Could forum Muslims please explain how Islam is a religion of peace

[Johnathan]

There is no shortage of Muslims that proclaim Islam to be a religion of peace, and I believe that is what many truly desire, for the world they will leave behind for their heirs to inherit. However there is also no shortage of Muslims that believe that Islam is a religion of imperialistic aggression, conquest, and subjugation of non-Muslims to Muhammad's followers, as evidenced around much of the world today.

Muhammad and his followers conquered nearly the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula during his lifetime, and over the next 100 years his followers went on to conquer northern Africa and much of the whole "known world" until they were stopped in the Battle of Tours France (alternately called the Battle of Poitiers) in 732, with a resurgence of Islamic imperialistic aggression once again brought to a halt in the Battle of Vienna Austria in 1683.

Since the Quran and Sunnah contain no shortage of material that seems to call for Islamic imperialistic aggression and conquest, could forum members please explain what it is about the Islam that peace desiring Muslims wish for today, that renders the verses that suggest terrorizing, fighting and slaying non-Muslims to be inoperative, that groups like The Islamic State, the Taliban, Boco Haram and the Muslim Brotherhood, understand to be completely operative verses?

[greenhill]

What is supposed to be and what is are two separate things.

It becomes disparaging due to human interference.

Initially, the spread of islam in Arabia from battles was not because it was the only was to spread it. When it was rooted in Medina, it was under threat from the entire surrounding territories and in the course of defending itself, it ended up conquering them.

With the quick rise of a 'new empire', it would be fair to say that neighbouring powers took notice and prepared themselves.

That was because the empires around at that time had their various religious practices, it became a battle for the 'God'(s). But when islam spread outside of Europe, the Far East especially, it was via a very peaceful mechanism. A caring, community oriented civilisation developed. The violence as I see it is a western manifestation as a result of the history around the region that has been at war in one form or another.

Coupled with the fact that the 'clerics' from the old testaments' constant denial of the truth in the message of the Quran, they felt very threatened by the spread. They had to find a way to resist it, destroy it even...and the battle raged on..

It still happens today. Only now, they plant the violence via their agents or via direct provocation until they get a reaction.

Then they say "Islam is violent".

No! Islam is peaceful. The largest muslim population in the world is in scattered islands far away from Europe, call Indonesia. They accepted islam as a peaceful religion and entered it peacefully too. Likewise Malaysia. Powers of reason alone.

[جوري]

ISLAM doesn't mean religion of peace that's what your western imperialists concocted much like the Ahmadi sect they created in India so they may occupy it without resistance!
ISLAM means to submit oneself to God with that there's a time for peace and a time for war!
your premise is faulty ergo everything that follows can and should be binned!

[ardianto]

My Christian neighbor ever told me that she was worry with extreme Muslims, but she also grateful because she lives among peaceful Muslims. Both parties, the extreme intolerant Muslims, and the peaceful tolerant Muslims, follow Qur'an and hadith, but with different way of interpretation.

Is Islam religion of peace or religion of violent?. I will not make any claim about it. But I just want to say, there are extreme intolerant Muslims, there are peaceful tolerant Muslims.

[Johnathan]

What is supposed to be and what is are two separate things.

It becomes disparaging due to human interference.

Initially, the spread of islam in Arabia from battles was not because it was the only was to spread it. When it was rooted in Medina, ......

It was Jewish tribes that were exiled from the Holy Land by the Roman Empire, during the 1st and 2nd centuries, that founded and were "rooted in" Medina centuries before Muhammad.

...... it was under threat from the entire surrounding territories and in the course of defending itself, it ended up conquering them.

With the quick rise of a 'new empire', it would be fair to say that neighbouring powers took notice and prepared themselves.

That was because the empires around at that time had their various religious practices, .....

Like Judaism and Christianity.

.... it became a battle for the 'God'(s).

You seem to suggest it was a meeting on some sort of neutral territory, when it was Muhammad's followers imperialistic aggression imposing Islam's God on those in foreign lands, while the people of those lands were defending their faith, families, homes and communities from the onslaught of Muhammad's followers.

But when islam spread outside of Europe, the Far East especially, it was via a very peaceful mechanism. A caring, community oriented civilisation developed. The violence as I see it is a western manifestation as a result of the history around the region that has been at war in one form or another.

Coupled with the fact that the 'clerics' from the old testaments' constant denial of the truth in the message of the Quran, they felt very threatened by the spread. They had to find a way to resist it, destroy it even...and the battle raged on..

It still happens today. Only now, they plant the violence via their agents or via direct provocation until they get a reaction.

Then they say "Islam is violent".

No! Islam is peaceful. The largest muslim population in the world is in scattered islands far away from Europe, call Indonesia. They accepted islam as a peaceful religion and entered it peacefully too. Likewise Malaysia. Powers of reason alone.

I think you might agree that simply proclaiming "powers of reason", to be why Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace, would not be much of an argument to carry to violent Muslims that believe the Quran, Sunnah and Islamic history support their imperialistic aggression.

So my question is what part of the religion of Islam suggests otherwise?

[جوري]

In your other post dear shill you proclaimed that there were no Jews in Makkah or medinah and it was all concocted?
How about you stick to a narrative? Can't have it both ways can you?
Prove jews existed at all in medinah were it not for islamic sources and after you've completed your thorough research do us the grand favor of sticking to the original story without spinning your lies around it

all the best,

[Futuwwa]

Define what constitutes being "a religion of peace", and your question can be answered in a relevant way.

[Johnathan]

My Christian neighbor ever told me that she was worry with extreme Muslims, but she also grateful because she lives among peaceful Muslims. Both parties, the extreme intolerant Muslims, and the peaceful tolerant Muslims, follow Qur'an and hadith, but with different way of interpretation.

Is Islam religion of peace or religion of violent?. I will not make any claim about it. But I just want to say, there are extreme intolerant Muslims, there are peaceful tolerant Muslims.

You seem to suggest you don't live in an area where you are subjugated to intolerant Muslims. You also indicated that those in the example of The Islamic State, may even want to kill you before anybody else, for your religious tolerance. So it is just a happenstance of geography that you aren't subjugated to The Islamic State, the Taliban or some other group in the Middle East cradle of Islam today.
But which kind of Muslim do peaceful Muslims believe they are consigning their heirs to be ruled by in the future?
Are peaceful Muslims expected to go out and conquer and subjugate the violent ones?
You didn't express much stomach for doing so yourself.
They may insult Islam. But I will never insult their religion

[Johnathan]

In your other post dear shill you proclaimed that there were no Jews in Makkah or medinah and it was all concocted?

I don't know where you would have gotten that idea since that is not my understanding. Perhaps you could provide a link to the post. In that thread I think you are referring to, I was seeking historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca existed prior to the 4th century AD, like the evidence we have for ancient Arabian towns:
Mecca Before the Christian Era

Medina is not Mecca. Jews arrived in Medina likely upon being exiled from Israel after a million to a million and a half were killed by the Romans in 70AD, and another half to three quarters of a million were killed during the Bar Kochba revolt of about 132AD.

How about you stick to a narrative? Can't have it both ways can you?
Prove jews existed at all in medinah were it not for islamic sources .......

It is both Islamic and Jewish historical sources that suggest Jews lived in Medina for a long time prior to the Hijra.

....... and after you've completed your thorough research do us the grand favor of sticking to the original story without spinning your lies around it

all the best,

[greenhill]

Should have waited for others to respond first..

Totally slipped my mind that Islam is about submitting to the will of Allah.

Normally I would not be derailed by the 'peace' correlation of islam to the fundamental meaning of submission.

On whether islam is truly violent is about who gets to tell the story. Hmmmm I wonder who controls the media?

What was the true reason for the war against Iraq? Was it justifiable violence? (citing just one example) and what was the story given? How was the entire operation carried out?

Islam is a threat to the older testaments. The truth IS known by the clerics, if they were to admit it, there would be no 'nation' for them to rule. That is the truth. They KNEW it with Jesus, they also knew it with Muhammad (saw).

Hence, the propaganda against Islam, and they used Christians to fight their battle...as though that will keep their hands clean.

[جوري]

Was it not you who said that dearie and I quote:


Originally Posted by Johnathan
Yet the counter-scriptural suggestion, that Abraham and Ishmael traveled 1200 kilometers to Mecca, is essentially a demograhpical and geographical impossibility. Particularly considering that the trade route along the Red Sea wasn't established until over a thousand years after Abraham roamed the earth.

where would jews have come from in either Makkah or medina if Abraham was never there? It's a barren land after all people took up migration for amongst other things a source of water for water means ability to sustain life and land!

i don't want your 'likely' I like historical facts and Id also like for you to stick to a narrative not switch it up based on your agenda

[M.I.A.]

Well OP, you know the official line.

Islam is peace, we are peaceful people.

Unfortunately the world does not work like that, we are all struggling within our own little circles.

Which one is successful and which one is not really is up to god.

Why should anybody have to answer for somebody else unless they have a better answer?

While most of us are powerless but to watch and listen.. Or add fuel to the fire.

Islam is much the same as any religion. All claim to be guidance and salvation.. And yet, the losers outweigh the winners by far.

Good news and glad tidings are hard to come by.. Do you make your own?

Most genuinely are heedless of what they say and do, sad is the day when questions are loaded.. Or not.

Have you seen any that fight twice as many and win?

...besides genocides and carpet bombings

Not really.

Islam is peace, we don't have the authority for it to be war.

Well I don't anyway.

..so ask yourself who builds there empire on the bodies of the dead in this age.

[Johnathan]

Was it not you who said that dearie and I quote:

Originally Posted by Johnathan
Yet the counter-scriptural suggestion, that Abraham and Ishmael traveled 1200 kilometers to Mecca, is essentially a demograhpical and geographical impossibility. Particularly considering that the trade route along the Red Sea wasn't established until over a thousand years after Abraham roamed the earth.

where would jews have come from in either Makkah or medina is Abraham was never there?

i don't want your 'likely' I like historical facts .......

It is the nature of historical record. Some of it is literally etched in stone. Other of it is well accounted in historical and archaeological records. Still other requires a little date speculation to fill in gaps.
Muslims do the same with the Sunnah. Is your answer to simply reject all historical record?

........ and Id also like for you to stick to a narrative not switch it up based on your agenda

Yes I did say that. The historical record suggests the caravan route along the Red Sea wasn't established until around 6BC - at the earliest. Since Abraham lived over a thousand years before that time, the Islamic "tradition" regarding Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael wandering 1200 kilometers across mostly harsh, dry, undeveloped barren desert wasteland from Hebron to Mecca, and Abraham dropping them off under a tree and wandering the 1200 kilometers back to his home, would seem an insurmountable demographical and geographical impossibility. Let alone that the advent of camel transport in Arabia did not arise until hundreds of years after Abraham roamed the earth.

The fact that Jews migrated from Israel to Medina, almost 2,000 years after Abraham lived, is simply a matter of historical fact. It didn't have anything to do with Abraham. Jews migrated to many other places when they were exiled from the Holy Land.

[جوري]

A 'historical fact' you're yet to prove and we will be waiting!

all the best,

[ardianto]

You seem to suggest you don't live in an area where you are subjugated to intolerant Muslims. You also indicated that those in the example of The Islamic State, may even want to kill you before anybody else, for your religious tolerance. So it is just a happenstance of geography that you aren't subjugated to The Islamic State, the Taliban or some other group in the Middle East cradle of Islam today.
But which kind of Muslim do peaceful Muslims believe they are consigning their heirs to be ruled by in the future?
Are peaceful Muslims expected to go out and conquer and subjugate the violent ones?
You didn't express much stomach for doing so yourself.
They may insult Islam. But I will never insult their religion

One of my Christian neighbor is young man who has tire repairing stall beside the mosque. He lives in his small stall which there's no water. So he often take bath in mosque which provide free bathroom. Yes, I live in community like this, not community which non-Muslims are threatened by Muslims. There are six official religions in my country which include Protestant Christianity and Catholic. Atheism is strictly prohibited in my country.

I know, there is question, what tolerant Muslims do to counter terrorism?. Why don't tolerant Muslims down to the street to protest extremism?.

Protest on the street is not the right way to counter extremism. The right way is teach the right interpretation of Islam to the kids and the people. Extremism is the huge problem for Muslims themselves. Now Muslims are in struggle to counter extremism, and will really help if non-Muslims stop making negative stigma toward Islam because it will make the tolerant Muslims effort to eliminate extremism become useless.

[Johnathan]

A 'historical fact' you're yet to prove and we will be waiting!

all the best,

I was editing while you posted. Consider this example from a Jewish source for example:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10545-medina

"Jews may have settled in the Hijaz after the sack of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar; and it is probable that they came in successive colonies, e.g., after Pompey's attack upon Judea (64 B.C.), after Titus' conquest of Jerusalem (70 C.E.), and again after Hadrian's persecution of the Jews (in 136 C.E.; see Arabia)."

The latter claims are reasonable, while the Nebuchadnezzar claims are likely unsupportable, and thus the "may" is injected.
It is geographically reasonable to believe the record found in scripture in which Hagar left Abraham's home in Hebron, which is just below Jerusalem, and wandered in the Wilderness of Beersheba which is just below Hebron, and Ishmael hunted in the Wilderness of Paran which is just below Beersheba. Nor would it have been a geographical problem for him to join his brother Isaac when they buried Abraham.

But how do you explain how Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael could have wandered across 1200 kilometers of mostly harsh, barren, undeveloped desert wasteland to Mecca, as suggested by Islamic "tradition" that is embraced as "historical fact"?

[Johnathan]

One of my Christian neighbor is young man who has tire repairing stall beside the mosque. He lives in his small stall which there's no water. So he often take bath in mosque which provide free bathroom. Yes, I live in community like this, not community which non-Muslims are threatened by Muslims. There are six official religions in my country which include Protestant Christianity and Catholic. Atheism is strictly prohibited in my country.

I know, there is question, what tolerant Muslims do to counter terrorism?. Why don't tolerant Muslims down to the street to protest extremism?.

Protest on the street is not the right way to counter extremism. The right way is teach the right interpretation of Islam to the kids and the people.

That goes exactly to the subject of this thread and what I was asking. Where is this "right interpretation of Islam" to be found?
For example where does the Quran indicate that Jihad is an "internal struggle" as some Muslims suggest?

Extremism is the huge problem for Muslims themselves. Now Muslims are in struggle to counter extremism, and will really help if non-Muslims stop making negative stigma toward Islam because it will make the tolerant Muslims effort to eliminate extremism become useless.

[جوري]

The Jewish encyclopaedia isn't a historical fact it's conjecture anyone can write anything the way you do here but sadly can't keep track of your own nonsense so it comes back to tighten the noose around your neck!
the place is no friendlier to them than where they were exiled also last I left it the onus is on the one making the claim to prove it- per your prior thread where are the archeological finds, digs and historical facts???
Anyone is welcome to read what I posted earlier using your own bible that book of 'mathematical genius'

Who had the covenant? Ishmael or Isaac? The story of Abraham, Ishmael and Hagar (May the mercy and blessings of Allah be on them all) is found in the Bible, much skewed and corrupted from the pure Islamic version. The reason this is so is because the book of Genesis, undoubtedly written by some Jewish Rabbi of the past would certainly be biased in his understanding of history between the two forefathers. There would be in him, whoever he was, the desire to paint his own ancestry, that is the seed of Isaac, in the brightest of colors, whereby either purposely or inadvertently condemning the rival (I.e. Ishmael) as the negative end of the spectrum. In other words, a Jew most certainly wrote Genesis, so Isaac, the father of the Jews and Abraham’s son, is presented in this blessed light, and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs is whereby presented in somewhat dark euphemisms, and foisted on him is the subtle racism and condescending attitude of the author. This being said, it is evident that my own assumptions are true, because of the many gaps and inconsistencies which are clues left to us by the True and Almighty God in the Biblical account, which point us in the direction of the truth (I.E. of the Islamic version.) 1. Abraham (saas) was told by God that a Great Nation would come from him. (Genesis 12:2-3) 2. Sarah, Abraham’s wife doesn’t bear children at first. (Genesis 16:1) 3. Sarah whereby allowed Abraham to MARRY Hagar (Genesis 16:3) -This defeats the evangelical claim that Ishmael was illegitamite. Hagar conceives Ishmael. (genesis 16:4) 4. Later Sarah has Isaac. (Genesis 21:2) So far so good. The story here is quite clear. A Prophecy for a great nation was said to come from Abraham. After Sarah seemingly cannot conceive, Hagar becomes Abraham’s second wife and conceives Ishmael. Later Sarah actually does conceive and has Isaac. Biblical points which hold true to the Islamic perception of Ishmael and the pure lineage of Muhammad (saas): 1. Ishmael was Abraham’s first son. (Genesis 16:4) 2. God said that Hagar’s seed would be multiplied exceedingly. (Genesis 16:10) 3. God said Ishmael was blessed! (Genesis 17:20) 4. Ishmael is clearly called ‘Abraham’s seed’ by God. (Genesis 21:13) 4. God repeats His promise to make Ishmael a great nation FIVE TIMES! (Genesis 15:4) (Genesis 16:10) (Genesis 17:20) (Genesis 21:13) (Genesis 21:18) From here the Islamic version and the Biblical account part ways. The Muslim holds that it was in fact Ishmael who had the covenant and not Isaac, whereas the bible states the opposite. The Muslim holds that it was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and again, the Bible states the opposite. The Muslim version states that both Isaac and Ishmael were pure blameless children of Abraham, both revered, whereas in the Biblical account, Isaac is revered and Ishmael is seen as a mean-spirited outcast. Let us review the shameful and undoubtedly corrupted view of Ishmael in the Bible: 1. Ishmael is called a ‘wild donkey of a man’: (Genesis 16:12) 2. Ishmael and his descendants are going to be known as troublemakers (Genesis 16:12) 3. Ishmael is considered illegitamite (This is a Christian claim which no Bible verse supports.) 4. Ishmael makes fun of Isaac and teases him: (Genesis 21:9) 5. Ishmael and his mother are cast out from Abrahams’ family (Genesis 21:10) Now let us lay these preposterous and slanderous claims to rest. Ishmael a wild donkey of a man? This is where it becomes evident that the prejudice of the author seeps through. The Christian must remember that the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted, and history attests this, especially that of the Old Testament. God himself attests this in the Old Testament, saying, "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.” (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8) -So it is admitted within the Bible itself, that the Old Testament is corrupted. No independent scholar accepts the preposterous view that the first 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses as evangelicals claim. This indeed would be quite impossible because otherwise Moses refers to himself in the third person and even writes about his own death and the month that follows it. Therefore, if the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted (Not wrong, but not always right either) then it is very well possible, from this viewpoint that the entire story of Ishmael and Isaac is skewed, handled malisciously from the pen of some overzealous rabbi who could not ignore fully his own prejudice and wishes, but yet also could not ignore fully the facts of history, being that both Ishmael and Isaac were blessed, revered and of highly esteemed moral character. Starting from this point we can see through the authors slanders and see to the truth, and that is that this particular verse, that is the verse of Ishmael being a ‘wild donkey’ of a man is an overly obvious forgery, and opinion of whoever the mildly racist author of this book is. –And his intent is quite clear. He wants to prove that the lineage of the Jews is pure, and that no non-jew could ever partake in the pure lineage of Abraham. This is undoubtedly the authors intention, because he goes to great lengths to ‘prove’ it. Consider the ‘all-to-convenient’ verbiage of Sarah as interjected by the author: “Wherefore she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this bondwoman and her son: For the son of a bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.’” (21:10). As to the authors intention to show that the blood and lineage of the Jewish people is untainted, consider the fact that according to the Bible, Abraham and Sarah were brother and Sister! (Genesis 20:12.) This same author is the one who insulted the Prophet Lot by saying he had an incestuous drunken relationship with his two daughters, (Genesis 19:36) And Jacob was married to two sisters at the same time: (Genesis 29:28). The intention is clear, that the author of Genesis is either a pervert obsessed with incest, or he slanders honorable prophets with false stories of Incest in order to show that the blood of Isaac and his descendants (The Jews) is pure. It is for this reason the author feels the need to slander Ishmael and foist on him the false story of being ‘cast out’ of the family of Abraham. –It is also clearly, based on the evidence, a big lie. Ishmael was not a wild donkey of a man, but the author of Genesis sure was! Ishmael and his descendants will ‘be against all men?’ The Bible says of Ishmael: “…his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” (Genesis 16:12) In recent times this is probably the most oft-repeated verse against Ishmael and the Muslims used by Christians to prove a plethora of points. All one needs to do is point to the news to see that seemingly Ishmael’s seed truly is ‘against all men’ and ‘all men are against him.’ It is, to them, proof positive that the Bible is the word of God. But there is a problem with this theory, and that is quite simply that only recently could this be applied. It wasn’t until the decline of the Ottomon Empire in the 1700’s that the Islamic world experienced a regression leading to a downward spiral of corruption, hopelessness, and violence. One need not point out the fact that the oldest and indeed one of the first colleges on earth was founded by Muslims and is still on the earth today (Al-Azhar.) It is evident that whilst Europe was sunk in the dark ages, the civilized Muslims revived the learning of Aristotle and Plato, who otherwise would have been forgotten. There was a time when Baghdad, for example, was called, ‘The greatest city on earth.’ -And this title was given it by European scholars. Was it because the Arabs of Baghdad were mindless killers against all men? Of course not! It was because they were civilized learners who enjoyed a thriving economy! In fact, it was the Muslims who saved the Christians in their lands from the conquests of invaders, and it was the Turkish Muslims who later protected the Jews who fled persecution from Spain. Was it not the Muslim Salahaddin who granted all Christians in Jerusalem amnesty despite that fact that when Muslims were run out of Jerusalem years earlier the Christians boiled Muslim children alive in pots? So there is well over a thousand years of the Muslim empire (now known as the Golden age of Islam) in which this whimsical sentence in the Bible was utterly false, and any attempt to apply it to Muslims would be deemed laughable by even the Christians! So what is more logical? To say this verse is true, when it has only been true for the past 100 years at best, which represents not even a glimmer in the existence of Islam, or to say that this is the interjection of some ancient Jew who had, as seen above, his own wicked intentions? Ishmael is considered illegitimite? This one I really don’t get. The Bible clearly states that Hagar and Abraham were married. (Genesis 16:3) Abraham is also spoken of in highly respected terms in the Bible? How is it that this highly respected Prophet had a child with a woman whom he was married to, and by the logic of some evangelicals this = illigetamite? Of course not! So how can this be deemed an instance with which to judge Ishmael and say he was therefore excluded from the covenant? Based on what we have seen so far, we need not even address the last two biblical accounts of Ishmael teasing Isaac and whereby being cast out, as this is another obvious forgery by the baised author, whoever he was. The Bible Had Ishmael and Isaac Confused! The most common question to be asked by the Christian then is, how can the Muslims believe that Ishmael was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and that Ishmael got the covenant, when the Bible clearly states otherwise? Well, not to beat a dead horse, but the Muslim view of the Bible is that it is corrupted. So automatically, any story which contradicts Islamic teachings we view with skepticism. As seen already, the author of Genesis, where we find the account of Ishmael and Isaac, is also extremely baised. These facts alone are a red flag to the logical thinkers that just to accept this story as 100% authentic as it is presented in the Bible would be a great error. With that being said, let us examine the story in the Bible again, and show that the author made some grave errors in his writing which proves that Ishmael and Isaac were confused: The Bible states that Abraham was 99 years old when Ishmael was circumcised. Ishmael was 13 at the time. (Genesis 17:24-27) Exactly one year later Isaac is born. (Genesis 21:4-5) So if Abraham was 99 when Ishmael was circumcised a year earlier, that would mean when Isaac is born, he is 100 years old, and Ishmael is 14. Then comes the story of the sacrifice in the Bible: In Genesis 22, God tells Abraham to take ‘Thine ONLY son Isaac…’ -WHAT? Ishmael is 14 at the time? Why does the Bible refer to Isaac as Abrahams ONLY son? Many Christians will say that this is because God here is making it clear that Isaac is the only heir to the covenant, and that is why God refers to Isaac as ‘The ONLY son..’ but God clearly calls Ishmael the seed of Abraham according to Genesis 21:13, so such conclusions are impossible. The only conclusion is that the author of Genesis had Ishmael and Isaac confused. Consider when Ishmael is cast out with Hagar into the desert in Genesis 21. What are the descriptions of Ishmael? Pay close attention to the following descriptions: A. Ishmael is tucked under shrubs (Genesis 21:15) B. He is called a ‘lad’ (Genesis 21:18, 20) C. Hagar holds Ishmael in ONE HAND (Genesis 21:18) Clearly the author is referring to an infant. But Ishmael is 14 at the time, how would he be tucked under shrubs and held in one hand of a weak woman who was dying of thirst? Why is he called a lad? Would this not more aptly apply to the infant Isaac who was only a year old and not to Ishmael who is a teenager?

[Johnathan]

The Jewish encyclopaedia isn't a historical fact it's conjecture anyone can write anything the way you do here but sadly can't keep track of your own nonsense so it comes back to tighten the noose around your neck!

While you had wished it did, I demonstrated how my posts were perfectly consistent. Rather than historical and archaeological record for Mecca before the 4th century AD (which was not produced), lets focus on the very physical matter of immovable geographical fact.

Do you agree that Abraham's home was in Hebron (where Muslims control his tomb today), and would you agree that Mecca is about 880 miles from Hebron?

[M.I.A.]

Jihad is internal primarily by way of implication and pondering.

In this world you can literally only wrong your own soul..

Maybe a worldly concept of it is to look at the other side.

Prescription medication for depression and all sorts of disorders of the mind is mainstream..

Rationalising something within oneself is apparently more difficult than one would think.

Secondly by way of logic, I have said before that battles are won and lost a long time before any battlefield is reached.

Although make of it what you will.

All religions have a central book or text probably.

And yet your either told what it says or read it for yourself to the best of your understanding.

Ultimately guidance is with Allah swt

..or misguidance whatevs.