johnydon22:
they said adam did... and that is where the biggest [size=20] lie [/size] of the plant began
.

No Muslim has ever said that and if he did, it must be out of ignorance.

mmsen:
There are some who claim that it was built by Abraham to honor Allah.

The problem with this theory is that there is no historical evidence of Abraham ever having existed as described in the Bible/Torah/Koran.

There is evidence that the Kaaba was built prior to the foundation of Islam. There is more evidence that it was built to commemorate another god by the name of Hubal.

Before the prophet came, the people of Mecca used it as a sanctuary for their idols, that doesn't mean it wasn't there long before they used it for that purpose, Abraham came long before Muhammad. Which is why there is a lot of time In between for anything to happen.

Abuamam:


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.

See what your prophet said in quran 9:30,

The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are
they deluded?

Your prophet even aknowledge Jesus as the messiah here, thats ok but thats not where I'm going. The concept of the trinity entails that Jesus is the son of God. If you look at the first statement, mohammed said the the Jews said, 'Ezra is the son of allahh'. Thats a big lie. There have never been a time in history that the Jews hold this view, even now.

So if mohammed can get it so wrong here, how do you think his 'revelations' are credible? If however you insist your prophet is right here, can you show me any Jewsish religios document which shows that the Jews hold the view that 'Ezra is the son of allahh'?

Abuamam:


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.

The question has not been put to rest. Recent scholarship has called into question the authenticity of the Quran (particularly with the palimpsest found in Yemen a few decades back which has been studied by scholars, though a firm conclusion has not yet been found). Once again, any chain of narrators is suspect, and the credibility of the transmitters has not been established anyway. Just saying that someone is honest, pious, etc, is not sufficient, even if the hadith compilers were able to eliminate the most obviously fabricated ones.

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.

No, they rose to power because of a power vaccuum in the region; i.e. the Byzantines and Persians were exhausted from fighting each other. In addition, the Nestorian Christians in Syria and Palestine were tired of the persecution from the established church in Constantinople, and so accepting a more lenient conqueror in the form of the Arabs was a natural move on their part.

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.

If you look at another area of history, for example, Roman history, you find the same type of doubt among researchers, particularly with regard to written histories, which are roundly criticised. They often require multiple different perspectives (and not necessarily on the same side) plus archaeology. This is not conspiracy theory stuff, this is healthy skepticism. And sometimes the history itself can change as they discover new information.

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.

What might be unflattering now might not have been unflattering then. While there may have been well-meaning transmitters of hadiths, even the most well-meaning and honest people can have serious errors in recollection.

I think we are starting to go around in circles. To me, religions look like the product of people; to you, one (Islam) looks like it has divine origins. You've stated some of your case, I've stated some of mine. But I'll keep reading both sides.

true2god:
See what your prophet said in quran 9:30,

If you look at the first statement, mohammed said the the Jews said, 'Ezra is the son of allahh'. Thats a big lie. There have never been a time in history that the Jews hold this view, even now.

So if mohammed can get it so wrong here, how do you think his 'revelations' are credible? If however you insist your prophet is right here, can you show me any Jewsish religios document which shows that the Jews hold the view that 'Ezra is the son of allahh'?

There is speculation (as is ever true with ancient history) that this verse was essentially planted in the Quran by a Jewish rabbi (Sallam ibn Mishkam), who lied to Muhammad about the status of Ezra so that Muhammad would include the lie in the Quran. This was done deliberately so that any Jew, when listening to or reading the Quran, would know automatically that the Quran could not be from Yahweh/Allah as soon as they heard that verse. If true it was a very cunning move on the part of the Jew.

onetrack:


The question has not been put to rest. Recent scholarship has called into question the authenticity of the Quran (particularly with the palimpsest found in Yemen a few decades back which has been studied by scholars, though a firm conclusion has not yet been found). Once again, any chain of narrators is suspect, and the credibility of the transmitters has not been established anyway. Just saying that someone is honest, pious, etc, is not sufficient, even if the hadith compilers were able to eliminate the most obviously fabricated ones.





No, they rose to power because of a power vaccuum in the region; i.e. the Byzantines and Persians were exhausted from fighting each other. In addition, the Nestorian Christians in Syria and Palestine were tired of the persecution from the established church in Constantinople, and so accepting a more lenient conqueror in the form of the Arabs was a natural move on their part.





If you look at another area of history, for example, Roman history, you find the same type of doubt among researchers, particularly with regard to written histories, which are roundly criticised. They often require multiple different perspectives (and not necessarily on the same side) plus archaeology. This is not conspiracy theory stuff, this is healthy skepticism. And sometimes the history itself can change as they discover new information.



What might be unflattering now might not have been unflattering then. While there may have been well-meaning transmitters of hadiths, even the most well-meaning and honest people can have serious errors in recollection.

I think we are starting to go around in circles. To me, religions look like the product of people; to you, one (Islam) looks like it has divine origins. You've stated some of your case, I've stated some of mine. But I'll keep reading both sides.

Yes we are going round in circles. The issue is that we have different views on what is believable and what is not, what is likely and what is not. It is a case of both of us having proof for different conclusions. And in so far as there is no rancour, it's all healthy discussion. Of course, "to you is your belief and to me is mine".

onetrack:

There is speculation (as is ever true with ancient history) that this verse was essentially planted in the Quran by a Jewish rabbi (Sallam ibn Mishkam), who lied to Muhammad about the status of Ezra so that Muhammad would include the lie in the Quran. This was done deliberately so that any Jew, when listening to or reading the Quran, would know automatically that the Quran could not be from Yahweh/Allah as soon as they heard that verse. If true it was a very cunning move on the part of the Jew.

Gordon Newby writes in his book 'A History of the Jews of Arabia', that...
'...the inhabitants of Hijaz during Muhammad's time knew portions, at least, of 3 Enoch in association with the Jews. The angels over which Metatron becomes chief are identified in the Enoch traditions as the sons of God, the Bene Elohim, the Watchers, the fallen ones as the causer of the flood. In 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra, the term Son of God can be applied to the Messiah, but most often it is applied to the righteous men, of whom Jewish tradition holds there to be no more righteous than the ones God elected to translate to heaven alive. It is easy, then, to imagine that among the Jews of the Hijaz who were apparently involved in mystical speculations associated with the merkabah, Ezra, because of the traditions of his translation, because of his piety, and particularly because he was equated with Enoch as the Scribe of God, could be termed one of the Bene Elohim. And, of course, he would fit the description of religious leader (one of the ahbar of the Qur'an 9:31) whom the Jews had exalted.'

Furthermore, Hirschberg proposes in Encyclopaedia Judaica based on the words of Ibn Hazm, namely, that
the 'righteous who live in Yemen believed that 'Uzayr was indeed the son of Allah.' According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah. (Encyclopaedia Judaica, Ibid., p. 1108.)

George Sale writes:
'This grievous charge against the Jews, the commentators endeavour to support by telling us, that it is meant of some ancient heterdox Jews, or else of some Jews of Medina; who said so for no other reason, than for that the law being utterly lost and forgotten during the Babylonish captivity, Ezra having been raised to life after he had been dead one hundred years, dictated the whole anew unto the scribes, out of his own memory; at which they greatly marvelled, and declared that he could not have done it, unless he were the son of God. Al-Beidawi adds, that the imputation must be true, because this verse was read to the Jews and they did not contradict it; which they were ready enough to do in other instances.' (The Koran, IX Edition of 1923, London, p. 152.)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallam_ibn_Mishkam

Abuamam:


Yes we are going round in circles. The issue is that we have different views on what is believable and what is not, what is likely and what is not. It is a case of both of us having proof for different conclusions. And in so far as there is no rancour, it's all healthy discussion. Of course, "to you is your belief and to me is mine".



Gordon Newby writes in his book 'A History of the Jews of Arabia', that...
'...the inhabitants of Hijaz during Muhammad's time knew portions, at least, of 3 Enoch in association with the Jews. The angels over which Metatron becomes chief are identified in the Enoch traditions as the sons of God, the Bene Elohim, the Watchers, the fallen ones as the causer of the flood. In 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra, the term Son of God can be applied to the Messiah, but most often it is applied to the righteous men, of whom Jewish tradition holds there to be no more righteous than the ones God elected to translate to heaven alive. It is easy, then, to imagine that among the Jews of the Hijaz who were apparently involved in mystical speculations associated with the merkabah, Ezra, because of the traditions of his translation, because of his piety, and particularly because he was equated with Enoch as the Scribe of God, could be termed one of the Bene Elohim. And, of course, he would fit the description of religious leader (one of the ahbar of the Qur'an 9:31) whom the Jews had exalted.'

Furthermore, Hirschberg proposes in Encyclopaedia Judaica based on the words of Ibn Hazm, namely, that
the 'righteous who live in Yemen believed that 'Uzayr was indeed the son of Allah.' According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah. (Encyclopaedia Judaica, Ibid., p. 1108.)

George Sale writes:
'This grievous charge against the Jews, the commentators endeavour to support by telling us, that it is meant of some ancient heterdox Jews, or else of some Jews of Medina; who said so for no other reason, than for that the law being utterly lost and forgotten during the Babylonish captivity, Ezra having been raised to life after he had been dead one hundred years, dictated the whole anew unto the scribes, out of his own memory; at which they greatly marvelled, and declared that he could not have done it, unless he were the son of God. Al-Beidawi adds, that the imputation must be true, because this verse was read to the Jews and they did not contradict it; which they were ready enough to do in other instances.' (The Koran, IX Edition of 1923, London, p. 152.)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallam_ibn_Mishkam

I don't believe in speculations, or wikipedia, that anyone can edit, and modify, to suit an argyment. What I asked you is to present a single proof, from Jewish scripture or tradition, to proove that the Jews ever belief that 'Ezra is the son of God'. If the Jews do not believe that now why will they believe that then.

One of the most conservative religions in the whole world is Judaism, they are consistent in their belief and there is nowhere in the Torah, Injil or Talmud that indicated the Jewish belief that 'ezra is the son of allahh'. Mohammed got it wrong here, like in many cases. The issue is that, as a true muslim, you must belief all what mohammed say, whether true or false.

If you can show me anywhere in Jewish scripture, without googling your way out (mostly Islamic internet sources riddled with lies), where it was claimed 'ezra is the son of allahh' i will become a muslim.

true2god:
See what your prophet said in quran 9:30,

The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are
they deluded?

Your prophet even aknowledge Jesus as the messiah here, thats ok but thats not where I'm going. The concept of the trinity entails that Jesus is the son of God. If you look at the first statement, mohammed said the the Jews said, 'Ezra is the son of allahh'. Thats a big lie. There have never been a time in history that the Jews hold this view, even now.

So if mohammed can get it so wrong here, how do you think his 'revelations' are credible? If however you insist your prophet is right here, can you show me any Jewsish religios document which shows that the Jews hold the view that 'Ezra is the son of allahh'?

The quran is full of lies because the giver is a liar. Look at this again:

-
Quran 4:157-158: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree
concerning it are in doubt
thereof; they have no
knowledge thereof save
pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But
Allah took him up unto
Himself. Allah was ever
Mighty, Wise

The Jews never accepted Jesus as Messiah contrary to allahh's lie.

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.

My point exactly. No such sources exist outside the Koran. Historians go to the bible and other Jewish text when trying to reconstruct the history of the Historical Moses. Non even attempts to use anything written inside the Koran. That alone should tell yo something.

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.

Just the same way as the Koran has never been classified as being of known authorship as well. Muslims just created a tradition which they claim comes down to Mohammed but the reality is very different. The Koran as we know it today did not exist during the time of Mohammed.

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

The same prophets written about in the bible do not qualify as muslims because of the way most of them saw God in that antropomorphic way. Something you said disqualifies them as muslims. remember the tradition the present Jews follow predates Islam by almost a thousand years.

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.

Again, same with the Koran. It is also of unknown authorship in reality. What do you mean by until the reliability is established. Do you have any other reliable source besides the Hebrew bible? Where is it? Why should the Koran that came over a thousand years later be accepted as true? The founders of the Islamic religion purely wanted to establish their own new religion using the already established religion of the Jews and the Christians that is why most of the stories found in the Koran were from the OT or books that were banned fro the bible, like the infancy gospel of Jesus etc.

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?

The God of the OT says his personal name is Jehovah while that of the Koran says his name is Allah. Bowing down and praying is something that some Hindus do as well, are they muslims? Where was it written that they pray in Arabic or face the Kabba anywhere in the bible. You guys should stop this rigging of yours. Which of the prophets in the bible observes the five pillars of islam? Which of them believes in a God called Allah? Which of them prays in Arabic facing the Kaaba? The God of the bible in some places does wrong and apologizes for it. Allah of the Koran as conceived can never do such. The God of the bible depending on which version(OT or NT) has a son, is 3 in one while Allah of the Koran is not. Their attributes are not even the same. The prophets in the bible and the Koran talk about different God concept . That much is very clear.