The term "Allah" comes from the Nabateans, and matches the general term god, which encompassed all the gods of the Nabateans, which resided in the Kabba in Petra, of which the gods came from all the trading nations associated with the Nabatean world traders. There was no Mecca in the 6th Century B.C., nor it being a great trading center with fruit trees and streams. That narrative was made up by mostly Persian writers over 100 years after the murder of some supposed guy called the "praised one" (Muhammad). The Muslims stand on pure imagery appropriated from other cultures, used to unite the separate Arab tribes into a unified nation.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why should a Christian even look into Islam as a Possible true Faith?
- Thread starter InvestigateTruth
- Start date
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
A day can also represent a single year, eg Daniel's 1260 days and the 1844 wine symbolism (Shiraz, Morse, Ephraim).
BrotherAlameen
CHFI | CompTIA | Cyber-Sec | OSINT | Medical |
Well, that’s one of my points.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, it's a contraction of al - elah. Al means 'the' and 'elah' is singular, unlike 'god' which is ambiguous.
No, Muhammad is endorsed by Isaiah via the pressing of the seal (the unlearned/illiterate man in the cave of Hira).
There is no "cave" of Hira in Mecca, and there are no mountains in which the cave exists at the site of the Kaaba in Mecca. The cave overlooking the original site of the Kaaba exists in Petra. There is no "angel" Gabrial, other than possibly a monk living close to Petra in a monastery on the supposed Mount Sinai, in which that monastery holds a letter from the Arabs giving the monastery a safe passage from any Arab bad Garma. There is no tie between Mecca and Abraham, and there is no lineage linking the Arabs with Ishamel according to the Muslim narrative. According to the Muslim narrative, there is a 26 lineage gap between Ishmael and the Arabs. According to the prophets of the "book of the people", the Arabs match the lineage of Edom/Essau, in which Edom applies to an area of todays' southern Jordan area, which would include Petra, and not Mecca. The Koran once mentions Becca, not Mecca. And the Koran's description of the home of the prophet, matches Petra, not Mecca. Becca means area of gathering around the Kaaba, The Kaaba existed in Petra before it and the black stone were transferred to Mecca. The Hajj was an old practice of Petra, when the worldwide Nabatean traders returned to Petra to worship their ancestors and their gods, and eventually be buried.
I am kind of thinking that 1844 came and went, and Judah remained un revived (Joel 3:1), and Judah and Ephraim/Israel, remain unrepentant, and unhealed, and separate (Ez 36 & 37).
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Cave of Hira | Also Known as Jabal Al-Hira | The First Revelation |
It is the place where Prophet Muhammad PBUH was blessed with the first revelation of the Holy Quran. The cave of Hira is also known as Jabal Al-Hira.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
“Are you implying”…
“Are you proposing”…
“Are you submitting”…
“Are you insinuating”…
“Are you proffering”…
“Are you eluding”…
“Are you inferring”…
Along with the original “are you suggesting”…..
All were options included that in no way imply “certainty”….merely an invitation to put forth your best case.
Oh well….since you’re obviously not up to it, no big deal.
We’ll just leave it at that.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
Why different conclusions was your question, which I explained;
Simple…..your conclusion can in fact not be objectively demonstrated……
I then specified several instances.
I’m suggesting that you have demonstrated each of these flaws in reasoning….
approaching your investigation with bias and presumptions which leads to making mistakes in understanding, and thereby coming to your conclusion.
Which is different than mine….. which is not granting “belief” until such time as objective demonstration of it being factual.
Thus why I’m not “veiled” by bias, presumptions, probable mistaken understandings and thus dubious conclusions.
Which was the answer to your question of “how can you be sure that you are not veiled from the truth?”
Your “information that supports it” is all subjective, and based in an assumption, therefore unconvincing.
You are correct, I’m not willing to invest significant time and effort into a “complete investigation” until I am shown a convincing reason to do so.
I have heard claims from many religions that they also have “the truth”, why should I give extra attention to any one of them, or yours, before they, or you, can show a valid objective reason to do so?
Especially since, in each case they assure that they have “the truth” and without fail, when impartiality investigated, turn out to be on a foundation based in highly subjective and unconvincing evidence to support them.
This is yet another flaw in your reasoning.
Note that like a court case, heresy evidence is generally not admissible evidence.
And that each piece of evidence is subject to verification before it is admissible, and that which is not verifiable is not allowed to be included in evidence to be considered.
So yes, each piece of evidence must be able to stand on it’s own.
I can’t help but notice you ignored my challenge for you to resolve the discrepancy in your two consecutive statements; i.e. …….
How do you jibe this statement with what you claimed in your previous post of what about 35 minutes earlier?…….
Try not to throw out your back!
There is no cave in sight of the Kaaba in Mecca. There are no two hills near the Kaaba of Mecca. There are two large stones, with no cave. There is a cave in sight of the old Kaaba location in Petra. There are water canals in Petra which at one time watered the fruit trees there. Mecca was and is still in an area of a desolate wilderness. The name of the two large rocks in Mecca, Safa and Marwa, are not hills or mountains. With respect to Ishmael being sent into the wilderness, that was not of the wilderness of the Mecca area, but of the wilderness of Beersheba (Genesis 21:14). The Kaaba is simply a representation of the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem, apparently copied by the Nabateans of Petra. The descriptions of the home of the prophet, is listed in parathesis as "Mecca", in the Koran, come from Petra and Jerusalem. Parathesis indicate that the word is not native to the writing, but written in. Islam is based on a made up story.Cave of Hira | Also Known as Jabal Al-Hira | The First Revelation |
It is the place where Prophet Muhammad PBUH was blessed with the first revelation of the Holy Quran. The cave of Hira is also known as Jabal Al-Hira.thepilgrim.co
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
You just avoid what I said before.
This thread is specific to Islam and Christianity as described in the OP.
If you like to discuss Bahai Faith related topics, kindly open a new Thread.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Sure. You have not addressed my point about abjecti
So what? The point is that Muhammad is referenced by Isaiah.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
You ignored my previous post.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
There are indeed Hadithes that says that
الطالقاني ، عن أحمد الهمداني ، عن علي بن الحسن بن فضال ، عن أبيه ، عن أبي الحسن الرضا 7 قال : إنما سمي اولوالعزم اولي العزم لانهم كانوا اصحاب العزائم واشرائع ، وذلك أن كل نبي كان بعد نوح (ع) كان على شريعته ومنهاجه وتابعا لكتابه إلى زمن إبراهيم الخليل ، وكل نبي كان في أيام إبراهيم وبعده كان على شريعة إبراهيم ومنهاجه وتابعا لكتابه إلى زمن موسى ، وكل نبي كان في زمن موسى وبعده كان على شريعة موسى [١] ومنهاجه وتابعا لكتابه إلى أيام عيسى وكل نبي كان في أيام عيسى وبعده كان على منهاج عيسى وشريعته وتابعا لكتابه إلى زمن نبينا محمد (ص) فهؤلاء الخمسة اولوالعزم وهم أفضل الانبياء والرسل (ع) ، وشريعة محمد لا تنسخ إلى يوم القيامة ، ولا نبي بعده إلى يوم القيامة ، فمن ادعى بعده نبوة أو أتى بعدالقرآن بكتاب فدمه مباح لكل من سمع ذلك منه. [٢]
عن جابر عن أبي عبد الله في قول الله تعالى وَاللَّيْلِ إِذا يَغْشى
قال دولة إبليس إلى يوم القيامة وهو يوم قيام القائم
وَالنَّهارِ إِذا تَجَلَّى وهو القائم إذا قام
قال دولة إبليس إلى يوم القيامة وهو يوم قيام القائم
وَالنَّهارِ إِذا تَجَلَّى وهو القائم إذا قام
الإمام الرضا عليه السلام) " لا دين لمن لا ورع له، ولا إيمان لمن لا تقية له إن أكرمكم عند الله أعملكم بالتقية، فقيل له: يا ابن رسول الله إلى متى؟ قال: إلى يوم الوقت المعلوم، وهو يوم خروج قائمنا أهل البيت فمن ترك التقية قبل خروج قائمنا فليس منا.
It is not meant to convince. It is meant to give a choice to reject, but then fail the Test, if you know what I mean.
It is like Christians insisting Bible is Final.
Last edited:
There are indeed Hadithes that says that
الطالقاني ، عن أحمد الهمداني ، عن علي بن الحسن بن فضال ، عن أبيه ، عن أبي الحسن الرضا 7 قال : إنما سمي اولوالعزم اولي العزم لانهم كانوا اصحاب العزائم واشرائع ، وذلك أن كل نبي كان بعد نوح (ع) كان على شريعته ومنهاجه وتابعا لكتابه إلى زمن إبراهيم الخليل ، وكل نبي كان في أيام إبراهيم وبعده كان على شريعة إبراهيم ومنهاجه وتابعا لكتابه إلى زمن موسى ، وكل نبي كان في زمن موسى وبعده كان على شريعة موسى [١] ومنهاجه وتابعا لكتابه إلى أيام عيسى وكل نبي كان في أيام عيسى وبعده كان على منهاج عيسى وشريعته وتابعا لكتابه إلى زمن نبينا محمد (ص) فهؤلاء الخمسة اولوالعزم وهم أفضل الانبياء والرسل (ع) ، وشريعة محمد لا تنسخ إلى يوم القيامة ، ولا نبي بعده إلى يوم القيامة ، فمن ادعى بعده نبوة أو أتى بعدالقرآن بكتاب فدمه مباح لكل من سمع ذلك منه. [٢]
عن جابر عن أبي عبد الله في قول الله تعالى وَاللَّيْلِ إِذا يَغْشى
قال دولة إبليس إلى يوم القيامة وهو يوم قيام القائم
وَالنَّهارِ إِذا تَجَلَّى وهو القائم إذا قام
الإمام الرضا عليه السلام) " لا دين لمن لا ورع له، ولا إيمان لمن لا تقية له إن أكرمكم عند الله أعملكم بالتقية، فقيل له: يا ابن رسول الله إلى متى؟ قال: إلى يوم الوقت المعلوم، وهو يوم خروج قائمنا أهل البيت فمن ترك التقية قبل خروج قائمنا فليس منا.
It is not meant to convince. It is meant to give a choice to reject, but then fail the Test, if you know what I mean.
It is like Christians insisting Bible is Final.
Day of judgment is not the Mahdi. I'm talking about the famous hadith "except there is no Prophet after me", if he said "until the Mahdi", it would be clear that the Mahdi is a Nabi. However, putting the hadiths that say outright there is no Nabi after Mohammad (s) and the ones saying till day of judgment, we can deduce day of judgment is the end just as it's clear in the Quran it is as it's known as the last day.
You have to make a point, not express a point, which no one but those among the "deceived" even believes. The point I made is that there was no Mecca trading center at the time of the early 7th century, or cave of Hira in Mecca, for some mythical guy to receive some claimed reception of a message from some angel of light, received within a nonexistent cave. There are no early editions of the Koran, even when they were supposedly sent to all the Arabic centers of power. Apparently, the supposed leaders of Islam couldn't even agree on how many chapters it has. As for Isaiah 29:11-12, the book was both given to a literate man and an illiterate man, whereas 95% of the world at the time early 7th century were illiterate, and therefore your interpretation has no foundation, as neither the literate nor illiterate could understand for it was sealed. The "Lion" of "Judah" is the one to unseal it and bring judgment on the nations, which would include judgment on the Muslims (clay of Daniel 2), at the end of the age (Revelation 17).
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
What did I avoid?
Perhaps you could point out to me.
You however, have now twice avoided explaining how you can rectify your two quotes which stand in glaring contradiction to each other.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
I mean, you ignored I asked to open another thread related to Bahai Faith, if you want to debate Bahai Faith.
Baha'i Faith teaches independent investigation of truth. it means Faith is not supposed to be a blind faith, but one needs to investigate and only if finds it true, then accept it. That's what I did. I started from a Non-Bahai view, and investigated it, and reached to the conclusion that it is true. I hope it is clear to you now.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
Which post was that, post #171?…..
The one I directly addressed in post# 188?;
The one responding to your bringing up “certainty” after you accused me of “redefining terms” and accusing me as saying you “claimed” whether there such a thing as objectivity, in post#168?….
Where clearly, I gave you 12 options to chose from to replace “are you suggesting” with that might better suit your taste after you feigned confusing the verb as the subject noun?
And you chose “claim” to be your next diversion away from answering a very simple straightforward question?
Thats rich!
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
What’s clear to me is your “investigation” revealed what your presupposed confirmation bias allowed you to “find”…..the confirmation of your assumptions and presupposed beliefs.
You know;
the “wanting to fairly investigate what I already believed to be true. There wasn't anything in the first place that cause me to doubt.”
I’m only sorry that’s not clear to you.