What does this mean! [Pre-islamic Arab Creed]

  • Thread starter Thread starter tru_nigga
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 32
  • Views Views 11K
tru_nigga said:
Akhee i said find me proofs . Do not quote me religious literature i am not familiar with, i am not a religious scholars, i don't know the weak hadith from the sahih one.
That's your fault. How can you argue with me on a subject your ignorant of? You are unable to refute what has been recorded about the aqeedah of pre-islamic arabs because you don't understand the related sciences.

You claim my sources may be unauthentic, yet you post from orientalists who always rely on unauthentic sources.

A lot of what you said contradict each other, for one the koran says the three gods were daughters and you are saying they were men.
Jesus pbuh was a pious man yet Christians now claim that he is the son of God.
The same was true for the arabs, and the same is true for modern mushrikeen who glorify their "saints" to the position of objects of worship.

Anyways i got this from the minister of culture of the united arab emirates with a hisroric prrof found in an ancient coin:

One of the 'daughters of Allah' mentioned in Sura 53: 19-23 of the Holy Koran, Manat was a goddess of fate whose name appears, alongside that of Kahl, in an Aramaic inscription on a bronze tablet from Mileiha where she and Kahl are asked to curse anyone disturbing the grave of an individual named Wahbalât. The Semitic goddess Manat is attested as early as the third millennium BC in Mesopotamia and her worship spread as far afield as Hungary where she was worshipped by Palmyrene troops from Syria stationed there around 160 AD According to Ibn Al Kalbi's Book of Idols (Kitab al-Asnam), Manat was one of the three 'daughters of Allah', alongside Al Lat and Al 'Uzza. She was particularly venerated by the Al Khazraj and Al Aws tribes who lived between Mecca and Medina, but her worship is also attested in South Arabia and, by the Mileiha inscription, in the Emirates as well.

http://www.uaeinteract.com/history/e_walk/con_3/con3_22.asp

Lol, do you think the above paragraph is inscribed on the coin?! The only thing on the coin is the name "manat". The rest of the paragraph is based on the doubtful sources you quoted earlier.

Nor does this demonstrate anything about pre-islamic arab aqidah since it is discussing mesopotamia. This does not contradict anything I said, because I only mentioned that Manat was an idol revered by the aws and khazraj.

But the point that you were uunable to refute is that Sahih Bukhari proves that the arabs did not believe their gods had any power or control before Allah. They affirmed that Allah swt completely controlled their gods.

This is a sahih hadith from sahih bukhari.

:w:
 
lol, now you're just trying to find as many websites as you can that repeat your claims.

Refute my points or accept the truth.

Choice is yours.

:w:
 
First of all you quoted a lot of students of ibn taymiya like ibn kathir. Second you are now claiming that al lat, al uzza and al manat were actually alive during the prophets days and one of them used to feed people. Then u say they died some time ago and people built graves and then they became gods. Which one is it. I gave you historical proofs. The coin mentions that a person asked the manat to protect a person graveyard. Akhee, i gave you all kinds of proofs. Even from muslim cultural and historical sources. I gave you authentic american sources. U just won't believe. All evidence indicate that mushriks believed in dieties running the affairs of this world. Another proof, hinduism. They will tell you there is one God yet what do they believe in. The ancient egyptians, we have historic evidence about their aqidah. I don't know what more to give you. My article stated this earlier:

According to Ibn al-Khalbi:
Al-Lat stood in al-Ta’if and was more recent than Manat. She was a cubic rock beside which a certain Jew used to prepare his barley porridge. Her custody was in the hands of Banu Attab ibn Malik of the Thaqif, who had built an edifice over her.... The Quraysh, as well as all the Arabs, were wont to venerate al-Lat. They used to name their children after her, calling them Zayd al-Lat and Taym al-Lat. (Quoted in Peters, Muhammad, 110).

Now you are telling me that the al lat was actually cooking and feeding people. Then u say, no they died and then their graves were made idols. i have so many, from oxford to the UAE to jordan to america . They are all wrong!
 
:sl:
tru_nigga said:
First of all you quoted a lot of students of ibn taymiya like ibn kathir.
This is a cop-out. Ibn Kathir is universally regarded as one of the most authentic tafsirs of the Qur'an as he relies only on authentic narrations.
Second you are now claiming that al lat, al uzza and al manat were actually alive during the prophets days and one of them used to feed people.
Al-Manat - no, Al-Lat - before the time of the prophet saws, Al-Uzza -yes.
Then u say they died some time ago and people built graves and then they became gods. Which one is it.
Did you read my posts? Where's the contradiction? Al-Lat was alive, then he died, then they built a shrine over his grave and worshipped him.

I gave you historical proofs.
From people who claim Allah is a moon-god? Sorry, I don't accept these people's word as "proof".
The coin mentions that a person asked the manat to protect a person graveyard.
So? I showed you from Sahih Bukhari that they only believed that these gods acted under the control of Allah swt. You were unable to even respond to that point.
Akhee, i gave you all kinds of proofs.
no you did not. Everyone here saw the refutation of your posts which you were unable to counter. Every single point you raised was refuted from authentic Islamic sources.

Now we're all watching if you are the kind of person who will accept when they are wrong or if you will continue to argue in the face of clear proof.

Even from muslim cultural and historical sources. I gave you authentic american sources. U just won't believe.
I refuted all your points. What on earth do you mean "authentic american sources"?! Since when do we authentic narrations from modern non-muslims? Do you raise your quotes from non-muslims above the quotes I provided from hadith? Where do you think these non-muslims got their information from? Hmm? They got it from studying Islamic sources! But like you, they were unable to distinguish between authentic and unauthentic reports.

Bukhari is the most authentic hadith collection and I proved my point from Bukhari.

All evidence indicate that mushriks believed in dieties running the affairs of this world.
Answer the quote from Sahih Bukhari. Are you prepared to accept the truth or are you going to keep arguing after you've been refuted?

Another proof, hinduism.
hinduism is not proof of what happened at the time of the Prophet saws. Modern americans are not proof of what happened at the time of the Prophet saws. Only the authentic hadith are proof. I refuted you on the basis of authentic hadith so all you can do is grab quotes from random people who have no knowledge of hadith.

They will tell you there is one God yet what do they believe in. The ancient egyptians, we have historic evidence about their aqidah.
This thread is about pre-islamic arab aqeedah. Stop running from the issue. Stop changing subjects.

I don't know what more to give you.
There is nothing you can give me since I refuted your point from Sahih Bukhari and proved that the pre-islamic arabs believed that Allah swt was in complete control. Just like modern mushrikeen.

According to Ibn al-Khalbi:
Al-Lat stood in al-Ta’if and was more recent than Manat. She was a cubic rock beside which a certain Jew used to prepare his barley porridge. Her custody was in the hands of Banu Attab ibn Malik of the Thaqif, who had built an edifice over her.... The Quraysh, as well as all the Arabs, were wont to venerate al-Lat. They used to name their children after her, calling them Zayd al-Lat and Taym al-Lat. (Quoted in Peters, Muhammad, 110).
Again, you're quoting from unauthentic sources.

Secondly, even if this is true, so what? The arabs, whether they name their children after these idols or not, they still believed that Allah swt was in complete control.

Now you are telling me that the al lat was actually cooking and feeding people. Then u say, no they died and then their graves were made idols.
Al-Lat was feeding people, THEN he died, then they worshipped the shrine built over his grave.
i have so many, from oxford to the UAE to jordan to america . They are all wrong!
They also believe Islam is false, aren't they wrong?

:w:
 
tru_nigga said:
Meanwhile its u who bear the burden of labeling muslims as mushriks. All i can say is u better be right!

Meanwhile this is the definitions of polytheism and monotheism.:

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Monotheism

Assalam alaikum

No one here is calling anyone a mushrik. This is just another one of your ways of running away from the argument and resort to excuses. You still havent answered my questions. Where in the Quran and Sunnah does is say these Arabs were henotheistic?
 
:sl:

Brother tru_nigga,

Are you really an African-American brother, if so the first thing you would do is question all your sources.

Reality is defined by people and people are fallible. Yes, in their professional pride they do their best job, but they can never escape centuries of colored glass they inherit from their fore-fathers.

The next point I would like to make is that please try to imagine a reality in 1600's. For a thousand long years, you have been the lords of this earth (not 100 years like today's US or 200 years like UK) and there has been no power to match your glory. And please try to imagine whether these lords of the earth would have any professionalism in their work or not. They were so good at their job that Chingis Khan carried away large numbers of them to China. Muslims were hired in China for their professionalism all the way to up to the Manchu Qing take over, all through Yuan and Ming dynasty periods, so much so that Muslims together with Mongols were an integral part of the privileged class.

While 20th century archeology has its merits, I believe it would better serve you, if you could find older Islamic sources, perhaps in places like Al Azhar University, which would give you a more accurate description of the events and happenings that happened much nearer to their own times and in much closer proximity to their geographical homes, rather than works of Euorpean scholars who are studying the events of a strange far-away land, 1500-2000 years after the fact. Many valuable Islamic sources, I am sure are still waiting to be found and sometimes not well publicized on the web or by western publishers.

Also, I should tell you that I have yet to have read a single piece of archaelogical and historical piece of work that is not biased, all human beings have their own agenda to push and their own propaganda to run.

Take for example the Aryan Invasion Theory and Out of India Theory, I have noticed it with interest, how its progressing as we speak.

The other important thing is that when you are discussing such sensitive issues for us Muslims, you must be way way more careful than you have been so far, specially with the history of Orientalism, one of chief architect of which is Max Muller and the latest round of Islam bashing that started on the web.

Please do not misunderstand, I like your spirit of curiosity as a seeker of knowledge. You can be an asset for brothers and sisters of faith.

As a muslim, you also have a duty to the Ummah, to strengthen the Ummah and to not confuse other fellow muslims with unsubstantiated historical facts. Most of history are conjectures and guesses and the victors way of coloring past event to his own liking.

And lastly, I think we will all appreciate if you change your name to something that fits your more scholarly pursuits, as it might offend some brothers or sisters or guests of African origin.

:w:
 
That's your fault. How can you argue with me on a subject your ignorant of? You are unable to refute what has been recorded about the aqeedah of pre-islamic arabs because you don't understand the related sciences.

You claim my sources may be unauthentic, yet you post from orientalists who always rely on unauthentic sources.


Jesus pbuh was a pious man yet Christians now claim that he is the son of God.
The same was true for the arabs, and the same is true for modern mushrikeen who glorify their "saints" to the position of objects of worship.



Lol, do you think the above paragraph is inscribed on the coin?! The only thing on the coin is the name "manat". The rest of the paragraph is based on the doubtful sources you quoted earlier.

Nor does this demonstrate anything about pre-islamic arab aqidah since it is discussing mesopotamia. This does not contradict anything I said, because I only mentioned that Manat was an idol revered by the aws and khazraj.

But the point that you were uunable to refute is that Sahih Bukhari proves that the arabs did not believe their gods had any power or control before Allah. They affirmed that Allah swt completely controlled their gods.

This is a sahih hadith from sahih bukhari.

:w:

MODERATOR'S COMMENT: Please do not copy-paste material from other websites - if you want to debate you have to respond to the other person's points, not simply throw articles at them.
 
:sl:

BILAL PHILIPS IN ACTUALITY ACCUSES A COMPANION OF SHIRK

La hawla wala quwata illah billah. This is a slanderous comment againt the shaykh (hafidhahullah). You are taking his comments out of context and using it against him. There is a great lack of insaaf (justice) being implemented in this article. May Allah forgive you and the person who wrote this article.

I won't waste my time addressing each and every point.
 
Re: women in pre islamic arabia

can somebody help me??
can somebody explain to me how women was treated in arab before the imergence of islam??
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top