mmsen:


All religions do that.

They tell people to depend on faith and not evidence - that will always lead to internal frustration.

I am not flaring up. I asked him politely to stop quoting me.
There is no issue of faith or evidence here. The question is silly and goes nowhere. It is not the kind of question I waste my time on. Normally, I would just ignore it, but he mentions me and asks dumb opinionative questions. Besides, what does this have to do with Abraham or the Kaaba?

babylolaroy:

God owns everything so we dont care what He swears by. Himself, His creations..ko matter. They hav the effect of letting one know He means to give a strict warning. gaskiya. why do little irrelevant thinhs matter to you people? cant you get busier? like find out what might happen to you in case you are wrong

Are you sure you are answering my simple question? All I require is A or B.

babylolaroy:

God owns everything so we dont care what He swears by. Himself, His creations..ko matter. They hav the effect of letting one know He means to give a strict warning. gaskiya. why do little irrelevant thinhs matter to you people? cant you get busier? like find out what might happen to you in case you are wrong

Surely it is better to ascertain the facts first?

Anas09:
As proof of their position, Muslims refer to genealogies written around 770-775 A.D. by Ibn Ishak.
What he has written is simply not true.  Ishmaelite tribes, especially the tribe of Nebaioth from which, according to Ibn Ishak, Mohammed is said to have come, were nomadic tribes who lived in the Sinai and Fertile Crescent deserts. These tribes disappeared after the 7th century B.C.
Mohammed's family was a Sabaean Yemeni family, while the Ishmaelites, who lived in the deserts of the Fertile Crescent, became extinct many centuries before Mohammed's family left Yemen.

Historians say that the family of Mohammed was a  family which lived in Saba-Yemen. In the 5th century A.D., Qusayy Bin Kilab, the 8th ancestor of Mohammed, gathered an alliance of many Yemeni families forming Quraish, the tribe from which Mohammed later came.  These families only came to occupy Mecca in the 5th century A.D. The city of Mecca was built by the tribe of Khuzaa'h in the 4th century A.D.
 Mohammed’s family is not connected to any Ishmaelite tribe because Mohammed’s family didn’t leave Yemen until the 5th  century A.D., and that’s about  1,100 years  after the Ishmaelites disappeared. Mohammed’s tribe could not have lived in the same locations as the Ishmaelite tribes at any time throughout history.

The genealogy fabricated by Ibn-Ishak contradicts the sayings of Mohammed, who expressed his ignorance about his ancestors prior to his 17th ancestor.

Ibn Ishak was considered by the Muslim scholars of his time as being guilty of forgery and fabricating false genealogies.[1][i]
Long before Ibn Ishak, Muslims who lived in Mohammed’s own time also fabricated genealogies in an attempt to connect Mohammed to the descendants of Ishmael.  Mohammed, himself, rejected all of these false genealogies, and he put limits regarding the genealogy of his ancestors. Regarding Mohammed’s own rejection of the false genealogies, Amru bin al-As wrote:
Mohammed genealogized himself regarding his ancestors until he reached al-Nather bin Kinaneh, then he said, “anyone who claimed otherwise or added further ancestors, has lied.”[2][ii]
By this, Mohammed confessed that neither he, nor anyone else, knew about his ancestors beyond al-Nather bin Kinaneh. Nather bin Kinaneh is the 17th ancestor in the genealogy which Mohammed recognized as true. Other narrations of the customs, or sayings, of Mohammed, called Hadiths, show Mohammed refused to be genealogized prior to Maad,  معدwho some suggested, was the 4th ancestor prior to al-Nather bin Kinaneh.[3][iii]. Am just do tired with the lies of Islam. Fabrications every where. The same Mohammed, at first rejected the fabrications, but when he was told it earn him credibility, he changed his mind and accepted the fabrications. The man was the False prophet Christ warned us about.

You are the one lying. There are many hadith narrations linking the prophet (saw) to Ismail. Kinanah was a known descendant of Ismail. For example...

The prophet (saw) said...

"Indeed Allah chose Isma'il from the progeny of Ibrahim, chose the Banu Kinanah over other tribes from the children of Isma'il; He chose the Banu Quraish over other tribes of Kinanah; He chose Banu Hashim over the other families of the Quraish; and He chose me from Banu Hashim."

—Related by Muslim and Tirmidhi.

Go read up more here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_Muhammad

Even the Jews; who OWN the OT that you claim to understand more than them considered the Arabs to be descendants of Ishmael.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael#Descendants

Abuamam:


Whatever non-Islamic sources exist were still narrated by Muslim historians. Also, the emphasis on written documents is not valid in Islam, since Muslim narrators took pains to collate the names and background of every single narrator in their chain of narrations.

Your post implies very little knowledge of history. Islam was revealed over the lifetime of the prophet (saw) and was a totally radical change away from the religious status quo. The opposition he faced from his own family members and tribal leaders was evidence of this.

Also, if you look at pre-Islamic Arabian structure as compared to Roman Empire, you would realise how far-fetched your idea of Islam being developped over the centuries is. The Arabs had no central command or rulers like the Romans. They were essentially feudal tribes or villages centred around major oases and minor village structures. Many consisted of a few family units banded together for protection and alliances against other tribes. The idea that they came together to create anything is preposterous. Even if we were to agree, for the sake of argument, that they did create the religion, why did they put a relatively poor and unknown person as the head of the new religion? The prophet (saw) was not one of the rulers, even in his provincial town of Mecca. He was neither rich nor prominent; choosing him to be the leader of all Arabs would have been highly improbable. Another notable difference from xtianity is that, unlike Jesus, the historicity of the prophet (saw) is too well established to be in doubt... even from non-Islamic sources, let alone the whole body of hadith and seerah.

There is also the argument that Muslim scholars and historians over 15 centuries, came together with all the Arabs that they had duped imto Islam (because Islamic knowledge has never been restricted to a possibly conniving priestly class, but is openly accessible), and created a hoax of such magnitude, along with Scripture, history, narrations, laws and codes of conduct, all in an age where the whole of Arabia probably had less than a couple of hundred people who could read or write. Come on; how plausible is that.

Actually, my training is in history and I work in the field of history. Doesn't mean I know everything, but I know what to do with information.

Sharia was developed over several centuries (thus Islamic practice). Look at the various madhabs, whose origins were a couple of hundred years after Muhammad. Prior to the founders of those madhabs, there is almost nothing to suggest that the rulers had any standard source of practice, outside of what is in the Quran, which actually isn't very much. Oral tradition, if you know much about historiography, is highly unreliable as a means of precisely transmitting information, so it doesn't really matter whether or not we have names of the transmitters from Muhammad. All we can do is put a big question mark on the whole lot of hadiths, until we can find written sources to corroborate.

There are way too many holes in the early Islamic tradition. In fact, upon the arrival of the Arab armies in Palestine, the earliest non-Islamic commentators give some information that challenges the hadiths. In addition, the earliest biographies of Muhammad, written by Urwah ibn Zubayr and Ibn Ishaq, do not exist anymore. Strange that the earliest biographies of what is an extremely important person should not come down to us, and in fact some people who read ibn Ishaq's biography complained that it did not portray Muhammad in a good light all the time, which may be why it was destroyed. But we will never know what was in his biography of Muhammad. Instead we are left with histories and books of hadiths written down later on. This is not reliable history by any stretch.

And why, you ask, would the rulers of the Arab empire choose Muhammad, from a small town in Arabia, as a prophet? Well I can believe that he himself claimed to be a prophet. I don't dispute that, but the rulers of the Arab empire were from his town and maybe even related to him, so it would fit in well with their claim to religious as well as political authority. After all, religion is an excellent tool to control ignorant masses.

In other words, the story given by Muslims is hardly reliable. Though I believe that at least some of it is true, I don't know how much. Early Christianity has the exact same problem. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Ifeann pls come and help d muslims here
Dey don't know d history of dem "kabba"
Dey said Abraham built it

Rilwayne001:


Yes



Whats your definition of "a muslim" and " a Jew"?

A muslim gave birth to Judaism and Christianity? Lies are horrible tools that can eternally destroy! !!

Soon dey will take dis thread to d grave yard called islam section
Lol, kabba in kogi state
Islam is a religion for pigs
MuhamMAD was a pig and a mad man

onetrack:


Actually, my training is in history and I work in the field of history. Doesn't mean I know everything, but I know what to do with information.

Sharia was developed over several centuries (thus Islamic practice). Look at the various madhabs, whose origins were a couple of hundred years after Muhammad. Prior to the founders of those madhabs, there is almost nothing to suggest that the rulers had any standard source of practice, outside of what is in the Quran, which actually isn't very much. Oral tradition, if you know much about historiography, is highly unreliable as a means of precisely transmitting information, so it doesn't really matter whether or not we have names of the transmitters from Muhammad. All we can do is put a big question mark on the whole lot of hadiths, until we can find written sources to corroborate.

There are way too many holes in the early Islamic tradition. In fact, upon the arrival of the Arab armies in Palestine, the earliest non-Islamic commentators give some information that challenges the hadiths. In addition, the earliest biographies of Muhammad, written by Urwah ibn Zubayr and Ibn Ishaq, do not exist anymore. Strange that the earliest biographies of what is an extremely important person should not come down to us, and in fact some people who read ibn Ishaq's biography complained that it did not portray Muhammad in a good light all the time, which may be why it was destroyed. But we will never know what was in his biography of Muhammad. Instead we are left with histories and books of hadiths written down later on. This is not reliable history by any stretch.

And why, you ask, would the rulers of the Arab empire choose Muhammad, from a small town in Arabia, as a prophet? Well I can believe that he himself claimed to be a prophet. I don't dispute that, but the rulers of the Arab empire were from his town and maybe even related to him, so it would fit in well with their claim to religious as well as political authority. After all, religion is an excellent tool to control ignorant masses.

In other words, the story given by Muslims is hardly reliable. Though I believe that at least some of it is true, I don't know how much. Early Christianity has the exact same problem. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Madhabs are not the source of shari'a. The formation of madhabs were an attempt at codifying and interpreting it with the information that they could obtain at the time. The sources remain the Quran and hadith, and in some cases, the consensus of scholars, which was the code used by the earlier judges; and are used presently. The prophet (saw) applied the sharia in his time, both civil and criminal, and his example is used as past precedence even today; especially where it conflicts with a wrong interpretation by a madhab. That is not to say that madhabs are totally useless, they still served a function where there was a dearth of information; but the madhabs are largely irrelevant today.

Oral sources may be unreliable normally, but not when they were organized systematically, the way the early Muslims did to the hadith. You should understand that the early muhadithin were very meticulous, and literally millions were discarded. It was for this precise reason that ibn Ishaq was not a popular narrator. He often failed to give his sources, and would narrate stories which were proven to be Jewish in origin, with no authentic backing. A number of scholars did attempt to sift out the authentic narrations, like ibn Hisham, but even he was not entirely successful. You should also keep in mind that Muslim scholars believe that lying about a hadith attracted severe punishment, and even today, no Muslim scholar can deliberately fabricate hadith... not to talk of then.

You again mention 'rulers of the Arabian empire'. As a historian, it should be pretty obvious that there was never any such empire, nor did the segregated Arab tribes ever agree on a common 'ruler' or 'rulers'. The idea that Arab tribes came together for centuries to create a monotheistic religion that was so oppossed to the existing worship of thousands of gods, and finally chose one of their not so significant men as the leader of the centuries old planned faith, but still vilified and oppossed him for carrying out their plan is too far-fetched. It has too many incongruencies in it.

Misogynist2014:
Are you sure you are answering my simple question? All I require is A or B.

if that doesnt answer your question, m afraid nothing will

mmsen:


If you have no proof, just say that you have no proof.

And go back to hiding behind your faith.

Thank you.

your grandfather built it before he started his journey to rot in hell

Abuamam:


He was neither a Jew nor an Arab.

Muslims understand Islam to have commenced with Adam, who worshipped the Almighty Creator, and submitted to His Will. All monotheists who submit to the laws and codes set by the Almighty are; by definition; Muslims. Islam means submission to the Will of the Almighty.

This is how you guys rig your way out and spread the myth that the founders of the Jewish religion were Muslims. Nothing is more important to the foundations and development of Islam than the re-casting of biblical personalities into newly assigned roles as devout Muslims. Shaping Israelite patriarchs into ancient Muslims who worshiped the God invented by Muhammad and his people remains the best step Mohammed and his people used to legitimize their newly founded religion.

Are the present Jews that are living in Israel today Muslims? They are strict monotheist who believe and submit to the will of the Almighty. Are the Muslims? Why or why not? What about the Scientologist who are also monotheist that believe in an almighty?

There are many different God concepts and ideas and that remains the reality. Allah is just one of them. Claiming that Allah alone is the almighty so that the Jewish Patriarchs can be claimed to have believed in his is just bogus Islamic fraud. Where did Abraham ever mention the word Allah if not in the Koran?

Kabba is the centre of worship for pagan arabs. The ancestors of mohammed worshipped in kabba even before mohammed was born and allahh is one of the deities (among 360 idols) worshipped there.

The grand-father and the immediate father of mohammed were not muslims, neither were they monotheist. Mohammed's father was abdullah, meaning 'slave of allahh' hence mohammed's father was names after one of the gods being worshipped in kabba. Just like in yoruba traditional religious system where a son can be named OGUNDELE in referenced to the god of 'ogun', abdullah was named with the belief that their son will be a slave of allahh and follow family traditions.

Islam is a packaged arabian pagan and idol religion standing on the Jewish tradition to gain legitimacy, hence incorporating Jewish characters into the paganistic system. That is why mohammed recycled old Jewish belief systems with slight modifications (which are always lies) to start a religion.

It is only in Islam that people of another religios characters such as Adam, abraham, moses, john, Jesus, noah, zacharaiah, job, abel etc automatically becomes muslim after the mohammed came. Jesus, John the bapstist, Mary, Peter, etc are no longer Jews (according to Islam) but muslims.

If muslims can claim Jews as muslim, without remorse for this studity, why won't they claim abraham built kabba. In the next couple of years i wont be surprised if muslims claim mohammed built the world trade centre.

The 6th pillar of Islam is al-taqiyya, believe muslims\Islam at your own peril. Islam is a pack of lies.

dalaman:


This is how you guys rig your way out and spread the myth that the founders of the Jewish religion were Muslims. Nothing is more important to the foundations and development of Islam than the re-casting of biblical personalities into newly assigned roles as devout Muslims. Shaping Israelite patriarchs into ancient Muslims who worshiped the God invented by and his people Muhammad remains the best step Mohammed and his people used to legitimize their newly founded religion.

Actually, it is not of that much importance. The final laws of Islam stand on their own authority and require no justification. It is just statement of fact... take it or leave it is a matter of supreme indifference to Muslims. Our responses are with respect to op's question and we are not trying to convince anyone.

dalaman:

Are the present Jews that are living in Israel today Muslims? They are strict monotheist who believe and submit to the will of the Almighty. Are the Muslims? Why or why not? What about the sociologist who are also monotheist that believe in an almighty?

They are monotheists in that they believe in the same Single Unique Creator as we do; differentiating them from xtians who believe in a trinity; a concept they consider as gross blasphemy. However, the Jews themselves hold views about God that are considered blasphemous in Islam, such as the extreme antropomorphism they attrtibute to God... exalted above all such is He... like the traits of tiredness, drunkenness, repentance of previous decisions, lack of knowledge about certain issues etc. If these views were to be held by anyone, he automatically leaves the fold of Islam... even if he were to profess the belief in monotheism and the prophethood of Muhammad (saw).
The other reason why they are not Muslims today; is that they follow laws that are no longer valid after the final revelations of Muhammad (saw). They insist on following laws which are; more often than not; man-made, thereby rejecting in principle, the reality of submission to the Will of God. For these 2 reasons, they are not Muslims today, though they are basically monotheists. The same goes for other Unitarian faiths that direct their worship to the Almighty alone, without intermediaries. Of course, there are minor variations.

dalaman:

There are many different God concepts and ideas and that remains the reality. Allah is just one of them. Claiming that Allah alone is the almighty so that the Jewish Patriahs can be claimed to have believed in his is just bogus Islamic fraud. Where did Abraham ever mention the word Allah if not in the Koran?

We may not know how Abraham referred to the Supreme Deity. It is of no consequence. Definitely he did not refer to Him as 'God' or 'Dieu' or 'Olodumare'... or the hundred thousand other names by which the Supreme Deity is referred to in different languages. The issue is insignificant and a question of semantics. The fact is Abraham believed and worshipped a single Almighty Creator. Abraham's understanding of God's attributes was similar to that understood by the other true prophets and messengers of God, as well as Muslims today. He submitted to the Will of the Creator to the extent of preparing to sacrifice his only son; and kept all the laws that God gave him. Therefore he was a Muslim by definition. Q.E.D.

As a post script, i would like to add that the word Jew or Yehudi was not originally used to describe a person of a specific faith, but had tribal connotations. I doubt if even Moses and other patriachs described themselves as Jews in the manner of 'followers of a specific religion'. Jew and Judaism are more often used recently in a religious context, and even then, the lines are very blurred. For example, there are 'secular' or 'atheist' jews today. A concept that is impossible in Islam.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word)

Mmsen, pls who built d kabba
U asked dem to tell ya abt kabba and dey end up saying thrash
Its now page 3 going to page 5 no muslim wanna say d koko of d thread
Ifeann can ya pls come and teach us?

Abuamam:


Madhabs are not the source of shari'a. The formation of madhabs were an attempt at codifying and interpreting it with the information that they could obtain at the time. The sources remain the Quran and hadith, and in some cases, the consensus of scholars, which was the code used by the earlier judges; and are used presently. The prophet (saw) applied the sharia in his time, both civil and criminal, and his example is used as past precedence even today; especially where it conflicts with a wrong interpretation by a madhab. That is not to say that madhabs are totally useless, they still served a function where there was a dearth of information; but the madhabs are largely irrelevant today.

Oral sources may be unreliable normally, but not when they were organized systematically, the way the early Muslims did to the hadith. You should understand that the early muhadithin were very meticulous, and literally millions were discarded. It was for this precise reason that ibn Ishaq was not a popular narrator. He often failed to give his sources, and would narrate stories which were proven to be Jewish in origin, with no authentic backing. A number of scholars did attempt to sift out the authentic narrations, like ibn Hisham, but even he was not entirely successful. You should also keep in mind that Muslim scholars believe that lying about a hadith attracted severe punishment, and even today, no Muslim scholar can deliberately fabricate hadith... not to talk of then.

You again mention 'rulers of the Arabian empire'. As a historian, it should be pretty obvious that there was never any such empire, nor did the segregated Arab tribes ever agree on a common 'ruler' or 'rulers'. The idea that Arab tribes came together for centuries to create a monotheistic religion that was so oppossed to the existing worship of thousands of gods, and finally chose one of their not so significant men as the leader of the centuries old planned faith, but still vilified and oppossed him for carrying out their plan is too far-fetched. It has too many incongruencies in it.

I did not claim that the madhabs were the source of sharia. But they are considered, as you said, to be proper ways of interpreting and applying the sharia. And the fact that these madhabs were founded ~200 years after Muhammad shows that sharia was something that developed over many years, as I originally claimed.

ibn Ishaq was not a popular narrator. He often failed to give his sources, and would narrate stories which were proven to be Jewish in origin,

You've precisely hit one of my issues with Islamic history. So what if the sources were Jewish? Let them be included so that we could have a balanced view of early Islam instead of just a one-sided view. Islamic history, outside of a few early Christian writers, is completely one-sided, which is why a lot of it cannot really be accepted.

Oral sources may be unreliable normally, but not when they were organized systematically, the way the early Muslims did to the hadith.

Memory is highly unreliable, and even if the narrators were sincere in their attempt to remember what happened, their memory cannot be trusted. Psychological research has amply demonstrated this (Bartlett's war of the Ghosts, Loftus and Palmer's car crash study, etc.).

You again mention 'rulers of the Arabian empire'. As a historian, it should be pretty obvious that there was never any such empire, nor did the segregated Arab tribes ever agree on a common 'ruler' or 'rulers'.

I'm referring to the Rashidin and Ummayad Empires, roughly 635 through 750.

babylolaroy:

your grandfather built it before he started his journey to rot in hell

Had my grandfather built such a structure I would be very proud.

Thank you for your mature contribution.

babylolaroy:

your grandfather built it before he started his journey to rot in hell

u sound as one who has bin penetrated by a 54 years old goat at ya tender age
U shld be tinking of how to prepare food for ya husband instead of coming here to insult someonez father

onetrack:

I did not claim that the madhabs were the source of sharia. But they are considered, as you said, to be proper ways of interpreting and applying the sharia. And the fact that these madhabs were founded ~200 years after Muhammad shows that sharia was something that developed over many years, as I originally claimed.

It does not have any bearing on your assertion that Arab tribes actually plotted for centuries before the prophet's (saw) emergence, to create a unifying religion.

onetrack:

You've precisely hit one of my issues with Islamic history. So what if the sources were Jewish? Let them be included so that we could have a balanced view of early Islam instead of just a one-sided view. Islamic history, outside of a few early Christian writers, is completely one-sided, which is why a lot of it cannot really be accepted.

The reason why Jewish stories were not accepted was their lack of credible support. Muslim scholars from the inception, did not accept stories that were not properly substantiated. It had nothing to do with content. It was to prevent chaos. Had they accepted any and all stories, unscrupulous individuals would have been free to create millions of hadith, thereby corrupting one of the major sources of Islamic law. For this reason, all stories that could not be supported with evidence were rejected. There are still authentic hadith, which non- Muslims consider as unsavoury and are used to mock Islam. Had it been our habit to discard stories based on content, these could have been discarded.

onetrack:

Memory is highly unreliable, and even if the narrators were sincere in their attempt to remember what happened, their memory cannot be trusted. Psychological research has amply demonstrated this (Bartlett's war of the Ghosts, Loftus and Palmer's car crash study, etc.).

I still put it to you that you are talking about transmitting stories that were not considered sacred, and which did not have to be transmitted WORD FOR WORD, as a sacred duty; which is not the case in Islam. Witness the narrations of the Quran. Millions memorise it, word for word, accent for accent, from as young as 10years of age. It is the same with the hadith, and this tradition has been subsisting since the time of the prophet (saw).

onetrack:

I'm referring to the Rashidin and Ummayad Empires, roughly 635 through 750.

But your reference was to the 'planned' creation of Islam. All these rulers ruled AFTER the emergence of the prophet (saw).

babylolaroy:

if that doesnt answer your question, m afraid nothing will

Lol. Your tone sounds like that of pity. The main reason most Muslims are Muslims is because Christians believe God has a Son.
1) Neither God, nor His Son is a Man.
2) The Bible says God created Man in His own image, Male and Female created He them.
3) Jesus was made flesh and dwelled among us, meaning that He left his divine state to become flesh like us.
4) The relationship between God and Christ is Father and Son, not that of giving birth.
5) Unlike your "prophet", Jesus (God) coming in form of Man over 5 centuries is in the Bible, though your pathetic religion teaches that the same book they alleged to have been corrupted prophesied the pedophile. " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his
shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The
everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
6) The Torah couldn't have been corrupted by Christians.
7) There is nothing interesting about slavery.
Muhammad wasn't sure of heaven. " '''By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what
Allah will do to me".
9) Quran contains Scientific and historical errors.
10) Qur'an contains a lot of myth
11) Testimony of one man cannot be trusted.
12) Qur'an pledges women as sex slaves in heaven (72 women per man), if Allah allows you to enter.
13) Muhammad was a mere invader who used religion as disguise to massacre men and use women for pleasure.
14) Islam is violent and made it duty for the religion to be spread across the world by sword or wilful submission.
15) Allah was a moon god, a god refurbished by your dull prophet in order for it to be at par with the true GOD, YHWH (I AM)

Abuamam:


Actually, it is not of that much importance. The final laws of Islam stand on their own authority and require no justification. It is just statement of fact... take it or leave it is a matter of supreme indifference to Muslims. Our responses are with respect to op's question and we are not trying to convince anyone.

Apart from the Islamic sources which other source asserts that Abraham built the Kaaba?

They are monotheists in that they believe in the same Single Unique Creator as we do; differentiating them from xtians who believe in a trinity; a concept they consider as gross blasphemy. [b]However, the Jews themselves hold views about God that are considered blasphemous in Islam, such as the extreme antropomorphism they attrtibute to God... exalted above all such is He... like the traits of tiredness, drunkenness, repentance of previous decisions, lack of knowledge about certain issues [/b]etc. If these views were to be held by anyone, he automatically leaves the fold of Islam... even if he were to profess the belief in monotheism and the prophethood of Muhammad (saw).
The other reason why they are not Muslims today; is that they follow laws that are no longer valid after the final revelations of Muhammad (saw). They insist on following laws which are; more often than not; man-made, thereby rejecting in principle, the reality of submission to the Will of God. For these 2 reasons, they are not Muslims today, though they are basically monotheists. The same goes for other Unitarian faiths that direct their worship to the Almighty alone, without intermediaries. Of course, there are minor variations.

Most of the prophets in the bible saw God and addressed him that way. In the bible it is written that God himself told some of the prophets to apologize on his behalf. Most prophets in the bible used words about God that showed repentance tiredness etc. That alone means there weren't Muslims if we are to go by your definition of who God is to the Muslims. The God concept talked about in the bible by the Jews is very different from the God concept in the Koran. It is completely disingenuous to claim that the biblical prophets were Muslims. No indication that they ever knew Allah or worshiped a God concept like him. Allah is a God idea that was conceived by Mohammed and his compatriots

We may not know how Abraham referred to the Supreme Deity. It is of no consequence. Definitely he did not refer to Him as 'God' or 'Dieu' or 'Olodumare'... or the hundred thousand other names by which the Supreme Deity is referred to in different languages. The issue is insignificant and a question of semantics. The fact is Abraham believed and worshipped a single Almighty Creator. Abraham's understanding of God's attributes was similar to that understood by the other true prophets and messengers of God, as well as Muslims today. He submitted to the Will of the Creator to the extent of preparing to sacrifice his only son; and kept all the laws that God gave him. Therefore he was a Muslim by definition. Q.E.D.

Yet Jews that do same today aren't Muslims?

As a post script, i would like to add that the word Jew or Yehudi was not originally used to describe a person of a specific faith, but had tribal connotations. I doubt if even Moses and other patriachs described themselves as Jews in the manner of 'followers of a specific religion'. Jew and Judaism are more often used recently in a religious context, and even then, the lines are very blurred. For example, there are 'secular' or 'atheist' jews today. A concept that is impossible in Islam.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word)

We have the bible that tells us about them, their mode of worship and the idea of God that they believed in. It is not the same with the God describe in the Koran, therefore they weren't Muslims.

The Kaaba is actually where the computer was in the Garden or the tree in the center of the Garden. This is where all the ME Stones were kept. And what is called the Black Stone is actually a blood red color symbolic of the red ME Stone of the Karma Sutra. The Ka'aba was said to have had 360 Idols or Gods. These "Gods" were the different experiments that were created and presented at the events the ANUNNAQI would have to see whose creation was most creative. This 360 Gods also ties in with the 365 days of the year. The remaining 5 were named of other Deities. These stones were also referred to as the "Akasha Records" or the "Tablets of Destiny". All beings have them and there are even tablets of destiny of the NADJARU as ENQI took them and buried them. The Egiptians mastered cloning, which is why everyone borrowed information from ancient Egyptians.

Horus:
The Kaaba is actually where the computer was in the Garden or the tree in the center of the Garden. This is where all the ME Stones were kept. And what is called the Black Stone is actually a blood red color symbolic of the red ME Stone of the Karma Sutra. The Ka'aba was said to have had 360 Idols or Gods. These "Gods" were the different experiments that were created and presented at the events the ANUNNAQI would have to see whose creation was most creative. This 360 Gods also ties in with the 365 days of the year. The remaining 5 were named of other Deities. These stones were also referred to as the "Akasha Records" or the "Tablets of Destiny". All beings have them and there are even tablets of destiny of the NADJARU as ENQI took them and buried them. The Egiptians mastered cloning, which is why everyone borrowed information from ancient Egyptians.

wat?

Oh, you are a Christian? Sorry; I thought you were one of the atheists on this thread.

dalaman:

Apart from the Islamic sources which other source asserts that Abraham built the Kaaba?

None that I know of, unless you want to accept pre-Islamic poets like Ummayyah bin abi asSalt and Zayd bin Amr as examples. It was a widespread tradition in pre-Islamic Arabia.

dalaman:

Most of the prophets in the bible saw God and addressed him that way. In the bible it is written that God himself told some of the prophets to apologize on his behalf. Most prophets in the bible used words about God that showed repentance tiredness etc. That alone means there weren't Muslims if we are to go by your definition of who God is to the Muslims. The God concept talked about in the bible by the Jews is very different from the God concept in the Koran. It is completely disingenuous to claim that the biblical prophets were Muslims. No indication that they ever knew Allah or worshiped a God concept like him. Allah is a God idea that was conceived by Mohammed and his compatriots

The current OT SAYS that the old prophets saw God in that antropomorphic way. However, you would agree with me that the entire OT has not been classified as being of known authorship.

dalaman:

Yet Jews that do same today aren't Muslims?

I have already explained why Jews of today are not considered as Muslims.

dalaman:

As I already explained, Jews today follow the Talmud and the uncertain OT, therefore man-made laws, rather than the laws revealed by Allah in the Quran. Since the OT is of unknown authorship, the reliability of the laws contained therein cannot be assessed with any degree of certainty. Hence they cannot in reality claim to be undoubtedly following the laws of God... as Muslims do.

[quote author=dalaman post=32740142]
We have the bible that tells us about them, their mode of worship and the idea of God that they believed in. It is not the same with the God describe in the Koran, therefore they weren't Muslims.

Again, bible historians have claimed that the OT (as well as the NT) are mostly of unknown authorship and the earliest codex of the Hebrew Tanakh is from about the 10th century C.E. Until the reliability of these versions are established, you cannot know for certain, what the mode of worship of the prophets and patriachs was. However even a cursory reading of the present OT shows many similiarities between their modes of worship and those practised by Muslims today; such as the prayer (ref: Genesis 17:3, Exodus 34:8, Joshua 5:14, 2Chronicles 20:18 among many others.) It would be hard to even relate actions like those in Nehemiah 8:6 as anything other than congregational prayer as practised by Muslims today. Verses on fasting are present; one even of the 9th month ( eg Jeremiah 36:9); as Muslims fast in their 9th month. In fact, many similarities exist between OT laws and those found in the Quran. The OT God is much closer to the Muslim God than the xtian one. If you claim that the OT God is very different from the Muslim God, perhaps you can point out those differences?

Abuamam:
Oh, you are a Christian? Sorry; I thought you were one of the atheists on this thread.



None that I know of, unless you want to accept pre-Islamic poets like Ummayyah bin abi asSalt and Zayd bin Amr as examples. It was a widespread tradition in pre-Islamic Arabia.



The current OT SAYS that the old prophets saw God in that antropomorphic way. However, you would agree with me that the entire OT has not been classified as being of known authorship.

even Jews whom they almost worship regard them(xtians) as idolaters.a Jew is even allowed to pray in a mosque and forbidden from a church.

tartar9:
even Jews whom they almost worship regard them(xtians) as idolaters.a Jew is even allowed to pray in a mosque and forbidden from a church.

I've never heard of a Jew being forbidden from a church.

Do you have any proof of this?

Also, were/are not Jews and Muslims segregated in Jerusalem? Each group may only pray in specified areas?

How many synagogues are there in Saudi Arabia?

mmsen:


I've never heard of a Jew being forbidden from a church.

Do you have any proof of this?

Also, were/are not Jews and Muslims segregated in Jerusalem? Each group may only pray in specified areas?

How many synagogues are there in Saudi Arabia?

I think he means that Jewish tradition forbids Jews from praying in a church, it's not like the Christians currently forbid them from doing so, though at one time this was almost certainly true as well.

tartar9:
even Jews whom they almost worship regard them(xtians) as idolaters.a Jew is even allowed to pray in a mosque and forbidden from a church.

Jews do regard the concept of the trinity as blasphemous, but I dont know whether they are barred from praying in churches, I don't really think a Jew would even want to; and the prophet (saw) even permitted xtians to pray in his mosque, so I don't really see that as criteria. The evidence is rather in the similarities in what can be gleaned of the old laws and doctrine contained within the existing scriptures.

Abuamam:
I still put it to you that you are talking about transmitting stories that were not considered sacred, and which did not have to be transmitted WORD FOR WORD, as a sacred duty; which is not the case in Islam. Witness the narrations of the Quran. Millions memorise it, word for word, accent for accent, from as young as 10years of age. It is the same with the hadith, and this tradition has been subsisting since the time of the prophet (saw).

Memorizing the Quran, which is already written down, is a lot different than trying to remember stories that are passed down in a strictly oral fashion. We don't even have any real way of knowing if the final edition of the Quran is exactly correct, given that there were at least 7 versions circulating prior to the Uthmanic edition.

It does not have any bearing on your assertion that Arab tribes actually plotted for centuries before the prophet's (saw) emergence, to create a unifying religion.

That is not what I am claiming. I am saying that Muhammad appeared (among other 'prophets' around the same time like Musilaymah), claimed to be a prophet, had some role in creating the Quran, but that it was only after the creation of the Rashidun Empire that they thought to really use Muhammad's claim to support their own political legitimacy, and to draw the religious centers away from Constantinople, Rome, Persia, and Jerusalem, and toward Mecca, which is where the early rulers hailed from.

The reason why Jewish stories were not accepted was their lack of credible support. Muslim scholars from the inception, did not accept stories that were not properly substantiated. It had nothing to do with content.

That may be a stated reason, but it is also true that some of the stories were allegedly quite unflattering. We cannot know for sure, even of some of the current accepted hadiths appear to portray Muhammad in an unflattering light, they clearly did not pose much of a problem 1000 years ago.

onetrack:

Memorizing the Quran, which is already written down, is a lot different than trying to remember stories that are passed down in a strictly oral fashion. We don't even have any real way of knowing if the final edition of the Quran is exactly correct, given that there were at least 7 versions circulating prior to the Uthmanic edition.

I think that this question has been put to rest by prominent orientalists. No point in beating a dead horse. The authentic hadith were transmitted virtually in a similar fashion to the Quran, though no single hadith has the massive numbers in the chain of narrators that the Quran has.

onetrack:

That is not what I am claiming. I am saying that Muhammad appeared (among other 'prophets' around the same time like Musilaymah), claimed to be a prophet, had some role in creating the Quran, but that it was only after the creation of the Rashidun Empire that they thought to really use Muhammad's claim to support their own political legitimacy, and to draw the religious centers away from Constantinople, Rome, Persia, and Jerusalem, and toward Mecca, which is where the early rulers hailed from.

They rose to power BECAUSE of their Islam. The unification of the Arabian peninsula and face-offs with the Romans and Byzantines were already occurring BEFORE his death. There was no need for them to construct an already established doctrine and code of laws. All they had to do was follow it. Your statement above is pure conjecture, and is not likely supported by any credible scholarship; and I have read many orientalist interpretations on the subject, from Gibbons to Gabrielli.

onetrack:

That may be a stated reason, but it is also true that some of the stories were allegedly quite unflattering. We cannot know for sure, even of some of the current accepted hadiths appear to portray Muhammad in an unflattering light, they clearly did not pose much of a problem 1000 years ago.

We 'cannot know for sure', only because you insist on thinking that ALL Muslim sourced statements are suspect; ie they never told the truth about their intentions. It is the mark of conspiracy theorists.
It would be impossible to prove any concept if the general assumption was that every statement made is to be taken as a lie, denied solely on the basis of conjecture; without any proof. Some hadith were unflattering. Many were flattering. ALL were removed because they lacked authenticity. The method of rating hadith is not a secret. The narrators' respective histories are explained. Why a narrator is deemed weak, or a fabricator, or forgetful, is clarified and reasons given. Whether the narrator's history actually overlaps the transmitter from whom he claims to have gotten the hadith, is ascertained. It is not like an old man sits in a corner with a red biro gleefully marking off any hadith that does not suit his fancy.

Xtian missionaries were attacking Islam since the era of the first crusades (see al-Kindi's apologies; among others). There was no internet, few people could read or write, and the scholars could have easily removed any hadith with unflattering content. They did not, because of their percieved sanctity of the authentic hadith. Authenticated as explained above.

tartar9:
even Jews whom they almost worship regard them(xtians) as idolaters.a Jew is even allowed to pray in a mosque and forbidden from a church.

Is it the arab-muslims that have a policy of 'kill Jews at sight' that will allow Jews to worship in their mosque? If any Jew is found is saudi arabia (not even in their mosque), he will be killed. Please modify your lie small. Thanks

true2god:
Is it the arab-muslims that have a policy of 'kill Jews at sight' that will allow Jews to worship in their mosque? If any Jew is found is saudi arabia (not even in their mosque), he will be killed. Please modify your lie small. Thanks

The prophets Neighbour was a Jew, I don't know where you find all these lies .