no way of knowing what Muhammad actually taught because those (original) sources have been destroyed by Uthman. We have no way of knowing how much interpolations were made the original scribes of Muhammad, because Muhammad himself didn't write a single damn thing, so we can't compare anything. And we don't know how much interpolations were done in the Ultman's final version, because we don't have those original sources, nor Muhammad's own written words, to compare them with.

I may be an amateur when it come to history, but even I know that the authenticity of Ultman's Qur'an can't be verified and confirmed because some bl@@dy idiots began destroying evidences and source materials that we don't know what had Muhammad had originally taught.

So the Qur'an itself, what we have now, is unconfirmed written scripture.

Muslims don't understand about how history is written, and that is made clear by the Qur'an, the hadiths and whatever biographies or supposed history of Muhammad.

And we certainly can't confirm that God wrote the Qur'an, because we can't confirm any claims that Muhammad had made about the visitations by angel Gabriel, nor we can confirm anything about him and his Night Journey.

Saying that God is the author of child, is tactic of ignorant child, so it is understandable why no non-Muslim historians or scientists would touch the Qur'an, because it is neither a history book, nor a science book.

So everything about the Qur'an fall back to faith and belief, and faith and belief are not evidence.

gnostic said: ↑paarsurrey, the Qur'an wasn't even written in Muhammad's lifetime.

Please add the following in your information:

Whenever any portion of the Quran was revealed to the Holy Prophet, he used to commit it to memory and, as he continuously recited the Quran from one end to the other, he always carried the whole of the revealed Quran at all times in his memory. In addition to this the following devices were adopted for safe-guarding and preserving intact the text of the Quran :

(I) As soon as a revelation was received by the Holy Prophet it was recorded in writing from his dictation. A number of persons are known to have been employed by the Holy Prophet for this purpose. Of these the names of the following fifteen have been mentioned in the traditions (Fath al-Bari, Vol. 9,p. 19) :

I . Zaid bin Thabit.
2. Ubayy ibn Ka'b.
3. 'Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi Sarh.
4. Zubair bin al-'Awwam.
5. Khalid bin Sa'id bin al-'As.
6. Aban bin Sa'id bin al-'As.
7. Hanzala bin al-Rabi' al-Asadi.
8. Mu'aiqib bin Abi Fatima.
9. 'Abdullah bin Arqam al-Zuhri.
10. Shurahbil bin Hasana.
1 I. 'Abdullah bin Rawaha.
12. Abu Bakr.
13. 'Umar.
14. 'Uthman.
15. 'Ali.

Whenever the Holy Prophet received a revelation, he would send for one of these persons and dictate to him the text of the revelation he had received.
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE HOLY QURAN PAGE-355

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf

So Quran was there in verbal and written form.

Regards

 

[gnostic]

Though there are number of cases in history, where people write history or biographies of people contemporary to them, more often than not, they were written after death of the people they are writing about. And most of the time, centuries after their death.

But in cases of Abrahamic religions, there are only in few cases where anything written were contemporaries, whether it be religious texts, but none of them are history.

The Qur'an does a fair job about writing about laws and code of conduct (even though I find some of them to be archaic), it is certainly not a history book.

Many of the things (like about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, David, Solomon, Jesus, etc) in the Qur'an cannot be confirmed. It is even more worthless as history of Muhammad.

 

[paarsurrey]

Though there are number of cases in history, where people write history or biographies of people contemporary to them, more often than not, they were written after death of the people they are writing about. And most of the time, centuries after their death.

But in cases of Abrahamic religions, there are only in few cases where anything written were contemporaries, whether it be religious texts, but none of them are history.

The Qur'an does a fair job about writing about laws and code of conduct (even though I find some of them to be archaic), it is certainly not a history book.

Many of the things (like about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, David, Solomon, Jesus, etc) in the Qur'an cannot be confirmed. It is even more worthless as history of Muhammad.

Quran is not a biography of Muhammad. Quran is for knowing G-d and His attributes and Quran guides one in this respect excellently. Muhammad was a messenger/prophet of G-d and he conveyed the message given to him by G-d perfectly.
Please don't look for things in Quran which Quran never claimed to have that is an unreasonable approach.

Regards

 

[gnostic]

Quran is not a biography of Muhammad.

I know that it is not history or biography of Muhammad, but weren't you the one who keep saying that if there is nothing about Muhammad in the Qur'an, then don't trust no sources outside the Qur'an, which included the hadiths?

But where do you go to find something (meaning sources) about Muhammad's life, if not Muslim-written history or biography?

I brought up one source, a biographer, Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi, and yet you dismiss it out of hand, because he was not a contemporary to the prophet. Biographers don't have to be contemporary to be a biographer.

Nevertheless, I had never stated the Qur'an is history textbook, PERIOD! I think as a scripture, it utterly useless in telling history, PERIOD, because the author(s) is useless!

And the Qur'an is certainly not a science book too, but we get Muslims make all sort of claims about "scientific signs" or "scientific miracles", hidden in verses.

Don't blame me, if Muslims (biographers, historians, scholars) or your prophet can't the truth.

 

[paarsurrey]

I know that it is not history or biography of Muhammad, but weren't you the one who keep saying that if there is nothing about Muhammad in the Qur'an, then don't trust no sources outside the Qur'an, which included the hadiths?

But where do you go to find something (meaning sources) about Muhammad's life, if not Muslim-written history or biography?

I brought up one source, a biographer, Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi, and yet you dismiss it out of hand, because he was not a contemporary to the prophet. Biographers don't have to be contemporary to be a biographer.

Nevertheless, I had never stated the Qur'an is history textbook, PERIOD! I think as a scripture, it utterly useless in telling history, PERIOD, because the author(s) is useless!

And the Qur'an is certainly not a science book too, but we get Muslims make all sort of claims about "scientific signs" or "scientific miracles", hidden in verses.

Don't blame me, if Muslims (biographers, historians, scholars) or your prophet can't the truth.

A historian doesn't have to be necessarily of the same faith about which he writes. One has to see as to which reliable sources has one used. He cannot write against the most reliable contemporary sources.

Quran records the events that took place to Muhammad and the Muslims in the time of Muhammad when these events were happening/happened like a live recording or even more accurate than that.

If by omission or commission somebody misses those points of Quran when writing history that must be rejected on merit irrespective of the religion of the writer.

Regards

 

[gnostic]

A historian doesn't have to be necessarily of the same faith about which he writes.

True, paarsurrey.

However, the only people who wrote about Muhammad, his biography, history or what are found in the hadiths, were that all of his same faith - they were all written by Muslims.

All sources were Muslim sources, including that of Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi.

If by omission or commission somebody misses those points of Quran when writing history that must be rejected on merit irrespective of the religion of the writer.

That's not history. You can't simply can't reject other sources, just because it doesn't agree with the Qur'an.

You are whitewashing history or biography, because of it doesn't appear in the Qur'an, is nothing more than propaganda.

Seriously, if I was to read about the life of Solomon from the book of 1 Kings and from Qur'an, I would take the 1 Kings over the Qur'an, because the Islamic Solomon have him being able to listen to, understand and speak to ants. The Qur'an also say that Solomon can command birds and jinns to fight in battle on his side; this is more myth.

The Qur'an version about Solomon is nothing more than a fable or fairytale. Clearly, the Solomon-and-ants episode is an allegory. Could you possibly take the Qur'an seriously or as history?

And the Qur'an is not history book.

Do not confuse a book of theology with history.

That you can't distinguish between fable and history, showed that you are too biased to judge what is history and what isn't.

 

[paarsurrey]

True, paarsurrey.

However, the only people who wrote about Muhammad, his biography, history or what are found in the hadiths, were that all of his same faith - they were all written by Muslims.

All sources were Muslim sources, including that of Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi.



That's not history. You can't simply can't reject other sources, just because it doesn't agree with the Qur'an.

You are whitewashing history or biography, because of it doesn't appear in the Qur'an, is nothing more than propaganda.

Seriously, if I was to read about the life of Solomon from the book of 1 Kings and from Qur'an, I would take the 1 Kings over the Qur'an, because the Islamic Solomon have him being able to listen to, understand and speak to ants. The Qur'an also say that Solomon can command birds and jinns to fight in battle on his side; this is more myth.

The Qur'an version about Solomon is nothing more than a fable or fairytale. Clearly, the Solomon-and-ants episode is an allegory. Could you possibly take the Qur'an seriously or as history?

And the Qur'an is not history book.

Do not confuse a book of theology with history.

That you can't distinguish between fable and history, showed that you are too biased to judge what is history and what isn't.

And the Qur'an is not history book.

I have several time mentioned that Quran does not claim to be a book of history. So please don't read it as a book of history.

It is more accurate than a book of history.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Muhammad’s life at Mecca was model of a peaceful person

THE FAITHFUL PERSECUTED

God began to talk to Muhammad (sa) in "another tongue".

The youth of the country began to wonder.Those in search of truth became excited. Out of scorn and derision began to grow approval and admiration.

Slaves, young men, and hapless women began to collect around the Prophet (sa). In his Message and in his teaching there was hope for the degraded, the depressed and the young. Women thought the time for the restoration of their rights was near. Slaves thought the day of their liberation had come and young men thought the avenues of progress were going to be thrown open to them. When derision began to change into approval and indifference into attachment, the chiefs of Mecca and the officials began to take fright.

They assembled and took counsel. They decided that derision was no method to deal with this menace.A more serious remedy had to be applied. The new influence had to be put down by force. It was decided that persecution and some form of boycott must be instituted. Practical steps were soon taken, and Mecca was pitched against Islam in a serious conflict. The Prophet (sa) and his small following were no longer considered mad, but a growing influence which, if allowed to grow unimpeded, would prove a danger to the faith, prestige, customs and traditions of Mecca.

Islam threatened to pull down and rebuild the old structure of Meccan society, to create a new heaven and a new earth, the coming of which must mean the disappearance of the old heaven of Arabia and its old heart. Meccans could no longer laugh at Islam. It was a question now of life and death for them. Islam was a challenge and Mecca accepted the challenge, as enemies of Prophets had always accepted the challenge of their Prophets.

They decided not to meet argument by argument but to draw the sword and put down the dangerous teaching by force; not to match the good example of the Prophet (sa) and his followers by their own, nor to reply to kind words in kind, but to maltreat the innocent and to abuse those who spoke kindly. Once again in the world a conflict started between belief and disbelief; the forces of Satan declared war on the angels. The Faithful, still a handful, had no power to resist the onslaughts and violence of the disbelievers.

Page 12-13
Life of Muhammad (sa)http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Life-of-Muhammad.pdf

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

True, paarsurrey.

However, the only people who wrote about Muhammad, his biography, history or what are found in the hadiths, were that all of his same faith - they were all written by Muslims.

All sources were Muslim sources, including that of Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi.



That's not history. You can't simply can't reject other sources, just because it doesn't agree with the Qur'an.

You are whitewashing history or biography, because of it doesn't appear in the Qur'an, is nothing more than propaganda.

Seriously, if I was to read about the life of Solomon from the book of 1 Kings and from Qur'an, I would take the 1 Kings over the Qur'an, because the Islamic Solomon have him being able to listen to, understand and speak to ants. The Qur'an also say that Solomon can command birds and jinns to fight in battle on his side; this is more myth.

The Qur'an version about Solomon is nothing more than a fable or fairytale. Clearly, the Solomon-and-ants episode is an allegory. Could you possibly take the Qur'an seriously or as history?

And the Qur'an is not history book.

Do not confuse a book of theology with history.

That you can't distinguish between fable and history, showed that you are too biased to judge what is history and what isn't.

The Qur'an also say that Solomon can command birds and jinns to fight in battle on his side; this is more myth.

Please quote the verse of Quran with reference.

Regards