tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post6055726106042897502..comments2023-11-09T05:50:27.936-08:00Comments on The Facts About Islam: Why was Prophet Muhammad’s Father Called “Abdullah”?Yahya Snowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18373097645466995642noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-56956139713656105642013-06-17T01:18:39.821-07:002013-06-17T01:18:39.821-07:00The prophecy tells about Ahmad; 'Servant of Go...The prophecy tells about Ahmad; 'Servant of God' whom will war to correct the wrongs and bringing judgement based on the law of God. He will also liberate Arabia from worshiping molten images. Wilderness (desert), villages and cities will glorify God since then. As can be seen today, whole of Arabia are worshiping,praising God and singing words of God daily.<br /><br />And we continue reading Isaiah 42:18 - 25; about Children of Israel, whom will still be deaf and blind neglecting the message brought by this 'Servant of God'. <br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />In Isaiah 42:1, it is not a coincidence upon seeing the writing of both אתמך (Atmc) אחמד (Ahmd). And the word before אתמך (Atmc), is עבדי (Abedi~My Servant). For indeed, It is indicating Ahmad; Abedallah (Ahmad; Servant of God). <br /><br />Not to mention אתמך (Atmc) is a special term foretelling the coming of a righteous man and is used only ONCE throughout the entire Book. [could this be a copying error or an intended error?] <br /><br />Children of Israel have been foretold upon the coming of Ahmad but sadly, only a few accepts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-51318707156769570812011-03-29T22:13:26.292-07:002011-03-29T22:13:26.292-07:00Radical Moderate
You are missing the point.
The ...Radical Moderate<br /><br />You are missing the point.<br /><br />The information from Arab oral tradition is BASIC info such as geneaology and historical knowledge of THEIR birth place.<br /><br />You would expect them to know this.<br /><br />Think about it, if you told me your ancestors originated from Russia (before your forefathers moved to the US), I would not dispute it as its a basic detail of your lineage that you SHOULD know.<br /><br />I'm not going to start asking for archaeological evidence!<br /><br />Its a given. The same applies to the basic info from Arab oral traditions.<br /><br />As for you getting shoddy argumentations from Dave and Sam. The reason I felt you got this level of argumentation from them was due to how inconsistent and shoddy it was.<br /><br />As for you being interested in archaeology. Yes, I do recall you claiming to be keen on history.<br /><br />I find it interesting that you will not believe the Bible unless there is archaeological evidence for the claims. I guess you have to throw much of it out.<br /><br />I guess Sam and Dave will not be pleased...<br /><br />Peace<br /><br />Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens anotherYahya Snowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18373097645466995642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-15395515312778232552011-03-25T21:31:58.088-07:002011-03-25T21:31:58.088-07:00@Abdul
You said "Oh I see, well thank goodne...@Abdul<br /><br />You said "Oh I see, well thank goodness for that because up and till that point I had you pegged for a halfwit."<br /><br />Well I do speak to the level of my audience.<br /><br />So can you answer my questions or not?Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-39300077625045280462011-03-25T16:56:32.658-07:002011-03-25T16:56:32.658-07:00RadicalModerate -
"I specifically chose the...RadicalModerate - <br /><br />"I specifically chose the first site for you to see if you would in fact do some research. Congradulations you passed the test."<br /><br />Oh I see, well thank goodness for that because up and till that point I had you pegged for a halfwit.<br /><br />Nice try Rad lol ;)<br /><br />Do a google book search for - The Bible unearthed and then find page 37.<br /><br />I have just done it myself to see if the page number is available to view - it is.<br /><br />Read and weep ;)Abdulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-23323763421123769422011-03-25T16:10:07.534-07:002011-03-25T16:10:07.534-07:00@Abdul Abdul Abdul
"What someone like Israel...@Abdul Abdul Abdul<br /><br />"What someone like Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman?<br /><br />Nice one Rad - go on, go laugh at two top Israeli archaeologists heheheh ;)"<br /><br />Since you only dropped their names and provided no quotes from them I don't see how I could be laughing at them? Providing a page number from a book is not providing a quote. SO I'm still only laughing at you.<br /><br />Now back to the Camel's<br />I specifically chose the first site for you to see if you would in fact do some research. Congradulations you passed the test. Now I find it interesting that Camels were domesticated in the 3rd Mil BC, but then it is denied they were used as beast of burden? Think about what this says about human beings, hourses were domesticated long long long before camels. So man could figure out how to put a bit in horse's mouth but not in a camel?<br /><br />The things people have to do to deny the bible always amazes me. <br /><br /><br />Either way Abdul this has nothing to do with the fact that you can not provide broof for the claim that Mecca existed or that Arabs worshiped a single unitarian monotheistic God named Allah prior to Mohamed.<br /><br />Can you provide broof of this or not? If you can not then it is just another Islamic Hoax refuted. One of many.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-62466259988313675852011-03-25T15:22:32.776-07:002011-03-25T15:22:32.776-07:00RadicalModerate -
"On second thought I have ...RadicalModerate -<br /><br />"On second thought I have decided not to do a lengthy report on Jericho..."<br /><br />Why - because you don't know your arse from your elbow when it comes to the subject?<br /><br />"...it would be to much and way over the head for someone who says "Camels were not domesticated until well after 1000 BCE"<br /><br />What someone like Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman?<br /><br />Nice one Rad - go on, go laugh at two top Israeli archaeologists heheheh ;)<br /><br />As for the sources you have provided - you might want to read them first. The first one you have provided confirms the point that I am making. Look closer at what I said - Domesticated as BEASTS OF BURDEN.<br /><br />From the first source that you presented -<br /><br />http://www.livius.org/caa-can/camel/camel.html<br /><br />"From now on, long distance trade and desert nomadism became possible. The use of dromedaries in the second millennium BCE by nomadic tribes, as implied in the Biblical book Genesis, is almost certainly unhistorical and shows that Genesis was composed at a later age."<br /><br />Nice one Rad - superb form as always.<br /><br />Here is the sourcen I provided - again!!!<br /><br />The Bible unearthed by: Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, Touchstone, page 37. <br /><br />And what is your problem with Gen 20? - Twice now I've stated this - the verse in question is Gen 26:1 !!!!!<br /><br />"Either way I think I'm done here"<br /><br />Indeed ;)Abdulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-84442898807122919982011-03-25T15:05:04.051-07:002011-03-25T15:05:04.051-07:00Just another Yahay Snow Islamic Hoax exposed by th...Just another Yahay Snow Islamic Hoax exposed by the Radical Moderate.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-10569243769960495992011-03-25T14:51:25.309-07:002011-03-25T14:51:25.309-07:00@Abdul I'm laughing even harder now. Like I sa...@Abdul I'm laughing even harder now. Like I said you know a Muslim is in trouble when he has to go to a Jew to defend his position. <br /><br />Kind of reminds me of the "90 foot tall skeleton" hoax that was played on Osama Abdulla a few years ago. Still laughing at that one. To this day he still will not acknowledge he was duped. lol<br /><br />You drop some Jewish names but with out citing anything they wrote on the domestication of Camels. <br /><br />A simple Google search "When were Camels domesticated" turns up the following. "The dromedary (thats the one HUMP Camel) is easy to domesticate and the first evidence for tame dromedaries dates back to the late third millennium BCE. "<br /><br /><a href="http://www.livius.org/caa-can/camel/camel.html" rel="nofollow">Source</a><br /><br />"Dromedaries were probably domesticated in coastal settlements along the southern Arabian peninsula somewhere between 3000 and 2500 BC."<br /><br /><a href="http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/camels.htm" rel="nofollow">Source</a><br /><br />"The Bedouin name for Camelus dromedarius, is the "one-hump" dromedary, also known as the Arabian camel. These camels were domesticated even earlier than the Bactrians (two-humped, Asian camels), before 3000 B.C."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marisamontes.com/all_about_camels.htm" rel="nofollow">Source</a><br /><br />And finally WIKI<br />"Dromedaries were first domesticated in central or southern Arabia some thousands of years ago. Experts are divided regarding the date: some believe it was around 4000 BC, others as recently as 1400 BC."<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromedary#Domestication" rel="nofollow">Source</a><br /><br />So the best you can say is "experts are divided on the dating of domestication.<br /><br />Now on to Gen 20. What translation are you using. I'm looking at the Hebrew and there is no פלשתי Pĕlishtiy in the text of Gen 20:1-2.<br /><br />Also you do know that the word פלשתי Pĕlishtiy just means immigrants. Seriously man you need to do some research before you post. Its embarrassing. <br /><br />Now back to Mecca.<br />You said "As far as I am aware it wasn't a commercial hub until much later."<br /><br />What did they do for a living for thousands of years? You do realize that the climate of Mecca, is not suitable and never was suitable for long term habitation off of the land. People plants and Animals need rain fall. <br /><br />Either way I think I'm done here.<br />Fact you have no FACTS to back up your statement that "WE KNOW".Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-66935205037267429132011-03-25T14:20:11.034-07:002011-03-25T14:20:11.034-07:00@Adbul
On second thought I have decided not to do ...@Adbul<br />On second thought I have decided not to do a lengthy report on Jericho, it would be to much and way over the head for someone who says "Camels were not domesticated until well after 1000 BCE" I'm still laughing at that one.<br /><br />I will just add this. Radio Carbon dating that was done in 1995, from charred cereal grains, could of been contaminated by the Minoan eruption of Thera"<br /><br />But even if we go by Kathlyn Kenyons date, it still puts the destruction of Jericho with in the historical record. It just switches who the "Pharaoh" was from King Tut, to Ahmose 1. Also it could be that we are looking at the wrong group of people as to who the Pharaoh was. The Pharaoh could be a Hyksos King.<br /><br />Finally the evidence for the date in 1400 BC out ways the radio carbon dating, especially if the darting is contaminated by the Minoa eruption which has been shown in other tests of other finds. <br /><br />Either way, the date of Jericho has not been settled, and even if it was a latter date it just changes who the Pharaoh was thats all it does. <br /><br />Now putting all these tu quo que, false delimea's, red hearings, and strawman arguments aside. <br /><br />My challenge still stands as it has not been met.<br /><br />Can any Muslim prove the following.<br />1. That Mecca existed before 500 BC? i.e. Is there any mention of it anywhere in any of the massive amount of documentation that we have from the Arab kingdoms in that region at that time?<br /><br />2. That Arabs worshiped a single unitarian monotheistic god named ALLAH? <br /><br />If you can not provide proof then have Yahya Snow change the wording from "We know" to "We believe". <br /><br />Thank you that is all.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-87579892162772843262011-03-25T14:09:54.874-07:002011-03-25T14:09:54.874-07:00RadicalModerate -
Sorry for the delay in replying...RadicalModerate -<br /><br />Sorry for the delay in replying.<br /><br />"If Mecca was he oldest city, if it was such a comercial hub of the caravan trade going back thousands of years then why no mention of it?"<br /><br />As far as I am aware it wasn't a commercial hub until much later. I don't think that any Muslim has ever claimed that it was.<br /><br />"Second your comments on Cammels that was the funiest thing I have ever heard. What is your source on that."<br /><br />The Bible unearthed page 37 by:<br /><br />Israel Finkelstein - an Israeli archaeologist and academic. He is currently the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze Age and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University<br /><br />and<br /><br />Neil Asher Silberman - another archaeologist and historian with a special interest in history, archaeology, public interpretation and heritage policy. He is a graduate of Wesleyan University and was trained in Near Eastern archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.<br /><br />Laughing now? ;)<br /><br />"On Gen 20 and the Philistinian king. Can you show me where it says this king was a Philistine?"<br /><br />I said Gen 26:1 - And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar<br /><br />Oh dear :(<br /><br />Jericho issue - do you have sources on this issue. Would like to look into this more myself.<br /><br />"Do you understand the problem you Muslims have."<br /><br />The real issue here is - do YOU understand the problem you Christians have?<br /><br />Your Bible is full of historical errors Rad - I wouldn't say that it's completely without value but you might want to reign in that impulse to 'prove' the truth of the Bible by citing the historical record and archaeology.Abdulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-4417318759249152011-03-24T18:49:59.070-07:002011-03-24T18:49:59.070-07:00Abdul Abdul Abdul Part 3 on my short response.
N...Abdul Abdul Abdul Part 3 on my short response.<br /><br /><br />No to your other nonsense that i will respond to shortly. This is going to be fun. <br /><br />First on Jericho, you are relying on a hypothesis from a archelogist who NEVER published a definitive study of the pottery for peer review. Also the only thing that was published was the raw data from the dig. This was after she died. This is important because she based her hypothesis on the absence of imported pottery from Cyprus. Something that shouldn't of been in the small area she was digging in the first place. So it's not that she did not find this pottery it's that she was digging in the wrong spot. Secondly she ignored the local pottery that was found in abundance. You really need to upgrade to the latest analysis which I will provide in a latter post. I might even make it a blog entry.<br /><br />Second your comments on Cammels that was the funiest thing I have ever heard. What is your source on that. Because a simple google search will show that Camels both the one hump and the two hump camel's were domesticated in third and second milinium BC. <br /><br />On Gen 20 and the Philistinian king. Can you show me where it says this king was a Philistine?<br /><br />I think thats about it.<br />Oh that smack really must of hurt more then I thought. You better upgrade from asprin to vicadin cause whats coming next is really going to hurt.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-58965931594342274432011-03-24T18:37:23.122-07:002011-03-24T18:37:23.122-07:00Abdul Abdul Abdul Part 2 of my short response.
Al...Abdul Abdul Abdul Part 2 of my short response.<br /><br />Also he said that the Arabs worshiped Allah. Ok prove that as I have proven for the Worship of YHWH. We know a great deal about the arabs and their kingdoms and the occupiers of the Levant and Arabia. We know their gods, the cities, and settlements, the trade routs, business transactions names of Kings and cheiftans etc... from the 3 Mil BC on. THERE IS NO MENTION of MECCA, or of a single monotheistic unitarian god named Allah being worshiped.<br /><br />Let me put this in comparison. We know that Yathrib existed from 500 BC (The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus) to 6 BC were Yathrib is mentioned in the sale of slaves found in Yemini inscriptions. But we find no mention of MECCA. If Mecca was he oldest city, if it was such a comercial hub of the caravan trade going back thousands of years then why no mention of it? <br /><br />Do you understand the problem you Muslims have. You believe something inspite of the evidence to the contrary, based solely on your "oral traditions."<br /><br />BTW I would like to see the ISHNAD for that Oral Tradition. :)Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-82549058514305124142011-03-24T18:35:50.554-07:002011-03-24T18:35:50.554-07:00Abdul Abdul Abdul Quick response Part 1
This is ...Abdul Abdul Abdul Quick response Part 1<br /><br /><br />This is just a quick response. <br />I wrote it before and I will write it again. There is a big difference between saying "YOU KNOW" something as fact which can be proven outside of your oral traditions. And saying "This is what I believe based on the written word of the bible" or even the quran or hadeeth etc..."<br /><br />My objection to the snowman article was not that he believed something, it was that he stated it as a absolute fact. Something that can be proven.<br /><br />Now you were right you got me on the "Arabs descendent's of Ishmael" which I acknowledged. However as stated above Yahya said "WE KNOW" ok so if you know it you can prove it in regards to Ishmael settling in Mecca. I would accept from Yahya if he changed his statement "We believe, or it is our oral tradition etc..." but that would require honesty and integrity. Something that is out of stock at the Yahya grocery store.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-16931385543559773732011-03-24T15:47:37.592-07:002011-03-24T15:47:37.592-07:00RadicalModerate -
Don't worry about me Rad - ...RadicalModerate -<br /><br />Don't worry about me Rad - I'm about to finish you off you poor confused apologist :)<br /><br />You have just stated...<br /><br />"I said very clearly that all though I believe what the bible says regarding Abraham migration from Ur, I can not say "I KNOW" as in I have evidence other then the faith I have in the bible" That is the difference, sorry your not making that connection"<br /><br />You make it so easy Rad :)<br /><br />So you finally admit that the only proof you have that there was an Abraham (as) and that he migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan is in your Bible.<br /><br />How is this any different to the position that Muslims are in over Ismael settling in Mecca?<br /><br />You are demanding proofs for our tradition that you yourself cannot provide for your own lol - and this is the point that I've been trying to communicate to you for two days. Finally you see the fatal flaw in your own argumentation - and you just admitted it.<br /><br />You are a class 1 joker Rad - seriously.<br /><br />OK, so what do we know is that even the Jews knew and never disputed that the Arabs were descended from Ishmael - that even you had to concede.<br /><br />We have a strong atttested to oral tradition that the Arabs, and the Meccans in particular, were well aware of their descent from Abraham (as) and Ishmael (as).<br /><br />Throughout this entire dialogue you have asked for proof pertaining to this episode of Ishmael, but when asked to do the same for Abraham you have merely ran off a very selective list of much later Israelite history (mostly 1000 plus years later).<br /><br />You also said "I believe the bible, because it can and is proven by historical evidence and archeological FACTS" - Now this is your main line of defence so let me obliterate it for all to see.<br /><br />Just one historical inaccuracy is enough to cast serious doubt but I'll throw a few simple ones your way - heads up!!!<br /><br />1)Mention of the Philistines in (Gen 26:1). This is the meeting between between Isaac and king Abimelech of the Philistines. The Philistines were a group of migrants from the Aegean or Eastern Mediterranean who did not settle in Caanan until sometime after 1200 BCE (1000 to 800 years after Abraham (as) and Isaac (as)) - So is the Bible Historically accurate? - not a chance!<br /><br />2) Camels - Camels were not domesticated until well after 1000 BCE yet the stories of the Patriarchs are full of references to them being used as beasts of burden. You brought up the issue of pig bones disapearing from the arcaeological record - fair enough! - but be consistent. Archaeology has proven (through bone records) that Camels turning up in these narratives in this manner are totally inaccurate - strike 2!<br /><br />3)Battle of Jericho - Archaeologists now know that Jericho had been deserted at the accepted Biblical date of the Conquest. Kathleen Kenyon confirmed this in 1995 by a thorough survey and extensive radiocarbon testing - Bible historically accurate? NON!!!<br /><br />4) Pharaoh? Abraham calls the king of Egypt Pharaoh - historically inaccurate for exactly the same reason that it is inaccurate for Joseph to call him by such a title - Its an anachronism and therefore the archaeological record discredits your scripture.<br /><br />I think that is enough to show why your scriptures cannot be trusted as being accurate. <br /><br />Moreover, you have been totally duped into believing that Judaism and Christianity are the sole repositories of Monotheism and the Abrahamic tradition. Abraham was well know throughout the MiddleEast Rad and was well known by his decendents - the Arabs.<br /><br />Your argumentation is woeful Rad - Epic Fail ;)Abdulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-37634911045423798532011-03-24T13:40:41.200-07:002011-03-24T13:40:41.200-07:00Abdul, ,Abdul, Abdul that last smack to your head ...Abdul, ,Abdul, Abdul that last smack to your head really must of destroyed what was left.<br /><br />I said very clearly that all though I believe what the bible says regarding Abraham migration from Ur, I can not say "I KNOW" as in I have evidence other then the faith I have in the bible" That is the difference, sorry your not making that connection.<br /><br />Secondly this faith in the bible is not only based on my faith in GOD, but also the fact that every time we look around in regard to what we can prove from the historical and archeological records we find that the bible is not only correct but accurate.<br /><br />Something you can not claim for the bizarre beliefs you Muslims have for your Koran and your pre Islamic history. <br /><br />Why is it that I can prove that the city of UR existed but you can not prove that Mecca existed. Why is it that I can prove that a group of Nomadic people worshiped a God called YHWH going back as far as 1500 BC, but you can not prove that the Arabs worshiped a single unitarian monotheistic god called Allah?<br /><br />Why is it that I can prove that a tribe called Israel existed in the land of Canaan in the time period that the bible says they should of existed? Why is it that I can prove that a David Kingdom existed, had vessels of their GOD YHWH, and even that a Moabite king rose up in rebellion exactly as the bible describes and in the right time frame. But you can prove absolutely nothing of your claims that Mecca existed from the time of Ishmael, or that the Arabs worshiped a single unitarian monotheistic God named Allah?<br /><br />So which is more believable, the bible which is steeped in real archeological history, or the quran which is made up and has no attachment to history?Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-79000682601932084582011-03-24T13:18:05.218-07:002011-03-24T13:18:05.218-07:00RadicalModerate -
It actually says Ur of the Chal...RadicalModerate -<br /><br />It actually says Ur of the Chaldeans - another blatant anachronism. Pretty obvious why.<br /><br />Conclusion...<br /><br />Bible is historically unreliable and archaeology (Rad's fair weather friend) has proven this time and time again.Abdulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-73406980913572459652011-03-24T12:58:19.935-07:002011-03-24T12:58:19.935-07:00RadicalModerate -
"Did I ever say “I KNOW TH...RadicalModerate -<br /><br />"Did I ever say “I KNOW THAT ABRAHAM MIGRATED FROM MESOPOTAMIA? The answer is no"<br /><br />What??? Don't you believe what is written in your Bible Rad?<br /><br />You see - you should KNOW Rad but this type of stance is quite typical of the modern Christian apologist.<br /><br />The kind of admission that you have just made seems totally alien to the Muslim - it really does (and should). Either you believe, with total conviction, that your Bible is the word of God - and therefore KNOW that what it speaks is the TRUTH or you don't.<br /><br />Do you not have such confidence in your scripture - is that it?<br /><br />Rad - "Well apparently Abraham left Ur to settle in Canaan"<br /><br />God - "What do you mean - apparently?"<br /><br />Rad - "Well, how can I know for sure?"<br /><br />God - "?????????????"<br /><br />Well done Rad - Christian apologetics at its best ;)<br /><br />On the other hand we Muslims do KNOW, with a complete and unwavering conviction that Ishmael settled in Mecca - Why? - Because God told us so. It really is as simple as that (and so it should be).<br /><br />If you don't like that - tough!!!Abdulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-76086454694533282112011-03-24T12:01:54.344-07:002011-03-24T12:01:54.344-07:00@Abdul
I forgot to mention this in response to yo...@Abdul<br /><br />I forgot to mention this in response to your "Do you have proof for Abrham...."<br /><br />The bible account is that Abram left the City of UR in Mesopotamia. We KNOW that the city of UR existed. How do we know this, because we have mention of UR in other texts, inscriptions, monuments etc.. of other cultures and people. Also the city of UR has been found and was and is being excavated. <br /><br />So if we know that the city of UR existed how come we don't know that Mecca existed?<br /><br />@Yahya<br />If you want to go the "Oral Tradition route" the difference between the Oral tradition of Christians and Jews is that it is backed up by the historical and archeological records. You can not make that same claim for your "oral tradition" because if you could you would of already. <br /><br />@Sam1528 I don't know why I bother, but your point on Mecca never being excavated, is semi correct. When the Saudi's expanded and developed Mecca a few decades ago, they had the opportunity to allow researches to come in and do a survey. I can't remember if they did or not, but I would wager that if they did it was shut down right away. Like what happened in Medina. <br /><br />However that is irrelevant, since we know a awful lot about the people and kingdoms of North Western, South, and East Arabia. And none of them mention MECCA.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-54514406251793016062011-03-24T03:59:07.463-07:002011-03-24T03:59:07.463-07:00radical moderate ,
What is so faith shattering ab...radical moderate ,<br /><br />What is so faith shattering about your post?<br /><br />Its not surprising that the 'israelite descendants' of Prophet Abraham(as) worshiped YHVH as it a name of God in hebrew. What is the issue? All of us muslims believe in the Israelite Prophets , descendants of Prophet Abraham(as). Its our article of faith. Prophet Muhammad(saw) was the only non Israelite Prophet.<br /><br />Then you try to pull a fast one by asking for archaeological evidence of<br />1.Ishmael was a arab?<br />2. Ishmael settled in Mecca?<br />3. He worshiped a god named Allah, or used Allah in reference to the one true God of Abraham.?<br /><br />You should know better , a so called passionate amateur archaeologist, that there has never been any archaeological digs in and around Mecca. If there is none , how can you find archaeological evidence? Logic , isn't it?<br /><br />The next best avenue is the oral tradition which is being addressed in the article.<br /><br />Are you saying since we muslims address god as Allah not YHVH we are wrong? Why are we wrong? Pronunciation or the meaning of YHVH?<br /><br />Is YHVH = trinity?sam1528https://www.blogger.com/profile/01382805827344948691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-20732748701755284522011-03-24T00:27:28.931-07:002011-03-24T00:27:28.931-07:00@Yahya
A couple of things I left out. First thank...@Yahya<br /><br />A couple of things I left out. First thank you for thinking I got my information and or arguments from Sam and David. That really is a compliment since both Sam and David totally destroy the pathetic arguments from Muslims.<br /><br />Actually I believe I told you this in my bio that Archeology is a passion of mine. I often go out Arrow head hunting in the fields of IL. I have found many artifacts including a tomahawk stone.<br /><br />I was even scheduled to go on a dig at in Israel but the Israel\Lebanon war canceled the dig.<br /><br />The funny thing is that Sam has encouraged me to write a article for AI on how the archeological record proves again and again and again the biblical accounts. Maybe I will now since I have seen its devastating power on Muslims.<br /><br />With that said I look forward to your article attacking your own religion. That should be fun.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-9200334408920079862011-03-23T20:42:59.091-07:002011-03-23T20:42:59.091-07:00@Abdul part 5 and the final SMACK.
If you can not...@Abdul part 5 and the final SMACK.<br /><br />If you can not do that, then please have YAHYA change his post from “WE KNOW” to “Even though we have no evidence for this, and all the evidence points to the contrary, we believe this because the Quran says so. And since we have faith in the Quran we dismiss all the other evidence when it disagrees with the Quran. Because we have blind faith that the QURAN is the word of GOD. We have nothing else but the Quran, and the Quran is always right even when it is proven wrong and you can not convince us other wise. No matter if God himself came down from heaven in the form of a man and slapped us around with a large trout we still will believe the Quran because we are that gullible.”<br /><br />Well he can put it in his own words but you get the idea. <br /><br />Allow me to smack you upside the head with your own palm. Oh man that has got to hurt.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-68403458709047193902011-03-23T20:39:01.601-07:002011-03-23T20:39:01.601-07:00Abdul Part 4
I would say that is more then enough...Abdul Part 4<br /><br />I would say that is more then enough proof for the existence of the descendents of Abraham worshiping YHWH not ALLAH, for the proof of ISRAEL in the land of Canaan, for the proof that Israel developed from a tribe into a Kingdom along the same time line as the events that the bible describes.<br /><br /><br />So if I can prove that shouldn’t you be able to prove that for the claim “WE KNOW Ishmael settled in Mecca”, and that the Arabs worshiped a single Unitarian monotheistic God of Mohamed? <br /><br />Maybe asking for proof that Ishmael settled in Mecca is a little to tough for you. So I will remove that from my question. Can you prove this.<br /><br />1. That Mecca existed prior to say 500 BC?<br />2. Can you prove that the Arabs of the Levant and Arabia worshiped a single Unitarian monotheistic God named ALLAH?Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-80123074198207256512011-03-23T20:35:46.090-07:002011-03-23T20:35:46.090-07:00@Abdul part 3
I have already demonstrated what I ...@Abdul part 3<br /><br />I have already demonstrated what I can prove over and over and over again. The worship of YHWH, by a nomadic people as early as 1500 BC who occupied the LAVANT and Arabia. The Tribe of ISRAEL in Canaan in 1200 BC. This is important because Israel is not yet a kingdom, this correlates to the time of Judges. Then a few hundred years latter when the Kingdom of David is established we have a enemy of the KINGDOM of Israel caring away the DAVIDIC alter, and the Vessels of YHWH. This same king, and this same revolt is mentioned in 2 Kings 3. Since this happened before the exile, this is even more proof that the accounts of the bible were written down prior to the exile. Next we have he Silver scroll with the name of YHWH a direct quote from Numbers 6. Again predating the exile. So we have the name of God written in stone and silver, we have people worshiping this God who's name is written in STONE and SILVER, we have the descendents of Abraham “ISRAEL” appear in the land of Canaan as a tribe not as a kingdom after the Exodus, and we have Israel as a Kingdom with a Davidic alter. THAT IS WHAT I KNOW.<br /><br />Also I KNOW that before the time of the Exodus, there was wide spread pig farming in the land of Canaan. After the Exodus the existence of pig farming begins to disappear from the archaeological record. This is even more amazing to me, because you can actually trace the route of the settlements with the biblical account.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-55219919845642650672011-03-23T20:31:25.111-07:002011-03-23T20:31:25.111-07:00@Abdul Part 2
No on to your other nonsense you ke...@Abdul Part 2<br /><br />No on to your other nonsense you keep repeating.<br /><br />“But back on topic - You are asking us for archaeological evidence that Ishmael (as) settled in Mecca. All I'm doing here is asking you to be consistent. Can you prove to us now that Abraham (as) travelled from the region of Mesopotamia 4000 plus years ago and settled in the land of Canaan with his family?”<br /><br />Did I ever say I could? Did I ever say “I KNOW THAT ABRAHAM MIGRATED FROM MESOPOTAMIA? The answer is no, this is a obvious attempt by you to obfuscate the fact that you have no evidence for the claim being made, and it is a obvious red hearing\strawman,. <br /><br />Now what I will say is this, “The bible tells us... or I believe what the bible says... or I have faith in the bible when it says Abraham migrating from Mesopotamia”. But to say “WE KNOW” that is a statement that says you can prove it. So I am asking you to prove it.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-248234931266550822.post-57162119027013988482011-03-23T20:28:35.536-07:002011-03-23T20:28:35.536-07:00@Abdul part 1.
You said...
“Yeah this inscriptio...@Abdul part 1.<br /><br />You said...<br /><br />“Yeah this inscription - which includes three lines from a prayer absolutely DESTROYS the theory!!! - ROFL” <br /><br />Yes it does, just like the finding of the fragment of John destroyed the theory that John was written in 200 AD. There is now no serious scholar including Bart Ehrman who believes John was written prior to 100 AD. <br /><br />The publishing of the finding of the silver scroll has caused the “reconstruction” theory to begin to fall out of favor for a number of reasons. One is the text itself, you can not have text from a book appear before you claim the book was written. Second the fact that the words were written on silver and placed in in a tomb, signify the importance and the sacredness of those words. Also the medium that it was written on sliver signifies the presence of Psalm 12:6 “And the words of the YHWH are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, ...” And finally since the words match the text we have now it testifys to the accurate way in which the scribes copied the text. <br /><br />So quoting a skeptic, who subscribes to a theory that is now falling out of favor in academic circles, just like the theory that John was written in the late second or early third century is not a position to stand on nor is it refutation against early writing of TORAH.Radical Moderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563355121096154790noreply@blogger.com