Questions for Muslims

[Rival]

By the way I am on my phone so I can't type huge paragraphs.

 

[firedragon]

1. I want historic sources not obviously biased towards any faith.

Yes. When you ask questions not relating to faith, the answers will be from outside the faith. When you ask questions about the religion, answers will be from the Quran.

2. Qur'an is not evidence for anything. It is a book of law and mythology. Also, the Qur'an never once mentions Muhammad; Muslims put that in there where it merely says "the messenger". This might not even refer to Muhammad for all anyone knows.

I perfectly understand that you will think its mythology. Of course. Otherwise you will be a Muslim.

But Quran does mention Muhammeds name. Please mate, dont just blurt things out. One example. Chapter 33:40. Maa Kaana Muhammadhun. See below a snap shot.

Mohammed is not the father of any of your men, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things.

3. Do a Google search for the earliest Mosques facing Petra and you will find that the Mosques from the 7th century face Petra.

Do a google search for the earliest mosques and you will find many mosques.

4. There were no Mosques built prior to Islam. All the historic data tells us this. It is a basic fact.

Again, the Quranic teaching is that Islam is time immemorial. There is nothing called prior to Islam.

I don't want Islam according to Qur'an, I want Islam according to history.

You mean Islam after Muhammed.

 

[firedragon]

By the way I am on my phone so I can't type huge paragraphs.

No problem Rival. Of course.

 

[Rival]

If you can't accept that there was no such religion as Islam before Muhammad, we are going to have problems.

 

[Rival]

Mohammed is not the father of any of your men, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things.

Thanks.

 

[Rival]

Again, the Quranic teaching is that Islam is time immemorial. There is nothing called prior to Islam.

This is exactly what I don't want. I want historic evidence, writings, archaeological findings that prove such a religion existed pre-Mohammad.

 

[Rival]

Do a google search for the earliest mosques and you will find many mosques.

From 2.000 B.C.?

 

[Augustus]

Was Mecca a trade hub on any known trade routes?

Unlikely to have been a trade hub as most long distance trade would be going by sea by this time. Trade in locally produced goods cannot be ruled out though.


Did Quraysh make their wealth by organizing supplies to the Roman army? As things stand, a case can be made for it, but not proved.... The hypothesis is none the less attractive, not only because it completely solves the coals-to-Newcastle problem, but also because it would contribute to the explanation of the cataclysmic changes in Arabia that we know as the rise of Islam... The shift from Arabian spices and foreign luxury goods which had dominated the Arabian trade with the empires in the past to leather and other pastoralist products will have enriched the rearers of goats, sheep and camels at the expense of the townsmen, whose once flourishing cities recede from the literary and archaeological record from the third and fourth centuries onwards. That the wars between the two empires played a role in this decline has long been surmised.128 What the empires needed now were allies who could mobilize manpower and other resources for military use, not suppliers of the amenities of civilization; and as the cities linked with the empires by trade in high-class goods, shared artistic and cultural tastes, and their own penchant for the amenities of civilization129 gave way to phylarchs and client kingdoms, new sectors of the Arabian population were drawn into the imperial systems, encountering them mainly, or in many cases probably only, as war machines. It is from the third century onwards that we begin to encounter Arab kings in the inscriptions along with the tribal groupings and the language familiar from the Islamic tradition.130 In short, in political and cultural terms alike, it would seem to have been in the period in which the Syrian desert was a major war zone that Muhammad’s Arabia was formed. (P Crone - Quraysh and the Roman army: Making sense of the Meccan leather trade)

What did early Muslims call themselves? Find me an example that isn't 'Ishmaelites' or something similar.

Purely in terms of physical evidence, they called themselves believers (mu'minun). For example:

(It's Greek because Arabic wasn't adopted as the official language until Abd al-Malik's era)

1. In the days of the servant of God Muʿāwiya (abdalla Maavia), the commander
2. of the faithful (amēra almoumenēn) the hot baths of the
3. people there were saved and rebuilt
4. by ʿAbd Allāh son of Abū Hāshim (Abouasemou), the
5. governor, on the fifth of the month of December,
6. on the second day (of the week), in the 6th year of the indiction,
7. in the year 726 of the colony, according to the Arabs (kata Arabas) the 42nd year,
8. for the healing of the sick, under the care of Ioannes,
9. the official of Gadara.

Interestingly, the person who made this inscription had time to carve a cross at the very beginning, but didn't see fit to carve Muhammed's name.

"But outside the Qurʾān, the word Islam, as a name of the religion, appears for the first time on the tombstone of a woman named ʿAbbāsa dated 71AH/ 691 CE.3 There, the Believers are called ahl al-islām. The first definitely datable evidence of the usage of the word muslimūn, in the sense of adherents of Islam, is from 123 Ah / 741 Ce,4 although it was prob- ably used widely even before that.5 Thus, the change from a “community of Believers to [a] community of Muslims”6 was a rather slow one, at least appellation- wise. Islam seems to have been a distinct religion from early on, but it took some decades, if not more, for its characteristics to become shaped."
(Muhājirūn as a Name for the First/ Seventh Century Muslims - Illka Lindstedt)

 

[Pastek]

Present me evidence for a Mosque built 2.000 B.C. Pretty please.

The term "mosque" in arabic : "masjid meaning "place of worship" or "prostration in prayer", either from Nabataean masgĕdhā́ or from Arabic سجد sajada meaning "to bow down in prayer", probably ultimately from Aramaic sĕghēdh."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque

We can see in Quran surah 17 :

17.7 [And said], "If you do good, you do good for yourselves; and if you do evil, [you do it] to yourselves." Then when the final promise came, [We sent your enemies] to sadden your faces and to enter the temple in Jerusalem, as they entered it the first time, and to destroy what they had taken over with [total] destruction.

This is about a prophecy that already pasted read verse 17.4

In arabic the word translated as "temple" in english is actually "masjed".
So it refers i guess to the Temple of Salomon. I'm not very familiar about the story but it's about the 2nd destruction of the Temple.

You can put the cursor in the word in arabic to see it here : http://www.quran.com/17

الْمَسْجِدَ = el masjed

 

[Augustus]

Yes, the other earliest external document (Not a Quran) to mentioning the prophet Muhammed is from the year 671, around 40 years after he died

It's actually much earlier than that:

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 C.634)

In January {the people of} Hims took the word for their lives and many villages were ravaged by the killing of {the Arabs of} Muhammad (Muhmd) and many people were slain and {taken} prisoner from Galilee as far as Beth. . . . (Fragment C. 636)

Big list of early references here (all taken from the Hoyland book I linked to previously)


Interestingly from early references 'At least eleven sources from the seventh and eighth centuries indicate in varied fashion that Muhammad was still alive at the time of the Palestinian conquest, leading his followers into the Holy Land some two to three years after he is supposed to have died in Medina according to traditional Islamic accounts.' (S Shoemaker - Death of a prophet)

 

[firedragon]

It's actually much earlier than that:

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 C.634)

In January {the people of} Hims took the word for their lives and many villages were ravaged by the killing of {the Arabs of} Muhammad (Muhmd) and many people were slain and {taken} prisoner from Galilee as far as Beth. . . . (Fragment C. 636)

Big list of early references here (all taken from the Hoyland book I linked to previously)


Interestingly from early references 'At least eleven sources from the seventh and eighth centuries indicate in varied fashion that Muhammad was still alive at the time of the Palestinian conquest, leading his followers into the Holy Land some two to three years after he is supposed to have died in Medina according to traditional Islamic accounts.' (S Shoemaker - Death of a prophet)

Thanks a lot.

Actually what I meant was Muhammad's name. Or is there any other mention Of the name so early.

As Muhammed the prophet or rasool.

Btw, what is your education? You are probably the in person I have seen online who is fair and educated. What you say I have found always to be absolutely true. Even when you disagree with me.

 

[firedragon]

From 2.000 B.C.?

Nope. ☺

 

[Augustus]

Actually what I meant was Muhammad's name. Or is there any other mention Of the name so early.

As Muhammed the prophet or rasool.

Muhammed - yes
Prophet - yes
Muhammed & prophet - not until later

The Doctrina Jacobi is quite interesting though if its early dating is correct as it hints at aspects of his teachings (although it is fair to note it is a Christian apologetic text).

There is an article here which discusses it if you are interested.
https://www.academia.edu/3689606/_M...te_Antique_Puzzle_Der_Islam_91.2_2014_243-265

Abu Bakr and Umar are actually even less common in the historical record pre-9th C, although their names exist in a couple of lists of 'kings', dated by some as early 8th C.

Btw, what is your education?

Reading books and journals. Just find it an interesting subject.

What you say I have found always to be absolutely true. Even when you disagree with me.

One more for you then (can't remember if we have discussed this before)

while the Quran fragments are dated latest 645, that's 13 years after Muhammed died. But there is a significant possibility that this existed during Muhammeds lifetime.

While many people have been getting excited that the fragments pre-date Muhammed, or are contemporary to him, they are probably late 7th C as the text contains features that are not thought to have existed so early, something even noted by some Muslim scholars.

It's often reported that the dating is 94.6% accurate, but that's not quite correct. They are 94.6% accurate assuming calibration is correct. This makes a great deal of difference as machines are calibrated using tree rings in Europe and America, the ME has a very different climate however.

Middle Eastern manuscripts (not just Qurans ) have consequently been very hard to carbon date accurately (A Sanaa Quran fragment was 'accurately' carbon dated to 5th C, then 6th, then 7th).

It is possible that the dating is accurate, but far from a certainty. Balance of probabilities puts it later, even the researcher who found it is sceptical of the early date. (Actually, she also contributed an article on variations in ancient Quranic manuscripts to an ultra-revisionist book 'The hidden origins of Islam'. Her article is less 'out there' than others in the text to be fair.)

 

[Useless2015]

I have quite a few.

a) If Islam is God's perfected religion and God sent Jesus as a mere messenger, why is Christianity the world's dominant religion and has been nearly since its inception? Why would Allah do that?

It's not about numbers, if it is than prepare yourself to become muslim because in 50 years(maybe less) Islam will be the biggest religion. Also like to add that Christianity spread through genocides on innocent people.

How is the Qur'an perfect and universal if it can only be studied and properly understood in Arabic? Also, why does the oldest copy not match up to any known copy we have today?

The oldest Quran is the exact same as one we have. It's in Brittain, go look it up.

c) Why do all the earliest Mosques face Petra? And why does Petra fit the descriptions given in the Qur'an, not Mecca?

Earliest mosques faced Jerusalem.

d) Provide me some non-Islamic evidence that Mecca existed in the time of Muhammad.
"Surprising as it may seem, not one map before 900 AD even mentions Mecca. This is 300 years after Muhammad’s death" http://www.academia.edu/1776803/The_Mecca_Question

I don't feel like searching up stupid things.

e) Why couldn't Allah preserve the original message and where were the supposed 24,000 messengers that were sent to everywhere? Evidence?

Because humans have free will.

f) Why isn't the word 'Muslim' or 'Muhammad' used during the Arabian conquests? Why do these words only appear years after Muhammad?

The word Muhammed is in the bible aswell. So it existed

 

[firedragon]

Muhammed - yes
Prophet - yes
Muhammed & prophet - not until later

The Doctrina Jacobi is quite interesting though if its early dating is correct as it hints at aspects of his teachings (although it is fair to note it is a Christian apologetic text).

There is an article here which discusses it if you are interested.
https://www.academia.edu/3689606/_M...te_Antique_Puzzle_Der_Islam_91.2_2014_243-265

The thing the enseignement is that though it records 634 it is actually written around 640, or perhaps a few years earlier. Though this cannot be deemed fully correct as in there are varying theories on when Muhammeds proclamation of the coming messiah and antechrist was first established. Nevertheless this is the first record of a messenger emerging. The thing we dont have an English version of it, if you do, please let me know where I could buy one.

Reading books and journals. Just find it an interesting subject.

Errm. I find it hard to believe. Honestly, I really respect you for your academic advance. Well, kudos.

While many people have been getting excited that the fragments pre-date Muhammed, or are contemporary to him, they are probably late 7th C as the text contains features that are not thought to have existed so early, something even noted by some Muslim scholars.

It's often reported that the dating is 94.6% accurate, but that's not quite correct. They are 94.6% accurate assuming calibration is correct. This makes a great deal of difference as machines are calibrated using tree rings in Europe and America, the ME has a very different climate however.

Middle Eastern manuscripts (not just Qurans ) have consequently been very hard to carbon date accurately (A Sanaa Quran fragment was 'accurately' carbon dated to 5th C, then 6th, then 7th).

It is possible that the dating is accurate, but far from a certainty. Balance of probabilities puts it later, even the researcher who found it is skeptical of the early date. (Actually, she also contributed an article on variations in ancient Quranic manuscripts to an ultra-revisionist book 'The hidden origins of Islam'. Her article is less 'out there' than others in the text to be fair.)

Predating Muhammed is of nearing zero percent. I know the text contains nokths that are accepted to have been developed later. But that theory is also a late development. See, there are many Muslim scholars who have been proponents of Ahadith based propositions. Since Ahamed and others also record that there was a ban in writing anything other than the Quran down after the prophets death there is a question if anyone wrote hadith down for 30 years after the prophet. Many scholars concede that the ahadith dictated what goes into the Quran. Thus if there is a Quran written during his lifetime or even 12 years later as carbon-14 dating of the Birmingham manuscript concludes, then the proposition that Hadith deemed what went into the Quran and not fails.

This is why many Muslim scholars are skeptical about the manuscript having such an early date.

Also we were born and bred to understand that the Quran was written on various material and collated later after the prophet died. Its very difficult to gulp down that nope, it could have been collated earlier. The manuscript has the 18th and 20st chapters. According to tradition the first chapter to be revealed was chapter 96. In that order there are 25 surahs in between chapter 20 and 18. This means a bare minimum of 25 chapters would have been collected at the time, in one collection. Same handwriting, same everything. If we deem that the chapters upto 18 were there, thats a total of 69 chapters. More than half the Quran in terms of number of chapters, in length, more. All meccan.

It is only a plausible thing to say that the whole Quran must have been collated. All this has been studied after the finding of the fragments. This is, without the french connection. France has other fragments from the same collection. Same script, same writing, even the angle.

Anyway, if you do a tree ring analysis, still there could be variations. And the maximum contamination can only make a difference of 20 years to the dating. Thus, earliest dating could be 548 and the latest dating 625 or to be more accurate a maximum of 623.

Hidden Origins of Islam has a myriad of things I have problems. Luxenburgs study of varying points between classical Arabic and Aramaic has many flaws to a person studied classical Arabic. It is actually kind of hypocritical to change Alnikathus here, there and around in an older language to see how the meaning changes. Thus, I dont side with him at all, though his work is commendable as an academic study.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

And not contribute any answers? lol

I did, I wrote them in bold in the quote. Have another look.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

1. I want historic sources not obviously biased towards any faith.

2. Qur'an is not evidence for anything. It is a book of law and mythology. Also, the Qur'an never once mentions Muhammad; Muslims put that in there where it merely says "the messenger". This might not even refer to Muhammad for all anyone knows.

3. Do a Google search for the earliest Mosques facing Petra and you will find that the Mosques from the 7th century face Petra.

4. There were no Mosques built prior to Islam. All the historic data tells us this. It is a basic fact.

I don't want Islam according to Qur'an, I want Islam according to history.

Ok, so I understand now. When someone answers your questions you just keep repeating your own ideas, which are woefully misinformed.

Oh, and just to disprove you again, the name Muhammad in mentioned at least 4 times in the Quran and mentioned in far older versions of the Bible too, although the name is "Ahmed" which is the Hebrew for Muhammad.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Can someone please do research on this? Instead of 'I don't believe you".

Early Mosques faced Petra. This is a fact confirmed by satellite images of the foundations of the earliest Mosques. Sorry if this bothers you. I said PETRA not Jerusalem,

What did early Muslims call themselves? Find me an example that isn't 'Ishmaelites' or something similar.

And lastly, give me ONE piece of evidence that Jesus was in any sense a Muslim.

It took nearly 50 years for Mosques to uniformly face Mecca.

Does Mecca have valleys? No. Then why does Qur'an mention them? Was Mecca a trade hub on any known trade routes? No. Was Petra? Yes.

Jesus preached the worship and submission to one God, that is the definition of Islam, it's followers are Muslim.

Plus, what does your picture prove? A mosque doesn't have to point in any particular direction, it is the position of the prayer mats and positions within. Your picture just shows two random buildings, pointing in the same direction. You think Makkah is as wide as the head of that arrow and must fall within that breadth?

This comes across as very desperate.

 

[Faronator]

I did, I wrote them in bold in the quote. Have another look.

Not when you initially posted yesterday. Maybe 8 minutes ago when you edited the post but either way - doesn't matter. Thanks for the wonderful contribution!

 

[Rival]

This comes across as very desperate.

Yes, I am desperate. I am desperate to make Muslims realise that their Islamic narrative is wrong and historically inaccurate. This is hardly a uniquely Islamic problem though.