₦airaland Forum

Explore2xmore:
With your starting inclination to humor I wonder. However, the lack of artifacts doesn’t mean someone is ungodly; rather, it’s the act of submitting to God that truly defines a Muslim. Take prophets like Abraham, for instance, they were Muslim, even if history hasn’t left us much to go on.

If you will quote a pointer to your evidence please.

LoLz. Look at the bolded and consider how you are contradicting yourself. History has not left us much to go on other than that humans only started being religious circa 80k years by reason of the burial practices we have evidence for, therefore humans were atheists before then. If you cannot see your own contradictory standard then something is wrong.

Explore2xmore:
Wait, we should accept some remote governance from Paris but he can't do remote consultations and physical treatment with French doctors? 😅 Make it make sense! If bandwidth is good enough to run Nigeria via video call, it's good enough for medical appointments. The math ain't mathing.

This has no bearing on the argument.

LordReed:
This has no bearing on the argument.

Sorry! Wasn't for you.

LordReed:
LoLz. Look at the bolded and consider how you are contradicting yourself. History has not left us much to go on other than that humans only started being religious circa 80k years by reason of the burial practices we have evidence for, therefore humans were atheists before then. If you cannot see your own contradictory standard then something is wrong.

That is from my statement. You were pointing at evidence you had earlier given?
Abraham are considered Muslims. Even though there are few tangible remnants, archaeology demonstrates the existence of belief in Abraham's and other prophetic communities' theistic practices.

Ur of the Chaldeans where Abraham was born show signs of worship and Cuneiform tablets provide texts for concepts of religious belief. My general statement was more for other prophets without much recognised archaeological artefacts.

Explore2xmore:
That is from my statement. You were pointing at evidence you had earlier given?
Abraham are considered Muslims. Even though there are few tangible remnants, archaeology demonstrates the existence of belief in Abraham's and other prophetic communities' theistic practices.

Ur of the Chaldeans where Abraham was born show signs of worship and Cuneiform tablets provide texts for concepts of religious belief. My general statement was more for other prophets without much recognised archaeological artefacts.

"Considered Muslim" is the claim but you have no evidence backing that up so your assertion is rejected. You laid that standard so accept your forfeit.

Biodun556:
➜ Traditional vs. Modern Views:
Traditional View: Some hadith (sayings of the Prophet) suggest she was 6 at betrothal and 9 at consummation, but these conflict with other reports.
Modern/Alternative View: Using accounts of her sister Asma's age and historical events like the Battle of Badr (where participants had to be 15+), many scholars calculate Aisha was older, perhaps 17-19 at marriage, suggesting a birth around 607-614 CE.
In summary, Aisha was indeed born before Islam was established, growing up as a Muslim within her family, though the exact timing of her birth relative to the initial revelations is a point of scholarly discussion.

Even if this were to be the case, do you even begin to imagine how much more vile it would islam out to be, particularly since it would mean that the religion served as a tool that enabled the raping of children — 100s of millions— merely for the purpose of satisfying the lust of pedofiles for over 1400 years? 🥱🥱🥱

LordReed:
"Considered Muslim" is the claim but you have no evidence backing that up so your assertion is rejected. You laid that standard so accept your forfeit.

Did they or didn't they submit to God?

Explore2xmore:
Did they or didn't they submit to God?

All humans were atheists before 80k years ago.

LordReed:
All humans were atheists before 80k years ago.

I see why the mix up. Fingers slower than my thoughts. Abraham and other prophets are considered Muslims. You easily would have discerned that.

Explore2xmore:
I see why the mix up. Fingers slower than my thoughts. Abraham and other prophets are considered Muslims. You easily would have discerned that.

Considered is a fallacious claim nor can you show evidence for such a claim. The one being slow here is you. You contradict yourself and even when it is glaringly pointed out to you, you stare at it vacuously.

LordReed:
Considered is a fallacious claim nor can you show evidence for such a claim. The one being slow here is you. You contradict yourself and even when it is glaringly pointed out to you, you stare at it vacuously.

Referring to Abraham and earlier prophets as Muslims is not a mistake in historical terms, but rather a theological perspective. The Qur'an clearly indicates that Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but someone who submitted to God (3:67), and that he prayed to be made a Muslim (2:128). This is based on the foundational texts of Islam, not a contradiction. While it's acceptable to disagree with Islam's interpretation, it is incorrect to assert that there is no supporting evidence. Archaeology backs Islam in the same manner it does for Judaism and Christianity, relying on texts and historical records rather than theological arguments. Early manuscripts of the Qur'an, inscriptions, coins, and accounts from non-Muslim sources all validate the origins and claims of Islam in the 7th century. Additionally, ancient evidence shows that prophets adhered to the belief in one God. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain monotheistic writings from Moses and Isaiah, inscriptions reference the worship of YHWH, and Assyrian records differentiate Israel's God from pagan deities.

Explore2xmore:
Referring to Abraham and earlier prophets as Muslims is not a mistake in historical terms, but rather a theological perspective. The Qur'an clearly indicates that Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but someone who submitted to God (3:67), and that he prayed to be made a Muslim (2:128). This is based on the foundational texts of Islam, not a contradiction. While it's acceptable to disagree with Islam's interpretation, it is incorrect to assert that there is no supporting evidence. Archaeology backs Islam in the same manner it does for Judaism and Christianity, relying on texts and historical records rather than theological arguments. Early manuscripts of the Qur'an, inscriptions, coins, and accounts from non-Muslim sources all validate the origins and claims of Islam in the 7th century. Additionally, ancient evidence shows that prophets adhered to the belief in one God. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain monotheistic writings from Moses and Isaiah, inscriptions reference the worship of YHWH, and Assyrian records differentiate Israel's God from pagan deities.

None of this is evidence for the claim, you are simply restating the claim. What you cannot do is show ANY evidence before 571 CE that anybody was ever referred to as a Muslim. Fallaciously claiming that a broad definition retroactively and with no further supporting evidence refers to people of a completely different belief system just fails.

Further more you rejected my claim based on what you decided was a lack of evidence but go on to accept this fallacious claim even with the same lack of evidence thus contradicting yourself. If a lack of evidence causes you to reject a claim then the same lack of evidence should make you reject any other claim. Accepting a claim even where it clearly lacks evidence makes you inconsistent with your own metric.

LordReed:
None of this is evidence for the claim, you are simply restating the claim. What you cannot do is show ANY evidence before 571 CE that anybody was ever referred to as a Muslim. Fallaciously claiming that a broad definition retroactively and with no further supporting evidence refers to people of a completely different belief system just fails.

Further more you rejected my claim based on what you decided was a lack of evidence but go on to accept this fallacious claim even with the same lack of evidence thus contradicting yourself. If a lack of evidence causes you to reject a claim then the same lack of evidence should make you reject any other claim. Accepting a claim even where it clearly lacks evidence makes you inconsistent with your own metric.

Persistently mixing up historical terms with religious identity. In Islam, the term Muslim is rooted in Abraham, not Muhammad, as stated in the Qur'an; He named you Muslims before and in this [revelation](Qur’an 22:78). This is a theological assertion rather than a reflection of how people identified themselves in 200 BCE or 500 CE. Historically, Arab monotheists before Islam were referred to as Hanifs;individuals who turned away from idol worship and embraced Abraham's belief in one God without following a formal law. Theologically, Islam teaches that Abraham's submission (islam) is what defines the concept, and the term Muslim is introduced through later revelations.

So, the distinction is clear and consistent. Historically, there was no confessional label Muslim before 571; identities were based on tribal, Jewish, Christian, or Hanif affiliations. Theologically, it is believed that Abraham referred to those who submit to God as Muslims Disagreeing with this theological perspective does not indicate inconsistency; it simply shows a rejection of the religious claim, not a logical flaw in the claim itself.

Explore2xmore:
Persistently mixing up historical terms with religious identity. In Islam, the term Muslim is rooted in Abraham, not Muhammad, as stated in the Qur'an; He named you Muslims before and in this [revelation](Qur’an 22:78). This is a theological assertion rather than a reflection of how people identified themselves in 200 BCE or 500 CE. Historically, Arab monotheists before Islam were referred to as Hanifs;individuals who turned away from idol worship and embraced Abraham's belief in one God without following a formal law. Theologically, Islam teaches that Abraham's submission (islam) is what defines the concept, and the term Muslim is introduced through later revelations.

So, the distinction is clear and consistent. Historically, there was no confessional label Muslim before 571; identities were based on tribal, Jewish, Christian, or Hanif affiliations. Theologically, it is believed that Abraham referred to those who submit to God as Muslims Disagreeing with this theological perspective does not indicate inconsistency; it simply shows a rejection of the religious claim, not a logical flaw in the claim itself.

That it is the Quran stating it doesn't make it any less a fallacious claim. So at this point it is clear you are just going around in circles.

The inconsistency stems from you rejecting one claim because you believe it lacks evidence ut believing a different claim despite the lack of evidence.

Like I said you are just going round in circles and are bringing nothing further to the conversation.

LordReed:
That it is the Quran stating it doesn't make it any less a fallacious claim. So at this point it is clear you are just going around in circles.

The inconsistency stems from you rejecting one claim because you believe it lacks evidence ut believing a different claim despite the lack of evidence.

Like I said you are just going round in circles and are bringing nothing further to the conversation.

Islam encourages that evidence for historical claims are sought out rather than accepting them blindly. Historical records indicate that pre-Islamic Arabia had monotheists known as Hanifs, who rejected idol worship and traced their beliefs back to Abraham. This is supported by external evidence. Islam interprets this historical context by asserting that Abraham's way of worship was a form of submission, which it later identifies as Muslim an Arabic word meaning submission to Allah.
Multiple historical inscriptions and sources show monotheistic belief existed in Arabia in the 5th–6th centuries, and classical Muslim historians recorded hanifs as individuals who rejected paganism in favor of Abrahamic monotheism.

While one can disagree with this theological perspective, it is not an arbitrary invention; it is based on a documented tradition of monotheism in Arabia that Islam presents organized and defined. It is reasonable to reject the theological interpretation, but you are unable to provide evidence contrary to what is shared or in support of your stance.

Explore2xmore:
Islam encourages that evidence for historical claims are sought out rather than accepting them blindly. Historical records indicate that pre-Islamic Arabia had monotheists known as Hanifs, who rejected idol worship and traced their beliefs back to Abraham. This is supported by external evidence. Islam interprets this historical context by asserting that Abraham's way of worship was a form of submission, which it later identifies as Muslim an Arabic word meaning submission to Allah.
Multiple historical inscriptions and sources show monotheistic belief existed in Arabia in the 5th–6th centuries, and classical Muslim historians recorded hanifs as individuals who rejected paganism in favor of Abrahamic monotheism.

While one can disagree with this theological perspective, it is not an arbitrary invention; it is based on a documented tradition of monotheism in Arabia that Islam presents organized and defined. It is reasonable to reject the theological interpretation, but you are unable to provide evidence contrary to what is shared or in support of your stance.

You keep going in circles. IT DOESN'T matter whether it is a theological perspective or otherwise it is still fallacious.

You are like someone calling people who were born in the Niger delta area before 1914 Nigerians because the word Nigerian means anyone born in the territory called Nigeria. It is fallacious to apply that definition to people before 1914 when the territory called Nigeria was actually formed.

If after this example you still struggle with this then you need to go back and examine how you think.

LordReed:
You keep going in circles. IT DOESN'T matter whether it is a theological perspective or otherwise it is still fallacious.

You are like someone calling people who were born in the Niger delta area before 1914 Nigerians because the word Nigerian means anyone born in the territory called Nigeria. It is fallacious to apply that definition to people before 1914 when the territory called Nigeria was actually formed.

If after this example you still struggle with this then you need to go back and examine how you think.

Your analogy is flawed. The term Nigerian refers to a modern political identity that emerged from the state formation in 1914. In contrast, Muslim in Islamic theology is a descriptive term for anyone who submits to God, which is applicable throughout history and not limited to the existence of 7th-century Arabia. Islam asserts that Abraham was a submitter to God,muslim, indicating that the concept existed even if the Arabic term did not. Similarly, Christians refer to Abraham as faithful in the context of the Hebrew Bible, while Jews describe him as righteous before the Torah was given.

Your reasoning would also undermine the validity of calling ancient Israelites "monotheists a term that was coined much later or referring to Socrates as a philosopher a Greek term that was formalized after his time. The key issue is not when the term was created, but whether the reality it represents existed. You are mixing up linguistic history with conceptual reality. If you disagree with the idea that Abraham submitted to God, then make that argument directly instead of relying on fallacies about word origins.

Explore2xmore:
Your analogy is flawed. The term Nigerian refers to a modern political identity that emerged from the state formation in 1914. In contrast, Muslim in Islamic theology is a descriptive term for anyone who submits to God, which is applicable throughout history and not limited to the existence of 7th-century Arabia. Islam asserts that Abraham was a submitter to God,muslim, indicating that the concept existed even if the Arabic term did not. Similarly, Christians refer to Abraham as faithful in the context of the Hebrew Bible, while Jews describe him as righteous before the Torah was given.

Your reasoning would also undermine the validity of calling ancient Israelites "monotheists a term that was coined much later or referring to Socrates as a philosopher a Greek term that was formalized after his time. The key issue is not when the term was created, but whether the reality it represents existed. You are mixing up linguistic history with conceptual reality. If you disagree with the idea that Abraham submitted to God, then make that argument directly instead of relying on fallacies about word origins.

The analogy holds up very well because it is factual reality that no Nigerians existed before 1914 same way factual reality is no Muslims existed before 571 CE.

The ancient Hebrews were not monotheists so that isn't even a point.

The word philosopher - lover of wisdom, was contemporary with Socrates and the other Greek philosophers so that also fails.

The key issue is you and wherever you got the idea are involved in a fallacious claim. You have to equivocate the meaning of Muslim to stretch its identity to cover people who cannot be considered Muslim as an identifier even by the standards of your Quran.

LordReed:
The analogy holds up very well because it is factual reality that no Nigerians existed before 1914 same way factual reality is no Muslims existed before 571 CE.

The ancient Hebrews were not monotheists so that isn't even a point.

The word philosopher - lover of wisdom, was contemporary with Socrates and the other Greek philosophers so that also fails.

The key issue is you and wherever you got the idea are involved in a fallacious claim. You have to equivocate the meaning of Muslim to stretch its identity to cover people who cannot be considered Muslim as an identifier even by the standards of your Quran.

Are you erasing the lines between political affiliations and matters of faith? Being Muslim signifies someone who surrenders to God a concept that transcends time, it's not just a label from the 7th century. The Hebrew Bible is quite clear about its monotheistic nature. Terms can be used to describe things that happened earlier. Think of how we use philosopher or the concept of gravity. Actually, Islam identifies Abraham as a muslim in the Qur'an (3:67). The reality is there first, then come the labels we use to describe it.

Explore2xmore:
Are you erasing the lines between political affiliations and matters of faith? Being Muslim signifies someone who surrenders to God a concept that transcends time, it's not just a label from the 7th century. The Hebrew Bible is quite clear about its monotheistic nature. Terms can be used to describe things that happened earlier. Think of how we use philosopher or the concept of gravity. Actually, Islam identifies Abraham as a muslim in the Qur'an (3:67). The reality is there first, then come the labels we use to describe it.

The fact is you won't accept this conceptual thingy you are clinging to for any other argument that opposes your view. The was what even launched this discussion and you pressed for evidence then rejected even that. The fact is you are caught in a hypocritical and fallacious position which you don't want to give up.

LordReed:
The fact is you won't accept this conceptual thingy you are clinging to for any other argument that opposes your view. The was what even launched this discussion and you pressed for evidence then rejected even that. The fact is you are caught in a hypocritical and fallacious position which you don't want to give up.

Oh! And you're not?
Didn't feel it was important enough too earlier but as you tend to insist here it is.

Your argument that we can't call Abraham a muslim because the Arabic term didn't exist back then makes a pretty big mistake when it comes to how we look at history and religious ideas. If we took that approach all the time, it would mess up almost every discussion about history and philosophy. Here's why:

1. Applying Philosophical Ideas to the Past

Think about Plato. We often call him a dualist because he talked about the difference between the physical world and the world of perfect ideas. But the term dualism as a formal philosophical idea wasn't around until after Plato was gone. Using your logic, calling Plato a dualist would be wrong because he never used that word, and it didn't exist in his time.

But experts agree that what Plato described is basically what we later called dualism. The concept was there; we just came up with the specific term later. No serious philosopher says we can't call Plato a dualist just because the word came later. We understand that words can still be accurate even if they came about after the thing they describe.

2. We also describe ancient Chinese dynasties as totalitarian when we see how much control they had, how they watched their people, and how they stopped anyone from disagreeing with them. The term totalitarianism was created in the 20th century to describe certain governments. But historians still use it to talk about earlier governments that acted the same way with complete state control, forcing everyone to think the same way, and getting rid of anyone who opposed them.

By your way of thinking, we couldn't call Qin Shi Huang's government totalitarian because that word didn't exist back in 221 BCE. That would make it really hard to understand and analyze political systems from the past using the best ideas we have.

3. Isaac Newton's work is called physics, but the term for physics as a formal science came about after he lived. Newton himself used the term natural philosophy. Should we refuse to say his Principia Mathematica is physics just because he didn't use that exact term?

Similarly, we call the ancient Greeks' studies of matter chemistry,even though chemistry as a formal science came much later. We call prehistoric humans Homo sapiens, even though they had no idea about that scientific classification. The reality was there; the terminology came later.

4. We call ancient Israelites monotheists, even though that term (which comes from Greek) was formalized after the Hebrew Bible was written. The Shema says there is one God; we use monotheism to describe that idea.
We call the followers of Gautama Buddha Buddhists, even though that term developed after he died they just followed the dharma.

We describe ancient Egyptian religion as polytheistic, using a term they never used though they worshipped many netjeru (gods).

5. Applying ideas to the past is okay when:

a) The underlying reality matches the concept. Abraham's worship of one God matches Islam's idea of submission (islam).

b) The later term accurately describes earlier things. Monotheism accurately describes how Israelites worshipped; muslim accurately describes submission to God in Islamic theology.

c) We admit we're using our own way of thinking and historians make it clear that they're using modern ideas to understand the past.

This is how things are done in history, philosophy, science, and theology.

The key thing you're missing is there's a big difference between saying someone had an identity that didn't exist yet as your Nigerian example where saying someone born in 1910 Lagos was Nigerian is wrong because Nigerian identity legally started in 1914; it's a specific political status that didn't exist before.

But applying a concept to something from the past in the Abraham example by
describing him as a muslim (someone who submitted to God) is a valid religious idea.
The idea of submitting to one God existed; Islam uses Arabic terms for it.

Your incorrect im treating religious/philosophical ideas which describe realities the same as legal/political identities which create new statuses.

Islam specifically defines muslim as anyone who submits to God in any time period. This isn't Muslims stretching definition, it is Islam's core religious idea, straight from its own primary source.

You can disagree with this religious idea (many do), but you can't say it's linguistically wrong, logically flawed, or doesn't match Islamic scripture. The Qur'an itself applies the term to people in the past - it's part of what defines Islam.

If you say that Islam's use of muslim for prophets before Islam is wrong, you need to show why applying ideas to the past is generally wrong which would mess up history/philosophy

Your Nigerian example mixes up different kinds of terms

But it really doesn't matter.

Explore2xmore:
Oh! And you're not?
Didn't feel it was important enough too earlier but as you tend to insist here it is.

Your argument that we can't call Abraham a muslim because the Arabic term didn't exist back then makes a pretty big mistake when it comes to how we look at history and religious ideas. If we took that approach all the time, it would mess up almost every discussion about history and philosophy. Here's why:

1. Applying Philosophical Ideas to the Past

Think about Plato. We often call him a dualist because he talked about the difference between the physical world and the world of perfect ideas. But the term dualism as a formal philosophical idea wasn't around until after Plato was gone. Using your logic, calling Plato a dualist would be wrong because he never used that word, and it didn't exist in his time.

But experts agree that what Plato described is basically what we later called dualism. The concept was there; we just came up with the specific term later. No serious philosopher says we can't call Plato a dualist just because the word came later. We understand that words can still be accurate even if they came about after the thing they describe.

2. We also describe ancient Chinese dynasties as totalitarian when we see how much control they had, how they watched their people, and how they stopped anyone from disagreeing with them. The term totalitarianism was created in the 20th century to describe certain governments. But historians still use it to talk about earlier governments that acted the same way with complete state control, forcing everyone to think the same way, and getting rid of anyone who opposed them.

By your way of thinking, we couldn't call Qin Shi Huang's government totalitarian because that word didn't exist back in 221 BCE. That would make it really hard to understand and analyze political systems from the past using the best ideas we have.

3. Isaac Newton's work is called physics, but the term for physics as a formal science came about after he lived. Newton himself used the term natural philosophy. Should we refuse to say his Principia Mathematica is physics just because he didn't use that exact term?

Similarly, we call the ancient Greeks' studies of matter chemistry,even though chemistry as a formal science came much later. We call prehistoric humans Homo sapiens, even though they had no idea about that scientific classification. The reality was there; the terminology came later.

4. We call ancient Israelites monotheists, even though that term (which comes from Greek) was formalized after the Hebrew Bible was written. The Shema says there is one God; we use monotheism to describe that idea.
We call the followers of Gautama Buddha Buddhists, even though that term developed after he died they just followed the dharma.

We describe ancient Egyptian religion as polytheistic, using a term they never used though they worshipped many netjeru (gods).

5. Applying ideas to the past is okay when:

a) The underlying reality matches the concept. Abraham's worship of one God matches Islam's idea of submission (islam).

b) The later term accurately describes earlier things. Monotheism accurately describes how Israelites worshipped; muslim accurately describes submission to God in Islamic theology.

c) We admit we're using our own way of thinking and historians make it clear that they're using modern ideas to understand the past.

This is how things are done in history, philosophy, science, and theology.

The key thing you're missing is there's a big difference between saying someone had an identity that didn't exist yet as your Nigerian example where saying someone born in 1910 Lagos was Nigerian is wrong because Nigerian identity legally started in 1914; it's a specific political status that didn't exist before.

But applying a concept to something from the past in the Abraham example by
describing him as a muslim (someone who submitted to God) is a valid religious idea.
The idea of submitting to one God existed; Islam uses Arabic terms for it.

Your incorrect im treating religious/philosophical ideas which describe realities the same as legal/political identities which create new statuses.

Islam specifically defines muslim as anyone who submits to God in any time period. This isn't Muslims stretching definition, it is Islam's core religious idea, straight from its own primary source.

You can disagree with this religious idea (many do), but you can't say it's linguistically wrong, logically flawed, or doesn't match Islamic scripture. The Qur'an itself applies the term to people in the past - it's part of what defines Islam.

If you say that Islam's use of muslim for prophets before Islam is wrong, you need to show why applying ideas to the past is generally wrong which would mess up history/philosophy

Your Nigerian example mixes up different kinds of terms

Very simple question, are Christians and Jews Muslims? Just a simple yes or no.

LordReed:
Very simple question, are Christians and Jews Muslims? Just a simple yes or no.

+
Please hold your discussant to the essentials of being a Muslim which are -

The most fundamental requirement—the "entry point"—is the Shahada. This is a sincere testimony of belief spoken with conviction:

"La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadur rasul Allah." (There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.)

To be a Muslim, one must believe in the absolute oneness of God (Tawhid) and accept Muhammad as the final prophet.
----Culled.

In addition by extension are the practice of the five pillars of Islam, but just hold the above.

DeepSight:
+
Please hold your discussant to the essentials of being a Muslim which are -

The most fundamental requirement—the "entry point"—is the Shahada. This is a sincere testimony of belief spoken with conviction:

"La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadur rasul Allah." (There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.)

To be a Muslim, one must believe in the absolute oneness of God (Tawhid) and accept Muhammad as the final prophet.
----Culled.

In addition by extension are the practice of the five pillars of Islam, but just hold the above.

This would have been the next step. It is clear his argument is just an equivocation.

LordReed:
Very simple question, are Christians and Jews Muslims? Just a simple yes or no.

NO

Explore2xmore:
NO

This was you

Explore2xmore:
The term Muslim refers to ANYONE who submits to God, even those who lived before Muhammad pbuh. .

So explain how Christians and Jews do not meet your definition.

LordReed:
This was you



So explain how Christians and Jews do not meet your definition.

Yes, it was and still is.

Today, Christians and Jews are not classified as Muslims because they do not acknowledge Muhammad (peace be upon him) as God's messenger. However, the Qur'an states that the term Muslim refers to anyone who completely submits to God, even before the time of Muhammad (Quran 3:67). In this theological sense, Abraham is a Muslim because he fully submitted to God. What defines a religion is not strictly shared figures, but rather the act of submitting to God, while following Muhammad pbuh's teachings has characterized historical Islam since his time.

Explore2xmore:
Yes, it was and still is.

Today, Christians and Jews are not classified as Muslims because they do not acknowledge Muhammad (peace be upon him) as God's messenger. However, the Qur'an states that the term Muslim refers to anyone who completely submits to God, even before the time of Muhammad (Quran 3:67). In this theological sense, Abraham is a Muslim because he fully submitted to God. What defines a religion is not strictly shared figures, but rather the act of submitting to God, while following Muhammad pbuh's teachings has characterized historical Islam since his time.

LoLz. Like I said your argument is fraught with inconsistency and equivocation. Suddenly a new condition has appeared that precludes a set you previously emphatically encapsulated.

I think my work is done here.

DeepSight is there any reason to continue with this? (BTW I suspect the work of Chat GPT)

LordReed:
LoLz. Like I said your argument is fraught with inconsistency and equivocation. Suddenly a new condition has appeared that precludes a set you previously emphatically encapsulated.

I think my work is done here.

DeepSight is there any reason to continue with this? (BTW I suspect the work of Chat GPT)

Look true my earlier explanations that got us here. I haven't said differently. You asked a yes or no question hoping to box me in and I strictly answered to your restrictions. You pick from my earlier posts so I give you the interpretation you earlier avoided.

Explore2xmore:
Historical records indicate that pre-Islamic Arabia had monotheists known as Hanifs, who rejected idol worship and traced their beliefs back to Abraham. This is supported by external evidence. Islam interprets this historical context by asserting that Abraham's way of worship was a form of submission, which it later identifies as Muslim an Arabic word meaning submission to Allah.

Explore2xmore:
Being Muslim signifies someone who surrenders to God a concept that transcends time, it's not just a label from the 7th century. The Hebrew Bible is quite clear about its monotheistic nature. Terms can be used to describe things that happened earlier. Think of how we use philosopher or the concept of gravity. Actually, Islam identifies Abraham as a muslim in the Qur'an (3:67). The reality is there first, then come the labels we use to describe it.

Besides I categorically said

Explore2xmore:
But it really doesn't matter.

Explore2xmore:
✓ Islam encourages that evidence for historical claims are sought out rather than accepting them blindly. Historical records indicate that pre-Islamic Arabia had monotheists known as Hanifs, who rejected idol worship and traced their beliefs back to Abraham. This is supported by external evidence. Islam interprets this historical context by asserting that Abraham's way of worship was a form of submission, which it later identifies as Muslim an Arabic word meaning submission to Allah.
Multiple historical inscriptions and sources show monotheistic belief existed in Arabia in the 5th–6th centuries, and classical Muslim historians recorded hanifs as individuals who rejected paganism in favor of Abrahamic monotheism.

While one can disagree with this theological perspective, it is not an arbitrary invention; it is based on a documented tradition of monotheism in Arabia that Islam presents organized and defined. It is reasonable to reject the theological interpretation, but you are unable to provide evidence contrary to what is shared or in support of your stance.

There is no evidence that the so-called pre-Islamic people called Hanifs described in your Quran ever existed. Same way there is no evidence that a Jewish tribe which worshipped Ezra ever existed.🥱🥱🥱

Kobojunkie:
There is no evidence that the so-called pre-Islamic people called Hanifs described in your Quran ever existed. Same way there is no evidence that a Jewish tribe which worshipped Ezra ever existed.🥱🥱🥱

Pre-Islamic Arabia had records of non-Jewish, non-Christian monotheists known as Ḥanīfs, supported by dated inscriptions that invoke a single God without idols, existing decades to centuries before Muhammad pbuh's propagation of Islam. Evident in Himyarite texts from the 4th to 6th century CE that call on Raḥmānān (The Merciful), the Lord of Heaven and Earth. These inscriptions have been photographed, catalogued, and peer-reviewed.

Himyarite Sabaic inscriptions reflect exclusive monotheism with no references to pagan gods.(Christian Robin; Iwona Gajda; Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity)

Northern Arabian inscriptions (pre-Islamic) appeal to one God alone.(Robert Hoyland, Fred Donner)

Not all Jews but some of a now extinct sect worshiped Ezra