I wanted to make ask some questions to Muslim anons and foster a general discussion about their perspectives, given that it’s Eid al-Fitr tonight. Here are some to start:Were you born Muslim, or did you convert?What kind of Islam do you belong to, who are your specific authorities?What about Islam and the experience of being Muslim is most compelling to you?What do you like about life as a Muslim?What keeps you Muslim, instead of converting to another religion or none at all?What Islam-related books/articles would you suggest to read?What are your favorite parts/verses of the Quran?How do you interact with the philosophies of other non-Muslim civilizations?Are there any anons itt who are considering converting to Islam? Why?I know there will be lots of shitposting but whatever, I’m curious and I’ll interact in good faith.رمضان كريم> and don’t give me bullshit about this thread not being strictly about history, you lost your ability to bitch about that the moment the mods stickied a thread about the election of Pope Leo
>>18396223>convert of 6 years>What people know as "salafism". my authorities are the righteous companions. I take fiqh and aqeedah from Ahmad ibn Hanbal, ibn Taymiyyah. Modern day scholars include Salih al-Fawzan, Muhammad bin Salih al-Uthaymeen, Abdul Salam al-Shuwayar.>Certainty, and family and community values>Being Muslim teaches you to be humble and thankful. It also teaches you to put others before you and you have responsibilities upon yourself, your family, and your community. Rights do not come from a top down state or a constitution but are enshrined by God and guaranteed by those around you.>Certainty.>Maybe the books of Ahmad Deedat or Martin Lings if you are a non Muslim>My favorite Surah of the Quran is chapter 6 the Animals. Reading 6 after 5 is always enjoyable and impactful for me.>You should only look into other topics when you are well grounded in your own faith and you know the proofs with the evidences.
>>18396223>Were you born Muslim, or did you convert?Born as a muslim>What kind of Islam do you belong to, who are your specific authorities?Athari and Shafi'i in madhab, don't really have anyone who is a strict authority if we are speaking about a specific scholar>What about Islam and the experience of being Muslim is most compelling to you?Being a slave to Allah SWT and having certianity that everything is under his control, any kind of hardship is only for my own good as it's a source of building my character, the text of the Quran and the deep love Allah SWT has for the Prophets PBUH and the believers>What do you like about life as a Muslim?Contentment>What keeps you Muslim, instead of converting to another religion or none at all?The strong proofs for it and how it speaks to the rational, and constant reflection of the Quran and trying to learn something new every day>What Islam-related books/articles would you suggest to read?I would reccomend reading the Seerah of Prophet Muhammad SAW, and then the Quran, and the Muslim Gospel of Jesus PBUH great book>What are your favorite parts/verses of the Quran?I love Prophet Musa alayhi salam right after Prophet Muhammad SAW, so I often go back to Quran 2:54-108 7:103-156/Quran 10:75-93/ Quran 20:9:98/Quran 18:60-82, I also enjoy Surah 71/72/73/74/75, Quran 5:110-120 tends to make me weep often>How do you interact with the philosophies of other non-Muslim civilizations?I never paid attention to that to be honest>Are there any anons itt who are considering converting to Islam? Why?
Thanks for the posts so far anons. I have been thinking of reading Lings’ book on your Prophet. I’ve been listening to a qari read the Quran juz by juz on quran.com and following along with the English translation, it’s a completely different experience than only reading it
>>18396934>I’ve been listening to a qari read the Quran juz by juz on quran.com and following along with the English translation, it’s a completely different experience than only reading itThe way I would describe it is something very heavy it tend to make me shed tears out of awe, Mishary Rashid Alafasy is my favorite reciter and due to how nice his voice is it makes me tend to think how lucky the early followers were to hear the Prophet SAW recite Quran>I have been thinking of reading Lings’ book on your ProphetThat one is fine, but in my opinion I would recommend the Sealed Nectar, it's a much eaiser read plus you can find a fast free PDF of it
>>18396322I forgot to add that I also hear Surah 37 very often as well, it's also the last Surah where Aaron PBUH is mentioned and Allah SWT sends peace upon him
>>18396223Eid mubarak to my Muslims Anons
>>18396978Thanks Anon, I wish you a blessed day
>>18396322> Muslim Gospel of Jesus PBUH great bookIs this an actual book, or do you mean mentions of Jesus in the Quran? Can you post a link to it if it is?
>>18397413I messed up the title it's called "The Muslim Jesus" It's stories of Jesus PBUH from the Islamic tradition, I own one it's really good there is also a Virgin Mary book I bought last month that is fantanstic.https://www.scribd.com/document/670478255/The-Muslim-Jesus-Sayings-and-Stories-in-Islamic-Literature-Tarif-Khalidi
>>18397432
Not necessarily related to Ramadan but as a non-muslim white guy, what could I expect if I ever wanted to join the crowds to Mecca on the Hajj? It kind of looks like fun
>>18397432Thanks, I got a copy on libgen. I get confused about why he’s still called the Messiah and imbued with the Holy Spirit in the Quran, if he’s another prophet in a line of mortal prophets. I wonder if Muslims are moved by Jesus’ sermons in the Gospel where he’s not claiming divinty, and if they consider them accurate to his prophetic character
>>18398067>I get confused about why he’s still called the MessiahBecause he would often heal people by touching them with his hand and wiping over their defects, and his eventual return at the end of time with Imam Mahdi to fight against Dajjal, the against Gog and magoog, he will then rule for 40 years, have a family and live his life that he didn't get the chance to do in his first ministry.> and imbued with the Holy Spirit in the QuranHe was supported by Angel Gabriel PBUH who in the Quran is the Holy Spirit, there is a story where Iblis taunted Jesus alayhi salam and Gabriel beat up Iblis and threw him into the sun as a punushment, but every Prophet of Allah SWT was supported by Gabriel PBUH who taught them, helped them need, he was the one who taught Adam alyhi salam how to work on Earth and later his children how to bury their father after he passed away>I wonder if Muslims are moved by Jesus’ sermons in the Gospel where he’s not claiming divinty, and if they consider them accurate to his prophetic characterYou can find beautiful teachings in them and actually a decent portion of his words are fine islamically, Matthew is the best example of this as it's the most jewish of the Gospels, although having just read Mark, I can't help but feel this is another case of an author really hating certian people like the Disciples are potaryed as faithless retards pardon my tounge, Mark 6:48-52 shows this perfectly after being with Jesus alayhi salam for so long seeing all of these miracles their hearts were not moved, in the Quran 3:51-52 this is the oppsite as the jews are the ones who are not moved the previous verses are about Jesus alayhi salam preaching and showing miracles as proofs of his Prophethood but only his disciple believe
>>18398261> his eventual return at the end of time with Imam Mahdi to fight against Dajjal, the against Gog and magoog, he will then rule for 40 years, have a family and live his life that he didn't get the chance to do in his first ministry.Do Muslims believe like traditional Christians do, that the nation of Israel transferred from the original Jews to all believers, or are they more like the dispensationalists where the Jews keep their own covenant until end times? If the former, then did Jesus target his ministry only to Jews in Sham?
>>18398759>Do Muslims believe like traditional Christians do, that the nation of Israel transferred from the original Jews to all believers, or are they more like the dispensationalists where the Jews keep their own covenant until end times? If the former, then did Jesus target his ministry only to Jews in Sham?Islam never had a "chosen people" doctrine with the children of Israel, Allah SWT says many times in the Quran that all nations had Prophets sent to them, the covenant with Abraham PBUH is that of piety and uprightness instead of nationalism, for example Moses PBUH was the first Prophet sent to the children of Israel and him and Aaron PBUH weren't sent to free the Isralites only but to convert all of Egypt to Islam, unlike the bible Pharaoh actually knows who Joseph PBUH is and Prophets in the past from Arabia like Hud and Saleh PBUT,
>>18398820Christians themselves also got a covenant with God but failed alongside jews
>>18397463You would be executed as non-muslims cannot enter the city. You would have to fake being one
>>18396223Islam do seems to have something cool. Sadly its obsession with the absolutely vile-sounding arabic, and the hatred for visual arts makes the whole faith just not clicking with me. A shameAnyway muslims anons is It true that Salafists thinks Allah has a physically body? And that is what he should look like if every single mention of Allah's corporeal traits are taken litterally instead of metaphorically?
>>18398879>and the hatred for visual arts makes the whole faith just not clicking with meThat's the best part though, just look at how mocked Jesus PBUH is in media, no one would dare to do that with Allah SWT or Prophet Muhamamd SAW and let it stay that way Ameen ya Rabb>Anyway muslims anons is It true that Salafists thinks Allah has a physically body? Salafi is a loose term, what you are thinking about are Wahhabis aka Khawarji and yes, for them Allah SWT is a big man in the sky litreally sitting on a throne, a thing to keep in mind is that they are in the minority, they often qoute hadiths that are fabricated or weak to justify this belief because they want to take everything litrealFor the majority of Muslims even Shia btw, Allah SWT is unlike everything and the greatest reward is seeing him on the day of judgmentI just can't believe that Wahhabis fell into the same mistake as jews/christians
>>18398894They are also called Mujassimah which all started from a man called Muqatil bin sulayman who was the first person to hold the belief that Allah SWT looks like a man, Wahhbis of course followed his doctrine but try to hide it
>>18398879No you don't understand the athari/salafi position at all.>Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The methodology of the predecessors is that they describe Allah by what He described Himself as, and what His Messenger described him as without altering, incapacitating, prescribing modality and assimilating. They do not negate the attributes which Allah affirmed for Himself, nor do they compare His attributes with the attributes of the creation. The negator of Allah’s Attributes is he who incapacitates His attributes and ends up worshipping a non-existent thing. While the Mushabbih assimilates Allah’s Attributes to His creation. The one who compares Allah’s Attributes to those of His creation worships an idol. So, the methodology of the predecessors is affirmation without assimilation, and affirming Allah’s transcendence without incapacitating His attributes. This is as Allah stated: “Nothing is like Him.” This is a refutation to those who assimilate Allah to His creation. Allah’s Statement: And He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing is a refutation of those who incapacitate His attributes. - https://dorar.net/en/aqadia/21
>>18398894>That's the best part though, just look at how mocked Jesus PBUH is in media, no one would dare to do that with Allah SWT or Prophet Muhamamd SAW and let it stay that way Ameen ya RabbNon muslims did it multiple times in the pasts. They dont do that anymore because the likehood of some muslims going on a GTA-style mass killing rampage over it isnt worth the effort.Speaking again of the Salafis, its also true that they destroy graveyards to avoid people praying for the dead, and that they think Walis are saints and so the whole concept of walihood is against Islam?
>>18398907>They dont do that anymore because the likehood of some muslims going on a GTA-style mass killing rampage over it isnt worth the effort.Which is what I talked about and again is a wonderful thing, they let a black lesbian play Jesus last year btw crazy world we live in
>>18398894>KhawarjiYou really need to stop using this word to describe anyone born after 1000 AH.
>>18398909>Which is what I talked about and again is a wonderful thing, they let a black lesbian play Jesus last year btw crazy world we live inShouldnt the zealous of muslims be directed against these viles portrayats of Jesus too? Isnt him like the second greatest prophet for Islam? Why no muslim jihadist go kills leftists for portraying Jesus in such a obscene way? It seems they bother only for potraits of Muhammad
>>18398928Can't really throw this at us when it was the Christian Jesus that was being mocked in a CHRISTIAN contury yet there was no attempt to stop it, all I saw was Christians saying "now do this with Islam" instead of speaking up themselves or even doing mass protests, even in the last supper fiasco we were more vocal than Christians despite not beliving in the last Supper lol
>>18398928nta but first off we don't rank the prophets like that, with that being said depiction of all prophets is forbidden. Are you expecting us to dictate how Christians worship in their churches too?
>>18398928There are sahih hadith saying that those who insult Muhamed should be killed, from which rulings were derived that those who insult Muhamed should be killed.You can't extend those hadith and rulings to all prophets, because that is analogical reasoning, which should be avoided if possible.>>18398938>despite not beliving in the last SupperAl-Ma'idah is the Quranic equivalent of the last supper.
>>18398949>Al-Ma'idah is the Quranic equivalent of the last supper.It isn't, considering the disbelivers in the miracle were turned into Pigs
>>18398949"The ruling that applies to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), also applies to all of the Messengers and Prophets (blessings and peace of Allah be upon them); what is prohibited in the case of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) is also prohibited in their case. (End quote from Statements of the Islamic Fiqh Council, 8th session, 6th statement)" - https://islamqa.info/en/answers/158232
>>18398954It is not clear who exactly is turned into pigs, but there's nothing that suggests it was all disbelievers in the miracle.>>18398961Yes, depictions are forbidden, but the punishment for depicting other prophets or the companions isn't the same as depicting and/or insulting Muhamed.
>>18398980>It is not clear who exactly is turned into pigs, but there's nothing that suggests it was all disbelievers in the miracle.It is clear it was the jews who didn't accept it was a miracle and considered it magic from Jesus PBUH who cursed them which caused them to be turned into pigs similarly how David PBUH cursed the disbelivers in his time and they were turned into Apes
>>18398980>"Hence all the scholars are unanimously agreed that it is haram to revile or mock the Prophets, and that the one who commits this grievous sin has apostatized from the religion of Islam, just as the one who reviles our Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) has apostatized from Islam." - https://islamqa.info/en/answers/159664formatting, also see what Ibn Taymiyah says there
>>18398984Can you link me to the ayah, because I seriously fail to see where the Quran says that the specific punishment for the denial of maidah miracle was getting turned into pigs.>>18399000The key word is here apostate. It's not a ruling for non-muslims.
>>18399007true the only obligation is to teach people afaik
>>18399007>Can you link me to the ayah, because I seriously fail to see where the Quran says that the specific punishment for the denial of maidah miracle was getting turned into pigs.It's in Tafsir Ibn Kathir and even earlier ones the punishment implied in verse 115
>>18399024I don't know Ibn Kathir by heart, so correct me if I'm wrong (with citations please) but when I read his commentary on a verse basis the>punishment implied in verse 115The punishment implied in verse 115 is, according to Ibn Kathir, is torment in the lowest hell, not getting turned into swine.>verse 5:60Ibn Kathir's commentary here refers to the punishment described in Al-Baqarah and Al-Araf, which was applied to breakers of the sabbat, who were turned into apes.I do not see where it says thatأُعَذِّبُهُۥ عَذَابًۭا لَّآ أُعَذِّبُهُۥٓ أَحَدًۭا مِّنَ ٱلْعَـٰلَمِينَmeans "getting turned into pigs"
>>18398261>against Gog and magoogThis is one of the dumbest parts of Islam. Muhammad believed there was an actual wall holding back some giant evil armies of God and Magog that would come.And it's obviously false since not only is there obviously no wall holding back nations, but the sahih hadith at https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:4076 says "The Muslims will use the bows, arrows and shields of Gog and Magog as firewood, for seven years". So not only are they nowhere to be found, but their weaponry is wooden (or otherwise so flammable you can use it as firewood) bows and arrows and shields.
>>18399074>The Muslims will use the bows, arrows and shields of Gog and Magog as firewood, for seven years". So not only are they nowhere to be found, but their weaponry is wooden (or otherwise so flammable you can use it as firewood) bows and arrows and shields.This is clearly a metaphor as Allah had nothing to gain to explain to 7th Century people future firearm weapons or spaceships (the most likely weapons to use against Gog and Magog)
>>18399073>I don't know Ibn Kathir by heart, so correct me if I'm wrong (with citations please) but when I read his commentary on a verse basis thehttps://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/katheer/sura5-aya115.html
>>18399074I never understand why people turn into athiests when it comes to Islam lmao
>>18399087Yes, it doesn't mention the transformation punishment.
>>18399096Why are you lying dude not replying to you again for wasting my time
>>18399097>you lyingC'mon dude. You could easily post the relevant text here but you're simply counting on me being too retarded an lazy to do my own research.I seriously hope you're not an actual muslim because you're trying to prevent people from seriously engaging with your faith with this behaviour.
>>18399101>You could easily post the relevant text hereOh so you didn't even try to translate the page at all which takes two seconds thanks for further making me ignore you
I am Christian, in my readings about Islamic history I sympathize way more with Ali and the later Shiites than Sunnis and the other Rashiduns like Umar and Uthman. Is this common?Also I think the Caliphs totally messed up and corrupted Islam. They remind me of the emperors and kings in Christianity constantly trying to mess with the church until they finally got their way in the reformation.
>>18399103I did and I explained the content in an earlier post and you can't post the text that supports your argument because it doesn't exist.
>>18399106>I am Christian, in my readings about Islamic history I sympathize way more with Ali and the later Shiites than Sunnis and the other Rashiduns like Umar and Uthman. Is this common?Catholic?
>>18399113Yes.
>>18399115Tends to be the case lol, Shiism and Catholicism has some certian similiarties
>>18399085>This is clearly a metaphor as Allah had nothing to gain to explain to 7th Century people future firearm weapons or spaceshipsSpaceships. That you can use as firewood. Now we're hitting peak Islam.And how exactly did Alexander the Great build a wall to keep aliens with spaceships away?
>>18396223Muslim anons, are you looking forward to finally being able to shower and brush your teeth tonight after ramadan ends?
>>18399122'Allah always used metaphors that the humans could understood with what items, animals and so they know. The point was to instruct the faithfull to be ready to fight, the actually weapons dont matter
>>18399131It says, directly, that they will burn them. This requires them to be flammable. If what they use isn't flammable then this is false.And it doesn't give the slightest hint of this being any sort of metaphor. It uses the normal Arabic words: قِسِيّ "bows", نُشَّاب "arrows", أَتْرِسَة "shields". It only makes sense if they're the normal military equipment of Muhammad's day, all of which is flammable. Muhammad also explicitly talks about horses being used, look at https://sunnah.com/muslim%3A2899a where he says "And a cry would reach them: The Dajjal has taken your place among your offspring. They will, therefore, throw away what would be in their hands and go forward sending ten horsemen, as a scouting party."And again: the Koran says Alexander the Great built a wall that contains Gog and Magog. How did he do this if they have spaceships?
>>18396223Stop misleading people with your injunctions nigger.Quranism is the only viable Islamic path.
>>18399130I can tell you're a dumb teenager because working adults are panicking over how much they'll have to pay at the pump so netanyahu can stay out of jail
>>18399386He’s a troll, no need to feed him
>>18399130Eid Mubarak, faggot!
>>18399157>This requires them to be flammable.Why are you under the assumption that only wood is flammable? And that too can be taken metaphorically anyway, it could symbolize the complete neutralization of their power and the repurposing of their vast resources for the benefit of the survivors. Even the barrier itself can be understood in many different ways. See for example here https://www.abuaminaelias.com/where-wall-yajuj-majuj/ where it even says that they even got out already. But of course when it comes to Islam all nuance goes out the window>the Koran saysIt doesn't say anything of Alexander, he is just a proposal out of many. Even though if it did it would actually match Hebrew sources of him being a monotheist and all that. That being said their technology at the time vs what they have now can be different. They are human beings after all and therefore they can develop just as much as us. In fact since they will dominate the world it's very possible they have outdone us in that department too. I mean they can shoot their spears into the heavens and drain vast bodies of water
>>18399732>Why are you under the assumption that only wood is flammable?Bows, arrows, and shields are wooden. Muhammad directly said they would be used. He uses normal everyday words. The translator chose to render it "firewood". You even just posted the pic of where he is getting this, and what's it say? That they will not need to gather wood. Wood, wood, wood. So which is a more honest reading: he's talking about wood, or about spaceships?Can you find me any hadith commentator from before non-Muslims invented spaceships who said this is about spaceships?>Even the barrier itself can be understood in many different waysMuhammad thought it was an actual physical object that existed in the present. Look at https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7059 he says "Woe to the Arabs, from the Great evil that is nearly approaching them. Today a gap has been made in the wall of Gog and Magog like this." (Sufyan illustrated by this forming the number 90 or 100 with his fingers.)">Even the barrier itself can be understood in many different ways. As the Muslim article at https://islamqa.info/en/answers/3437/yajuj-and-majuj-are-they-alive says, it really can't:"The Quran has told us how the barrier was built and what materials were used, so it is not right to say that it is a metaphorical or imaginary barrier...So help me with strength (of men), I will erect between you and them a barrier.Give me pieces (blocks) of iron,’ then, when he had filled up the gap between the two mountain-cliffs, he said, ‘Blow,’ till when he had made it (red as) fire, he said, ‘Bring me molten copper to pour over it.’So they [Yajuj and Majuj ] were made powerless to scale it or dig through it."It's an actual physical object made with iron and metal between two mountains according to the Koran.
>>18399957I am not the one saying it's spaceships. I just responded to your assumption that only wood can burn. Obviously he would use normal everyday words to describe their weapons to normal everyday people of the 7th century. What? Let's take a look scholars of your bible say >The representation of this and the following verse, that the weapons of the army of Gog shall furnish the whole nation of Israel with fuel for seven years, cannot, of course, be understood literally, and seems to have been inserted by the prophet to show that we are to look for the meaning of his prophecy beyond any literal event of earthly warfare.>as indicating that for Israel these warlike instruments should then so completely lose their power to terrify that they might be looked upon simply as so much firewood; and by Keil, as designed to annihilate the enemy and remove every trace of him. Kliefoth appears nearest the mark, in suggesting that the emphasis lies upon the length of time the burning should continue; and that this was intended, by conveying an idea of the vastness of the spoil, to represent the thoroughness of Gog's destruction and of Israel's deliverance>an actual physical objectSo you're just going to take one interpretation you agree with and then present this as unquestionable? I thought you didn't like that when I did it to your bible hypocrite. And even if it was I have shown you in that link where there are scholarly opinions that state the barrier has already been breached and is no longer in place. Literally linking it to actual historical nations that have attacked the muslims already.
>>18399732>It doesn't say anything of Alexander, he is just a proposal out of manyOh sure it was some other guy known as Two Horned who went to where the sun rises and found people with no protection from it and where it set into opaque water who went to where the great mountains are and found Gog and Magog there and built a barrier made of iron and copper to contain them that God will break at the end. It must be the OTHER one. Right. My mistake.>That being said their technology at the time vs what they have now can be different. And where are they anon? Alexander the Great kept them out with a big metal wall. Apparently there are a LOT of them, look at the hadith at https://sunnah.com/muslim:222a:"Allah would say: Bring forth the group of (the denizens of) Fire. He (Adam) would say: Who are the denizens of Hell? It would be said: They are out of every thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine...This had a very depressing effect upon them (upon the companions of the Holy Prophet) and they said: Messenger of Allah, who amongst us would be (that unfortunate) person (who would be doomed to Hell)? He said: Good tidings for you, Yajuj Majuj would be those thousands (who would be the denizens of Hell) and a person (selected for Paradise) would be amongst you."And according to you they're developing spaceships and advanced flammable weapons. But the Macedonian Empire could find them, and we can't?>I mean they can shoot their spears into the heavenshttps://sunnah.com/muslim:2937b says they shoot arrows, using the word بِنُشَّابِهِمْ which specifically refers to arrows. He gives no indication they have some special technology and overtly says arrows. People shoot arrows into the sky all the time.>and drain vast bodies of waterBy drinking them because there are so many of them, the sahih hadith at https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:4081 says "They will not pass by any water but they will drink it". It explicitly uses شَرِبُوهُ "drink".
>>18399973>Oh sure it was some other guyAre you saying he was the only one suggested? Yes or No. And again even if he were there should be no problem for you judeochristians>And where are they anon?Right thanks for confirming you haven't read the link.>People shoot arrows into the sky all the time.And expect to murder those in the heavens?>because there are so many of themYep, such a population cannot be sustained without consuming a lot of resources. And that requires advanced technology
>>18399971>The representation of this and the following verse, that the weapons of the army of Gog shall furnish the whole nation of Israel with fuel for seven years, cannot, of course, be understood literallyYou're quoting someone's full-blown cope. I have to say this is the first time I've seen someone try to bolster blatant cope for their religious view by saying "see, this guy here also has to use blatant cope for his religious view". Wow.His view is false nonsense and he's trying to reinterpret his texts to make it fit. Same as "it's talking about spaceships". It's the same nonsense people always have to do when their view is false.>And even if it was I have shown you in that link where there are scholarly opinions that state the barrier has already been breached and is no longer in place. If that article is correct then Islam is completely false since no wall kept steppe nomads away and they didn't break one to come to the Islamic world. They came to the Islamic world by the wide-open steppe. No wall.
>>18399983>His view is false nonsense and he's trying to reinterpret his texts to make it fit.And your refutation? Just because you don't like it lol... I didn't quote just one scholar there. If Christians have the liberty to interpret it as metaphorically then so do we. Especially when it says that doing otherwise is a contradiction of revelation.>They came to the Islamic world by the wide-open steppeSo when it says here this...>It is not known exactly what time they would be released from their lands, nor the cause of it. It is estimated that their release was during the latter of the sixth century Hijri. The Arab kingdoms were scattered at the hands of the Mongols and Tartars since the emergence of Ghengis Khan and his occupation of Bukhara in the year 616 Hijrido you believe they didn't know they were coming from the steppe?
>>18399980>Are you saying he was the only one suggested?Two Horned straight up is Alexander the Great. The Koran calls him the same thing, Two Horned, says he does the same things, and even in the same order. It's like trying to argue Isa wasn't Jesus just some other guy. Same name, same actions, same everything.>Right thanks for confirming you haven't read the link.Your link wasn't a hadith. It was modern apologetics cope, and it doesn't even work since Turkic/Mongol steppe nomads didn't have to get through any wall to get to the Islamic world.>And expect to murder those in the heavens?Yes, like much of what Muhammad said, it's a very dumb story where people don't act in ways that make any sense. See also: the very polytheistic Alexander the Great being a devout Muslim according to Muhammad.>Yep, such a population cannot be sustained without consuming a lot of resources. And where are they consuming these resources?>And that requires advanced technologyCan you find me any hadith commentator who said they had wondrous technology before non-Muslims started making it? Again Muhammad says they use arrows - using the specific word for arrows - and says they drink bodies of water - using the specific word for drink.This isn't even very unique. Look at what the Perso-Armenian historian Khorenatsi writes at https://historians.armeniancathedral.org/book/t06Khor2_13.htm, quoting the Greek historian Polycrates:"Alexander and Darius is minor compared to that of Artashēs. For the light of day was obscured by the dust of the former, but the latter hid and darkened the sun by his volleys of arrows, turning mid-day into artificial night...Because of him the torrents did not swell the river, for by the drinking of his soldiers it shrank".People said this kind of thing about large armies: their arrows go into the sky, they drink so much the waters go down.
>>18399985>And your refutation? I would say the same sorts of things to him as I am to you if he were here. Can he find someone from before guns and tanks were invented who says "actually this is just a metaphor it isn't about the flammable weapons that were universal in the ancient world"? Again Muhammad even quadruples down on this by talking about horses being used.>do you believe they didn't know they were coming from the steppe?I think it's ridiculous cope that's coming from necessity to rescue a religious view rather than any serious use of the sources, hence why it doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. His religious view requires him to try to find something that fits, no matter how badly. It's no different from Heaven's Gate no getting picked up by the spaceship so they had to say "actually it doesn't take bodies only souls". It's ridiculous nonsense but you have to say things like that to rescue the religious view, so they get said.
>>18399987>Two Horned straight up isYou didn't answer the question let's try again. Is Alexander the ONLY one suggested? Yes or No>Alexander the Great being a devoutAgain your sources also say he was a monotheist>everything I don't like is copegreat then I can say the same thing about preterist theology>YesPeople never shot in the sky with arrows before that report was written?>where are theyNow or in the future?>technologyIf other humans can advance in technology why can't they who are also human beings?
>>18399993>I would say the same sorts of things to himSo you're just going to blurt out the word "cope" in your own scholar's face and pretend that's an argument? If later generations have better knowledge of the future why can't they use it to understand what was being said by the prophet? He tells us specifically that the recipient of the message could possibly understand it better than the giver>coming from necessityWhere was the necessity for the Muslims being invaded by Mongols?
Here's a genuine question for Muslim anons:The Quran claims in several places that it reveals facts about the religions of its time which Muhammad, an illiterate Arab, would have no way of knowing otherwise. Can you give me any examples of these facts which have been independently confirmed by contemporary archaeologists and historians?I'm not asking about fulfillment of prophecies, but rather historical/archaeological confirmations of statements made in the Quran about religions of that time
>>18400186You mean something like pic rel in comparison to Quran 44:29? Or more like knowledge form the bible+apocrypha+talmud that was hard to obtain at least in a manner that shows significant familiarly with Greek/Hebrew texts?
>>18400186If it's the latter I read a post recently mentioning some of these things https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18210759/#18211339
>>18399998>Is Alexander the ONLY one suggested? Yes or NoBy reasonable people taking the texts as they are and not looking to defend an Islamic religious view? Yes. Same name, same actions, even done in the same order. It's like asking if anyone has ever suggested Musa might not be Moses or Isa might not be Jesus. I'm sure you could dredge up somebody if you look hard enough but no, no reasonable person says this.>Again your sources also say he was a monotheistJosephus says no such thing. Josephus says Alexander the Great denied worshipped the high priest but instead worshipped the deity the high priest served. There's no reason to disbelieve this, polytheists almost never denied that other major forms of worship were worshipping something, they just believe it's one of the gods. Like how Alexander had no problem saying he was the son of both Amon and Zeus, since he thought they were the same deity. Doesn't Islam have something to say about somebody claiming to be a son of a deity?And our sources plainly depict him as a run of the mill polytheist. Plutarch in his biography of Alexander the Great at https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Alexander*/3.html routinely says things like "Then, going up to Ilium, he sacrificed to Athena and poured libations to the heroes." and "wishing to consult the god concerning the expedition against Asia, he went to Delphi". We even have physical evidence that proves this. Look at https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/326395 for example, it says "The images of the youthful Herakles and enthroned Zeus that appear on this coin are the standard types used in the silver coinage of Alexander the Great during his lifetime". He made tons of images of Greek gods like Zeus and Hercules, we have physical proof of this. >If other humans can advance in technology why can't they who are also human beings?Muhammad had no concept of future technology. He described the future as one of arrows and horse
>>18400010> in your own scholar's face What are you talking about? How is this "my scholar"? You found some guy trying to bend over backwards to do the same thing with a text that says the same thing and from the same motives. >Where was the necessity for the Muslims being invaded by Mongols?You misunderstand. The necessity I referred to is the necessity to justify this patently false claim in the religious texts. If you're going to hold that they're true despite this obvious total disconnection from reality, you have to say something, no matter how poorly it fits.
>>18400326>Yes"Other notable Muslim commentators, including ibn Kathir,[38]:100-101 ibn Taymiyyah,[38]:101[39] Naser Makarem Shirazi,[40] and Ebrahim Desai,[41] have used theological arguments to reject the Alexander identification". Okay bro, so all that time you were shilling the "greatest preterist theologian" doesn't count anymore. I can enforce the same catholic ideology you were arguing with the other guy where you were using your protestant name as the absolute truth regarding all things Christian with no other possible interpretation. Got it, thanks!>Josephus says Alexander the Great denied worshipped the high priest but instead worshipped the deity the high priest served.Yes the very same deity which apparently gave him prophetic revelations about things to come that were previously prophecized in the book of Daniel... All the other things you have brought to discredit his monotheism also exist for Cyrus, which is called God's Messiah. But anyway here's an easy way to make sense of it. Everyone wants to claim the great man for their own group and thus they invent convenient things about him. You however can't reject Josephus because as a Christian really need him.>Doesn't Islam have something to say about somebody claiming to be a son of a deity?Yep, and if any of that was true then the law has changed as ibn Taymiyyah puts it here
>>18400495Same type of thing happens in Hosea. Both words mean the same thing too btw but it has changed because of the association with idolatry. So similarly the terminology is no longer allowed if they actually ever used it for themselves in the first place. Even if future speakers intend the good meaning.>How is this "my scholar"?They are Christian commentaries dude what are you on about? But it's okay I can use a guy you trust too (though I don't have to since you are being extremely uncharitable) here https://www.revelationrevolution.org/ezekiel-391-20-preterist-commentary/ it says "the fact that the people of Israel are said to use these weapons for fuel for seven years also appears to be a hyperbolic expression implicitly pointing to the great number of soldiers fighting during this battle similar to the hyperbolic number of locust soldiers on horseback mentioned in Revelation 9:16">The necessity I referred toIs one that doesn't exist.>Various nations and peoples in history were identified as Ya'juj and Ma'juj. At one point, it was the Turks, who threatened Baghdad and northern Iran;[59] later, when the Mongols destroyed Baghdad in 1258, it was they who were Gog and Magog.[60] Others regarded the Vikings and their descendants as Gog and Magog, since the unknown group from Scandinavia had made their sudden and considerable entry into the history of Europe.[7]None of these people had any reason to do that, they could have very easily maintained the other interpretation
>>18400495>have used theological arguments to reject the Alexander identificationLike I said: "and not looking to defend an Islamic religious view". Ibn Kathir rejects it as Alexander the Great precisely because it shows that Muhammad was wrong since Alexander the Great was actually a polytheist.Look at https://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A/%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1_%D8%B0%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%86, Ibn Kathir writes:"وأما الثاني: فكان مشركا،" "As for [Alexander], he was a polytheist". Ibn Kathir says he was a polytheist and rejects it because of that.>Yes the very same deity which apparently gave him prophetic revelations about things to come that were previously prophecized in the book of DanielAlexander the Great was very into oracles and prophecy and how they applied to himself. He went to oracles of Apollo and of Amon. Again: polytheists didn't say what others worshipped weren't real, they just interpreted it in their own religious structure. Almost nobody in ancient times said the god of the Jews didn't exist. Even the ardent polytheist Julian the Apostate wanted the Jews to worship their deity and build his temple. Polytheists just thought the Jewish deity was one of the gods.>Everyone wants to claim the great man for their own group and thus they invent convenient things about him.Well yes. Exactly. And Muhammad was just yet another one of them, inventing convenient things about Alexander the Great.>You however can't reject JosephusJosephus does not say Alexander the Great was a monotheist. I have no reason to reject his report.>and if any of that was true then the law has changedSo according to you, in the past, Allah was alright with your worshipping other gods, claiming to be the son of a god, consulting fortune-tellers who invoked Greek gods, etc?
>>18400584See how deceptive you're being? Ibn Kathir rejects the identification of the figure in the Quran with Alexander. Not what the prophet said. Furthermore you're cutting out the rest "and his minister was a philosopher. There were more than two thousand years between their times. So how can this be compared to that? They are not equal and they do not resemble each other except to a fool who does not know the realities of things.">Alexander the Great was very into oracles and prophecy and how they applied to himself.So you're saying God gave him prophetic revelation via pagan oracles but forgot to mention there was no other God beside him? And the used this mere worshiper of the God of Israel (who respected his religion to such a degree that his chosen were given special privileges) to fulfill Daniel?>Allah was alright with your worshipping other godsAnd here comes the straw man. You are the one saying God was okay with his warrior prophet being a pagan lol. And again I am just stating what the scholarly opinion is about the usage of "son". Looks like your missionary script broke and you have no way to refute this
>>18398870> You would be executed as non-muslims cannot enter the cityI don't know if you'd be executed, man... several European explorers have acted Muslim and wrote about traveling in Mecca though
>>18401175And Muslims did want to kill them for that after word got out that they lied.
>>18400634>Ibn Kathir rejects the identification of the figure in the Quran with Alexander. Because it can't be true because Alexander the Great was a polytheist. Muhammad didn't know this and got it wrong because he was going off of utterly historically abysmal legendary sources. Ibn Kathir almost certainly didn't know of these sources. But now we're well acquainted with Alexander Romance literature.>Furthermore you're cutting out the rest "and his minister was a philosopher. There were more than two thousand years between their times.Because our line of discussion is about his polytheism. If you want to talk about chronology we can, but it won't go far since the Koran contains absolutely none. Muhammad by all appearances had absolutely no idea when anything he talks about actually happened. He gives tales, not history.>So you're saying God gave him prophetic revelation via pagan oracles...huh? He visited what amount to fortune tellers like the oracles of Apollo and Amon. I don't think anyone gave him any messages but the equivalent of a strip mall gypsy.>worshiper of the God of Israel Would you call Emperor Julian a "worshiper of the God of Israel"? Alexander participated in basically whatever religious rites he came across. Again anon we have physical proof he was a polytheist, he issued coins with images of Greek gods.>You are the one saying God was okay with his warrior prophet being a pagan lol. I don't think Alexander the Great was a "warrior prophet", he was just some ancient conqueror, they're a dime a dozen. >And again I am just stating what the scholarly opinion is about the usage of "son". What are you referring to exactly? Alexander the Great was said to be the son of Zeus/Amon by Zeus/Amon having actual physical sex with his mother.
>>18401228>it can't be true because...of multiple reasons which you conveniently removed due to your dishonesty. You're buttmad that Ibn Kathir called you a fool and you can't use your cheap tactics on me, so as usual all you have left is repeating yourself ad nauseam and running away from points you cannot twist anymore like your own Christian scholars and people you personally hold authoritative interpreting the 7 years (which btw is a clear give away it's symbolic because that just means "many") of burning in ways you don't like.>early learned muslim historians didn't know about these sources but an illiterate man from a remote part of Arabia secretly had access to all sorts of Christian literature with "an enormous influence, with versions of it being produced across late antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the early modern period in Europe, Asia, and Africa"The knots you're tying yourself into. Now you're claiming that chronology can only exist in one book. A much better fit to what Islamic sources teach according to secular historians of religion is pic rel, but as usual the biblical account cannot be said to be accurate, take it with a grain of salt. But the point is Ibn Kathir knew of them, which is why he mentions that the real Islamic figure is 2000 years older from the time of Abraham, and that Khidr was his companion instead of Aristotle>Apollo's daemonic oracles gave him truthful divine revelation that matches the book of Daniel bro!Yeah let's forget about where Josephus specifically says he was given this revelation directly by God, the same one he worships and you believe forgot to inform him there was no other deity beside him. He satisfies the biblical qualifications for a prophet "I speak to them in dreams" - Numbers 12:6, "prophecies must come to pass" - Deuteronomy 18:22 and even satisfies additional ones that were meant for other prophets like "gets prophecized about himself" - Malachi 3:1, "ensures the freedom of the Israelites" - Hosea 12:13
>>18401323>physical proofTotally not manufactured by others in his name, right? And we have the same for Cyrus, guess you believe the guy God explicitly names and also titles as his shepherd and messiah, as well as his prophets are all blatant adulterous pagan mushriks lmao. Ezra 1:1-3 states that he specifically identifies the Lord he is thankful to as the God of Israel, but when we look at the Cyrus cylinder he is thanking Marduk. A crime which would be enough to execute him according to the bible 2 Chronicles 15:13.>What are you referring to exactly?>claiming to be a son of a deityI was directly addressing this tangential point of yours. Whatever later meanings pagans derive from such a title (if ever used in the first place) is completely irrelevant because the original speaker's intent had nothing to do with an ontological claim to divinity and/or begotten status others later imposed onto him. Paul was also labeled unfairly as a Greek deity. Should we now make the claim that he actually called himself one for real just because that's what it is recorded that people said of him? You yourself agree that people made shit up, but suddenly when it comes to what pagans here say it becomes 100% truth. Well then going by your standard Paul was confusing the masses into thinking he was Alexander's supposed dad Zeus
>>18398909>is a wonderful thingAre there muslim anons who realize they're inbred orcs?
>>18401359if you're not mixed race you're inbred to me
>>18401363Then you're retarded
>>18401376no you're the inbred one
>>18401323>of multiple reasonsFine anon. Give me your best defense for him being Alexander somehow being against the Koran's chronology.The only point he makes that actually contradicts the Koran is that Alexander was a polytheist.>in ways you don't likeYes anon, I will criticize anybody who goes into "it's actually spaceships"-tier reasoning in order to rescue their religious view. Nobody pulling that sort of nonsense would ever be "people you personally hold authoritative". >early learned muslim historians didn't know about these sourcesDoes Ibn Kathir ever reference the Alexander Romances? From what I read, he doesn't appear to refer to them in his analysis. If he was aware of them, I didn't see him say so.>but an illiterate man from a remote part of Arabia secretly had accessIt's not secret at all. What someone in Arabia in 600 AD hears orally may not be a written text someone in Syria in 1300 AD consults. If Ibn Kathir did consult them it would be patently undeniable that the figure with the same name doing the same things is him.>which is why he mentions that the real Islamic figure is 2000 years older from the time of AbrahamAnd where does the Koran say this?>Josephus specifically says he was given this revelation directly by GodNo he doesn't? Josephus says Alexander claimed to have dreamed about the high priest and that "the Book of Daniel was showed him wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended".>the same one he worshipsJosephus never says he's a monotheist either. Josephus just reports what Alexander the Great did and said when he was in Israel. >He satisfies the biblical qualifications for a prophet "I speak to them in dreams" Josephus never says God send Alexander the Great a dream (how would he even know?), he just reports what Alexander says about dreaming about a priest. This is hardly unique, either in Josephus or in reality.
>>18396223Theres muslim people here, how woke has this place become?
>>18401329>manufactured by others in his nameDon't you recall https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/326395 saying "The images of the youthful Herakles and enthroned Zeus that appear on this coin are the standard types used in the silver coinage of Alexander the Great during his lifetime"?We have more physical evidence for this. At https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1870-0320-88 you can see a "dedicatory inscription of Alexander the Great was carved on a large marble wall block on a pronaos anta from the Temple of Athena Polias in Priene. The inscription, reading 'King Alexander dedicated the temple to Athena Polias', was inscribed onto the topmost block". He full-on dedicated temples to Greek gods.Alexander the Great even wanted himself to be called a god, Plutarch in his Sayings of the Spartans reports at https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Sayings_of_Spartans*/main.html "instructions sent from Alexander that they should pass a formal vote deifying him".>And we have the same for CyrusYou keep saying this as if it's some sort of significant point? >because the original speaker's intent had nothing to do with an ontological claim to divinity and/or begotten statusAnon the whole reason he's called Two Horned is that he was depicted with the horns of the god Amon because Amon was supposedly his father, look at https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_G-2748. For a general description look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horns_of_Alexander>suddenly when it comes to what pagans here say it becomes 100% truthI'm not citing legend here, I'm citing historians like Plutarch and direct physical evidence.
>>18401726What's hilarious is whenever apologists like you realize they're caught they immediately start pretending they are arguing against a quranist that's completely disconnected from history, tradition and religious scholarship. This isn't my position, so why are you arguing against it? This is coming from a guy who was trying to use the bullshit "isnad" Irenaeus made up to prove his points lmao. Is hypocrisy all you are capable of? Furthermore you're the one making a positive claim the Quran is speaking about Alexander, the burden of proof is on you and only you. In fact I will use your standard now. Using only the Quran and nothing outside of it prove that Alexander is ever mentioned there.>I will criticize anybody who goes into I wasn't that anon. And none of the 3 Christians I've brought up ever used anything of the sort you blatant liar. And I can link where you actually used the guy to prove your nonsensical claims about history and floating Rabbis.>Does Ibn Kathir ever referenceHe was referencing the traditions I already posted... Proving yet again that you're not able to track. And as shown the proposed source you gave was widespread and very influential. He and the other scholars who disagree with your identification must have had access to them, or at least heard them. After all you believe they made their way to the middle of nowhere amongst people who somehow never used the name Alexander when talking about these events. Despite your source material doing so constantly>While the Syriac Alexander Legend references the horns of Alexander, it consistently refers to the hero by his Greek name, not using a variant epithet.[29] The use of the Islamic epithet Dhu al-Qarnayn "Two-Horned", first occurred in the Quran.[27] The reasons behind the name "Two-Horned" are somewhat obscure: the scholar al-Tabari (839-923 CE) held it was because he went from one extremity ("horn") of the world to the other,[30]
>>18401785>>Josephus specifically says he was given this revelation directly by God>No he doesn't? "Now Alexander, when he had taken Gaza, made haste to go up to Jerusalem; 326and Jaddua the high priest, when he heard that, was in an agony, and under terror, as not knowing how he should meet the Macedonians, since the king was displeased at his foregoing disobedience. He therefore ordained that the people should make supplications, and should join with him in offering sacrifice to God, whom he besought to protect that nation, and to deliver them from the perils that were coming upon them; 327whereupon God warned him in a dream, which came upon him after he had offered sacrifice, that he should take courage, and adorn the city, and open the gates; that the rest should appear in white garments, but that he and the priests should meet the king in the habits proper to their order, without the dread of any ill consequences, which the providence of God would prevent. 328Upon which, when he rose from his sleep, he greatly rejoiced, and declared to all the warning he had received from God. According to which dream he acted entirely, and so waited for the coming of the king."So which daemonic oracle of Apollo interfered with Alexander's prophetic visions that were attributed directly to God himself by Josephus?>You keep saying this as if it's some sort of significant point? Yep, to expose your double standards. When it comes to Alexander you start trusting all the physical evidence tampered with by pagan followers and their historians. But not when it comes to Cyrus, suddenly he is allowed to be a monotheist as the bible implies. So again, was Cyrus thanking Marduk as the physical evidence shows or the God of Israel like your bible states?
>>18401792To make it clear. Jaddua's dream is the same one Alexander references when he says "I saw this very person in a dream". He met Alexander in a dream, a dream that is attributed to God. So your point about Josephus not being able to know this makes no sense, because he received that information from the high priest ultimately. A similar type of thing happens in Acts 10 when Cornelius and Peter receive a shared vision to meet each other. But here they actually met inside the dream. In any case what Alexander saw in his dream was prophetic and he was prophecized himself. But if you don't like that association he himself says "I bring this army under the divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind.” Notice where he says it's within his own mind, and that this brings his army under God's plan. So God's plan is within his mind and he had his dream in mind just before saying that, therefore his dream irrespective of the priest is just as divine. it's very simple to understand. Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense for him to reference God here. He should be referencing Apollo's oracle's plans or whoever else you believe was giving him divine revelation.
Other than the two autists sperging out about Dhul Qarnayn, this is a much chiller Muslim thread than I expected on /his/ kek
>>18401785>>18401785Boiling this down and ignoring the insults, your main point here seems to be "Demonstrate that the Koran is referring to Alexander".And this is easily done. Like I said: same name and same deeds, to the point that it’s like saying Isa isn’t Jesus or Musa isn’t Moses.You’ve already seen some of why he’s called Two Horned: Alexander the Great was depicted literally with two horns, like his supposed father Amon. These Alexander Romances call him Two Horned, look at https://archive.org/details/alexanderbookine0000budg/page/24/mode/2up on page 25 where it says: "And to the governors of his provinces and his royal official Alexander, the Two-horned, wrote thus: "Behold, now, let us acknowledge the Lord my God…" and then he gives a blatantly monotheistic spiel, down to "And now I will break in pieces the idols which ye used to worship instead of God”. It does this repeatedly, five pages later for instance it says "Then Alexander, who is surnamed the Two-horned, the servant of God Almighty…”. It calls him this over and over as he makes endless monotheistic speeches throughout it.Same name as the Koran. Same theology as the Koran. This is why Muhammad thought he was a faithful monotheist. It looks ridiculous to us, but people took these absurd things as if they were actual histories, and that’s how Muhammad heard it.What’s Two Horned do in the Koran? 18:89-90 says "Then he followed a road till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom". This is exactly what Two Horned does in that text there, look at page 135: “"He discovered that the sun rose over that sea...When the sun riseth on the multitudes of men who have their habitations in the mountain beyond that sea, the people rush into that sea through their fear of the heat of the sun."I'll continue this in a part 2:
>>18401785>>18402395After that the Koran says “Then he followed a road till, when he came between the two mountains, he found upon their hither side a folk...They said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Lo! Gog and Magog are spoiling the land.”, and Two Horned says "I will set between you and them a bank", and then he makes the wall out of iron and copper, and says "but when the promise of my Lord cometh to pass, He will lay it low".Look at page 136-139: "he came down to a great mountain pass...when the natives of that country heard these words...they came to the Two-horned…” and ...This mountain serves as a fortress between us and the nations who live beyond it, for they are evil nations.' The Two-horned said unto them, 'Who are the nations that live on the other side of this mountain?' And they spake, saying, "Magog and Gog…...Among all the nations of the world they are the more numerous...no people are more numerous than they". How does Two Horned solve this? On page 141 "Then the Two-horned spake unto the sages who were with him, saying, 'I wish to build here a sign...I will set up here a gate of brass and iron which shall serve as a wall and a fortress against the nations who live in the country behind this high mountain.' Now, by means of his knowledge, he set a seal upon the peoples of Magog...And he made a gate...and placed it between the two mountains and sunk it deep into them......and it shall be opened until the time hath arrived when God...shall be pleased to open it”.This is getting lengthy so I’ll cut it here, but it’s straight-up the same story, my man.As it says, "the Two-horned arrived at the places where the sun rose and set" and he built the iron and copper wall against Gog and Magog. Same name, same deeds.
>>18402395>Boiling this downThis is called running. I am very familiar with this tactic of yours. Concession accepted!>And this is easily done. Like I said: same name and same deedsAnd you have failed yet again, miserably. As expected you couldn't use the Quran ALONE to justify your claims. This was your standard and you couldn't meet it. Well then since you're using outside sources to make a comparison to the figure in the Quran then that's exactly what Ibn Kathir was doing and why he called you a fool. You know who else called you one too?
>>18402410This reply is paper-thin. My point was that making a chronological objection to it being Alexander the Great is impossible as the Koran, like with virtually all of its reports, provides no chronological information here whatsoever. Nor does the sunnah. Muhammad never, in all his teachings, said when this happened. He didn't do so for basically anything, by all appearances he didn't know the chronologies involved, or if he did he didn't consider them worth discussing at any length.
>>18402415You didn't say anything new, and I am giving you the same treatment you just gave me. Eye for an eye, remember? And nope you wanted the Quran only and now you are bringing in outside material. Why can't Ibn Kathir do it but you can? This argument wouldn't even work on a retarded "Quranist" The prophet never said he was Alexander either and neither did the author of the Quran. That's an assumption you have to make using outside material. And you are the one rejecting that. So guess you have no argument. Anyway even your supposed source goes back to Jewish tradition so you literally have nothing
>>18402419 Are you able to make a counter-argument based on chronology? If so the floor is your's, anon. The point I was making is that this is impossible since the Koran gives no chronological information. But if you feel that's overlooking some significant factor, bring it forward.
>>18402424You haven't even given an argument to prove your claims using your standards, I literally have to do nothing. Here is a refresher since I know you have the memory of a goldfish >>18401785>Using only the Quran and nothing outside of it prove that Alexander is ever mentioned thereI know the word only is tough for Christians to comprehend, but don't worry I can point you to a dictionary as soon as you fall into error. I can make an argument using external chronology very easily. The Quran was revealed 610–632 CE in Mecca/Medina and your story based on previous consensus 629–630 CE North Mesopotamia. There's no evidence the prophet ever made it there during that time that I am aware of and there's no evidence someone gave him a copy. Even if you want to take the earliest suggested date (and you have no argument for it) which was about a century earlier in oral form you still have the other issues I have raised which you conveniently ignored.
>Entered the thread expecting discussions about Islam>Its actually mostly a two-way sperg between a westerner and a towelhead about AlexanderWeird
>>18402462*excluding (Hindu) India and (Christian) Sub-Saharan Africa
>>18402434>using your standardsThe point of my question was to illustrate the near impossibility of such an argument. It would be virtually undoable to seriously argue "Alexander the Great lived in Year X, whereas the events in the Koran's account took place in Year Y" since the Koran gives no chronological information whatsoever. This is not a standard, it is an illustration. As I've said, if you're of the opinion you can make a chronological argument, feel free to do so.But your approach is very different:>The Quran was revealed 610–632 CE in Mecca/Medina and your story based on previous consensus 629–630 CE North MesopotamiaBut don't you see? This means that yes, in the Middle East during Muhammad's time, this is what was being said about Alexander the Great. >which was about a century earlier in oral form you still have the other issues I have raised which you conveniently ignored.In 4chan's format you simply must refocus once discussions get long. Once there are three full-length posts, it usually means it's getting into too many side issues, and it's best to table those and refocus on the main point, in this case Alexander/Gog & Magog. If you feel I accidentally left out something especially relevant, feel to bring it in once more.
>>18402690>The point of my questionSo no argument? Cool then, baseless opinion discarded.>But don't you see?I see that your proposed source material was nonexistent for most of the time the Quran was being revealed, and when it was then it still wasn't in the prophet's hands. Disagree? Then bring evidence.>Once there are three full-length postsOne of them was mostly a quote stop complaining. You had no excuse to drop anything. It's not like you ever answered the direct questions I gave you. I saw you treat that other Christian the same it's just a common thing with you.
>>18402698>Disagree? Then bring evidence.Well the Koran itself. It says outright "they will ask you about Two Horned". It isn't something new that Muhammad is introducing, it says Two Horned is somebody that people are aware of and ask him about.
>>18402701>begging the questionlol, I want you to prove the identity of the figure using ONLY the Quran. That's your standard and so far you're failing. You literally had to move the goalpost to some other common source once you found out this ones was very unlikely to work
>>18402704Let's look at what I have actually said. You first talked about Ibn Kathir saying:>There were more than two thousand years between their times.My response has been:>If you want to talk about chronology we can, but it won't go far since the Koran contains absolutely none. And>Fine anon. Give me your best defense for him being Alexander somehow being against the Koran's chronology.Saying I'm setting up some sort of Koran-only standard is simply bizarre. What I have said repeatedly is that this argument is unworkable since there's no chronological information given, but to feel free to present it if you think it's viable. So far you have not, despite repeated requests.
>>18402709Still not seeing an argument using your own standards bro.>Saying I'm setting up some sort of Koran-only standard is simply bizarreIt's amazing how you cannot even read your own quotes. You explicitly reject chronology arguments because you believe they cannot be grounded in the Quran. That's the entire reason you reject Ibn Kathir use of extra Quranic material. If you didn't then you'd solve the issue presented by him. Furthermore I was being charitable and gave you one still based on the text of the Quran being older than your proposed source. You're also dealing with a Meccan surrah here so there is no possible overlap. You have no other choice but to find another mysterious source since this one just doesn't work
>>18402715>You explicitly reject chronology arguments because you believe they cannot be grounded in the QuranI don't. I have invited you repeatedly to make one. And still, in this very reply, it is not made. As for the date of the Alexander Romances, we can get into that but I don't even see an obvious need. The Koran itself says that Two Horned is someone known to Muhammad's audience and that they will ask Muhammad about him. It isn't some new figure Muhammad was introducing them to. Pre-dates the Koran according to the Koran itself.
>>18402740Okay liar. Well then you already have the sources that put the Quranic figure at the time of Abraham. No refutation of them provided so they stand.>As for the dateGo ahead go against the consensus, make your argument why they are wrong. I already told you what would happen even if you proved it. Hint: You'll have to explain many other issues such as "the Arabic language of the Dhū-lQarnayn narrative is very much exclusive to it, with no singular words borrowed from the Syriac of the Legend">It isn't some new figureSo? Is Alexander the only figure that meets this criteria? And they clearly didn't call him by his actual Greek name as the source constantly does so again you have nothing
>>18402757>Is Alexander the only figure that meets this criteria?diff anonYes. The koran talks about Alexander in ch18. Only muslims disagree, for obvious reasons.
>>18402765>diff anonI too have read Romans 3:7 So Alexander is the only figure early Muslims didn't need an introduction to? Yes or No
>>18402755>you already have the sources that put the Quranic figure at the time of AbrahamBased on what evidence? If you're appealing to Islamic sources here then you're appealing to sources nearly two thousand yearsafter the time of Abraham. >Go ahead go against the consensusWhat consensus am I going against? You seem to be misunderstanding something. Alexander Romances are known to be very old, that they pre-date Muhammad isn't even a "consensus", it's simply a historical fact.Elements of this are extremely old. Look at what Josephus reports in his Jewish War for example, as can be read at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm:"Now there was a nation of the Alans, which we have formerly mentioned some where as being Scythians and inhabiting at the lake Meotis. This nation about this time laid a design of falling upon Media, and the parts beyond it, in order to plunder them; with which intention they treated with the king of Hyrcania; for he was master of that passage which king Alexander shut up with iron gates. This king gave them leave to come through them so they came in great multitudes, and fell upon the Medes unexpectedly...".This is Josephus, five hundred years before Muhammad.Eventually this morphed as legends do into Alexander building a divine wall to seal in the armies of the apocalypse until the end of time, instead of just a fortified mountain pass against the Scythians. >You'll have to explain amny other issues such as "the Arabic language of the Dhū-lQarnayn narrative is very much exclusive to it, with no singular words borrowed from the Syriac of the Legend"...Why is this something needing to be "explained"? >So? Is Alexander the only figure that meets this criteria?Same name, same theology, same actions to the same people in the same place, everything is the same down to the details.Putting on a name btw since that other anon joined the discussion
>>18402790Looks like the post this was meant to reply to was deleted and reposted, it's a reply to >>18402757
>>18402785>I too have read Romans 3:7What does it mean?>Alexander is the only figure......that perfectly fits the koranic story
Persian sand people larping as the "better Jews" after driving the Jews into Europe, then eventually growing so tired they decide to larp as actual Jews, and kill the rest of their own tribe continuing simply the "better Jew" larp. All the while actual Jews have been anglo for three millenia. Kek. Muslims NGMI
What made you think it's true that a man talked to an angel in a cave 1500 years ago?
>>18402790>appealing to Islamic sourcesYou are talking about the belief of the early Muslims. You said they had to know of this figure. Now you're moving the goalpost to authenticity of what they had. It doesn't matter, the author of the Quran had them assuming that knowledge according to your own words.>What consensus am I going against?The "Syriac Alexander Legend" being written later than when the surah was revealed. But good for you for finally admitting there was older material both were taking from. That's progress!>Why is this something needing to be "explained"?You're kidding right? It's a common tool to establish literary dependence. It's one of the ways we know the authors of the gospels copied from each other and from a common source.>Is Alexander the only figure that meets this criteria?You didn't answer the question. Yes or No>>18402810It means you are lying that's what. Now prove your claim
>>18402826NTA I have no idea what your argument was about with that anon, but from my perspective all this pilpul and talmudic quibbling over the Quran is silly. The entirety of Islam is rooted in disparate clans coming together and mashing their beliefs under one system. That's why you are so self-contradictory and fucked as a group. That's why there is so much in-fighting that some of you have formed a country called Israel out of your literalistic thinking and have taken the identity of your proposed enemies, and cause only more in-fighting. The efforts of people like Thomas Lawrence, Balinus, and the Christ in uniting your clans have fallen on deaf ears after short succesful stints time and again. You're never going to agree on semanting trivialization because you're focused on dogma over introspection
>>18402835for >>18402834
>>18402834>It means you are lying that's what.>picGo learn what Romans 3:7-8 means. Then come back and explain it to me.
>>18402835>some of you have formed a countryAre you sure it was us who created the modern country? I am pretty sure it was JudeoChristian European powers carving up the middle east as they see fit.
>>18402853Oh, you mean the "JudeoChristian European powers" that descend primarily from Southeastern countries like Carthage, Rome, and Persia? The same powers who have been subjugating the angloid disapora from Rome for the last 3000 years? Huh. Well isn't that something curious.
>>18402834>You are talking about the belief of the early Muslims.I am not. I am talking about Alexander the Great/Two Horned.>You said they had to know of this figure.Ibn Kathir is clearly aware of it and people identifying him as Alexander the Great. He disputes this based on Alexander the Great's polytheism, but clearly yes he's well-aware. He should also have been aware that Alexander's polytheism refutes the Koran, but Muslims do what Muslims do and he introduced absurd attempts to deflect this, like the absolutely unworkable chronology argument for a figure about whom no chronological information is given.>The "Syriac Alexander Legend" being written later>literary dependenceI think this is the misunderstanding. I am not saying Muhammad took that specific written source and it was his source. The Alexander Romance exists in a huge number of different forms all over the early Medieval world. They're all manifestations of the tales and legends about Alexander, multiple plants all growing out of that same soil. Even in Josephus we see the roots, remember? And as plants do, it grew and grew until Alexander is Two Horned the ardent monotheist who sealed the armies of the apocalypse away with a divine wall and found the two ends of the world where the sun sets and where it rises. Instead of Alexander III of Macedon, the real man, Greek polytheist who conquered Egypt in the West and Persia in the East and fortified a mountain pass against the Scythians in the middle. >You didn't answer the questionI did:"Same name, same theology, same actions to the same people in the same place, everything is the same down to the details."Unless you know of someone else named Two Horned who was known in the early Medieval world and was an ardent monotheist who went to the ends of the world where the sun rises and sets and build a wall of iron and copper to seal away the apocalyptic armies who will come out at the end of the world.
>>18402866Well I don't have a stake in his claims but the two horn symbolism comes from worship of the highest God or pimary source of being in Sumer, and over time became a symbol of valiance in Viking culture (horns as well as feathers), which was also itself influenced by Hermetic worshippers of the Hellenic era, which itself symbolized the same concepts as in Sumer. The Bull horns originally indicated power alone, that's why they were alone on a pedestal in the first depictions. Then, they over time became distorted as a symbol in millions of different ways. Moloch Bael is an equivalent descendant figure symbolically to Amun, Wotan, and Hermes. I would imagine Alexander was adopting that symbolism. It was the most prevalent symbol for power of the time
>>18402866>I am not.Except you are, even in this very post you're making the claim "who was known in the early Medieval world " but you tweaked it now to include everyone. As if the author of the Quran didn't intend the immediate audience (those early Muslims) to know what he was referring to when that was the very point you were trying to make lol> He disputes this based on...We went over this. He has multiple different criticisms. Why do you always repeat yourself and pretend that the discussion never happened? Sad that this is all you have>Alexander's polytheism refutes ...the work you hold to be reliable and you depend on as we have discussed. > I am not saying Muhammad took that specific written source and it was his source. Well then you're definitely going against the consensus of your orientalist scholars. You are aware that the people using your argument make specifically that claim because that text was the only other non Quranic source that brings in all of those elements together, right? At least that early on. Too bad it came later than the revelation of the surah. But in any case if you're saying these stories ultimately are sourced from all over the place. That's the same type of criticism the bible receives all the time. If you were being charitable you'd apply the same reasoning here to refute that but you aren't. >Unless you know of someone elseAnd what exactly do you think those rejecting Alexander were doing? They all propose similar figures that fit the narrative using different interpretations. Even Cyrus is a candidate you know? But don't worry we know already that you believe the God of Israel has a shepherd and messiah who is a pagan.
>>18402910>Except you areThe earliest name given for him by Muslims is indeed Alexander. Look at https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?LanguageId=1&UserProfile=0&tAyahNo=86&tDisplay=yes&tMadhNo=0&tSoraNo=18&tTafsirNo=67, what's likely our earliest tafsir. It says { وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَن ذِي ٱلْقَرْنَيْنِ } ، يعني الإسكندر قيصر "'And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnayn' meaning Alexander".>multiple different criticisms.The only one that actually works is that Alexander was a polytheist. And it works in the opposite direction: this doesn't show those who point out that it's Alexander are wrong, it shows that Muhammad was wrong. Dhul Qarnayn was a polytheist and only later legend made him a monotheist.Other than that you're stuck with a silly chronological argument, which is so utterly unworkable you refuse to even begin to defend it despite my giving the green light several times so far.>...the work you hold to be reliableAbsolutely not. It isn't reliable in the slightest. It is legend that has nothing to do with the truth. This is why Muhammad believing it and repeating it in the Koran shows that Islam is false. >Well then you're definitely going against the consensus of your orientalist scholars...Too bad it came later than the revelation of the surah. From what I have seen it's generally said to be essentially contemporary or somewhat earlier. I haven't seen any sign that there's some consensus it's significantly later, quite the opposite. It's already in Josephus, remember?>And what exactly do you think those rejecting Alexander were doing? They all propose similar figuresNo they don't. I only see Muslim apologists trying to baselessly propose other figures. Like the other anon said, everyone sees this but Muslims. >Even Cyrus is a candidateNobody but Alexander can be a candidate. We saw, directly, him having the same name same theology same deeds in the same place with the same people.
>>18402949>On the field of Hadith tradition, Muqatil was also rejected in Hadith, being accused of reporting hadith from those he never met, and in one instance, reportedly asking a local ruler if he wanted him to forge a Hadith.[3][37] lol... And now you're changing your argument again. Suddenly it's not important who the immediate audience of the prophet was but rather people using Israyliat and not even being accurate with them. Amazing source bro. Now where did the prophet and companions make the identification. They are the primary audience and after all that was your point. So why aren't you sticking to it anymore?>The only one that actually worksAnd you haven't proven that. You keep confusing your opinion for arguments.>Absolutely not. It isn't reliable in the slightest. Oh so now Jospehus is not reliable? Despite earlier saying you didn't reject the report that essentially made Alexander a prophet according to biblical standards.>significantly laterWho said that? I gave you the date 629–630 CE and it's still later than the period the surah was revealed.>No they don't.And then you contradicted yourself in the very next sentence. Impressive.>everyone sees thisappeal to majority?>Nobody but And again no argument for this. Especially one that meets your own standards
>>18403117Seems like this guy was also very familiar with Syriac material, I don't see why he couldn't have taken that interpretation from the Syriac Alexander legend which you now claim was not the source the author of the Quran used. In any case he is inserting christian traditions into his exegesis without a doubt.
>>18403117>you're changing your argumentI am answering your question about how our earliest Islamic sources identify him. Our earliest recorded identifications are Alexander the Great.We already saw the earliest tafsir and what it said. Our earliest biography of Muhammad, Sirat Rasul Allah, gets the gist of it, saying he was a Greek, though interestingly thinking one of his titles was his name. (Which we see with Two Horn itself). As you can read at https://archive.org/stream/GuillaumeLifeOfMuhammad_201709/Guillaume--Life%20of%20Muhammad_djvu.txt, he writes "whose name was Marzuban b. Mardhaba, the Greek". Marzuban is a Persian title: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/marzpan-marzoban/ so it gets the gist that it was a Greek who held power in Persia. Ibn Hisham's note directly states "His name was Alexander. He built Alexandria and it was named after him.", the latter apparently being intended to explain Ibn Ishaq's connection of him to Egypt as well.>Now where did the prophet and companions make the identification. Tabari, our second earliest tafsir, reports that Muhammad said he was Alexander the Great. You can read this at https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/50/3135/القول-في-تأويل-قوله-تعالى-ويسألونك-عن-ذي-القرنين-قل-سأتلو-عليكم-منه-ذكرا-. He writes that Muhammad said: "he was a young man from Byzantium. He came and built the city of Alexandria in Egypt" (كان شابا من الروم ، فجاء فبنى مدينة مصر الإسكندرية).>you haven't proven thatMy counterpoint over and over has been that the Koran contains no chronological information about him.>Oh so now Jospehus is not reliable? Oh, I had thought you were referring to the Alexander Romance there. That's what I was saying was factually unreliable.>no argument for thisMy very next words were.
>>18403252>I am answering your questionYou mentioned the immediate audience of the Quran, that is the people the prophet directly spoke to. Your entire point rested on that fact and so far you have brought me nothing relevant and it's not even particularly helpful for your case>whose name was MarzubanNot Alexander>Ibn Hisham gives an extensive forty-five page account of King Ṣaʿb in his work The Book of Crowns on the Kings of Himyar, relying on the Yemeni author Wahb ibn Munabbih (b. 655 CE).[45][46][47] In this account, King Ṣaʿb was a conqueror who was given the epithet Dhu al-Qarnayn after meeting a figure named Musa al Khidr in Jerusalem. He then travels to the ends of the earth, conquering or converting people until being led by al Khidr through the Land of Darkness.[4>Al-Tabari inferred that there were two Dhu al-Qarnayn's: the earlier one, called Dhu al-Qarnayn al-Akbar, who lived in the time of Abraham, and the later one, who was Alexander.[36]Yeah...>My counterpointYou can't give a counterpoint to a request for proof, what?. And I made you concede that the majority of your orientalists are wrong. You have to resort to a nebulous source>I had thoughtBecause you cannot read nor track, that is established.>My very next wordswere just restating the same thing in a different way. That's not an argument. Man how are you so bad at this?
>>18403282>You mentioned the immediate audience of the QuranYes, they indisputably had heard of Two Horned, since they asked about him.>Not AlexanderIt's a Greek with a Persian military title. And Ibm Hisham, Ibn Ishaq's editor, includes a note specifically saying this is Alexander, the one who built Alexandria. >Yeah..."Yeah" is pretty much on the money here. He quotes Muhammad, himself, saying Two Horned is Alexander the Great.>You can't give a counterpoint to a request for proofProof of what? That the Koran gives no chronological information about Two Horned? He only shows up once, if you've read the Surah then you've read all it has to say, and nothing whatsoever about chronology is given.>were just restating the same thing Because that thing is my argument. Same name same actions same place same people. We have pictures of him matching the description. The earliest Muslim sources say it is him. Our second earliest tafsir gives, with a complete chain of narrators, Muhammad himself saying it is him. I'm really at a loss to conceive of ways it could possibly be more firmly established that one person is another.
>>18403365>YesNope if they did they'd have used his name. But you of course lie and pretend your attribution is the words of the prophet. We all know if you had anything from him you'd have posted the link to sunnah.com with the hadith mentioning Alexander by his actual Greek name >It's a Greek with a Persian military title. Not Alexander, Ibn Hisham see >>18403282>is pretty much on the money hereSo you admit there is more than one two horned like Al-Tabari says?>Proof of what?"The only one that actually works", all you gave me is opinion and nothing to back it up other than dodging a request for evidence for your claims>Because that thing is my argument.Your argument is your claim?? You're so confused, I've never seen anyone else more desperate to look this bad
>>18403401>purvey stories of the foreignerslol>Alexander the pagan Egyptian Angel who was son of the Greek builder of Alexandria This is what you have to resort to.
>>18403401>Nope if they did they'd have used his nameMuhammad himself used his name.>you of course lie and pretend your attribution is the words of the prophetI quoted and linked to Tabari's report of Muhammad saying it.>Not Alexander, Ibn Hisham...says it is Alexander. Ibn Ishaq says he was a Greek. A Greek with a Persian military title. >So you admit there is more than one two horned like Al-Tabari says?As I've said before, if you're trying to argue for something from Abraham's time from Muslim sources then by definition you're using sources about two thousand years later. >all you gave me is opinion and nothing to back it up other than dodging a request for evidence for your claimsYou're asking me to prove a negative here. I talked about his other counter-argument about chronology. Are you of the opinion that there is a successful counter-argument? If so I'm all ears, you have the green light to bring it forward.>Your argument is your claimWell...yeah? My claim: "Same name same actions same place same people. We have pictures of him matching the description. The earliest Muslim sources say it is him. Our second earliest tafsir gives, with a complete chain of narrators, Muhammad himself saying it is him. I'm really at a loss to conceive of ways it could possibly be more firmly established that one person is another."That's my claim, which has been demonstrated from the sources, I believe it renders your position false and so it's my argument against it.
>>18403438>stories of the foreignersDoesn't your footnote there say "Or 'the Persians'?...And then we're given a Persian military title?>EgyptianSeems to be a bit of confusion based on Alexandria being there, which Ibn Hisham appears to explain in his note. Check the "(168)" there in your screenshot.>AngelIbn Ishaq expresses a lot of skepticism about that report there, it's in your very screenshot. He clearly regards this as a separate tradition, one he strongly doubts.>who was son of the Greek Correct >builder of AlexandriaIt bears his very name
>>18403443And yet you have no authenticated report. The rest you're just repeating yourself.>says it is AlexanderThe foreigner told him Marzuban bin Mardhaba was an Egyptian descended from a Greek. Anyway the immediate audience was not a foreigner so spreading Israyliat, so irrelevant. The same thing you linked me to says he is an Angel, looks like they weren't familiar with the guy.>You're asking me to prove a negative here.Nope, you made positive claims that only one of his criticisms worked.>>Your argument is your claim>Well...yeah? ahahahahaha, okay then. Here's one for you. Muhammad is the final prophet of God. That's my claim and my argument. I won
>>18403453Persians are foreigners to the immediate audience of the Quran, the story compiled after the revelation of the surah came from North Mesopotamia so it checks out anyway.>Seems to beass pull, he says clearly that he was an Egyptian with a Greek dad>Ibn Ishaq expresses a lot of skepticism about that report there"If he said it, then what he said was true." He's accepting the possibility he was an angel.Ibn Ishaq believes Alexander the Great was an angel?>It bearsSeems to be a bit of confusion based on "Egyptian" being there
>>18403458>The rest you're just repeating yourself.I suppose we're near a stopping point then since we're not really covering any new ground. I'm not really sure what's left to go over. >The foreigner told him Marzuban bin Mardhaba was an Egyptian descended from a GreekIndeed he did - it's a Greek, with connection to Egypt, who holds a Persian title. Ibn Hisham then has his footnote stating it's Alexander the Great.>Anyway the immediate audience was not a foreignerThey knew about Two Horned, and the speaker himself they were listening to, Muhammad, said it was Alexander.>The same thing you linked me to says he is an AngelIt really doesn't. Ibn Ishaq says he's heard that too, but he clearly has strong doubts about the report. He doesn't endorse it, merely notes it's something he's heard.>you made positive claims that only one of his criticisms workedI don't understand why you're saying this again and again. If you think he has some point with a different criticism I am all ears, you're free to present it, green means go and I'm giving you the green as I've said a half dozen times. You keep staying this but not actually bringing forth whatever effective argument you think he makes. What is it?>That's my claim and my argumentNot much of an argument since the claim is presented without any evidence. I've provided strong evidence for each thing I have claimed.>>18403468>Persians are foreigners to the immediate audience of the QuranDo you have a point...?>ass pullIt's really not. There's obviously confusion here, unless you agree that this is the full. Ibn Hisham himself says the same as me: it's Alexander who built Alexandria, in Egypt.>He's accepting the possibility he was an angel...If Muhammad said so. Which he expresses strong doubt about. >Seems to be a bit of confusion based on "Egyptian" being thereExactly, the report is garbled but recognizable, and Ibn Hisham spells it out.
>>18403477Repetitions will be ignored. Everything was addressed anyway.>it's a Greek, with connection to Egypt, who holds a Persian title.Or we could go with the text itself that says he's an Egyptian with Greek ancestry and a Persian name (probably because the Persians transmitted this)>It really doesn't.That's exactly what the report says. Based on what criteria are you accepting one but not the other?>I don't understand why you're saying thisBecause I require evidence for your positive claims. Otherwise they are simple baseless opinions and in the trash they go.>since the claim is presented without any evidenceSo just like you? Your evidence does not support the argument/claim. Mine does.>Do you have a point...?Yes, the immediate audience of the Quran didn't need foreigners to tell them who it was. That's the point you yourself have raised. And so far you keep showing me foreigners spreading their tales.>It's really not.I disagree, Ibn Hisham makes no such statement>...If Muhammad said soMeaning the man you claim everyone was so familiar with needed divine revelation to be known in the first place.>the report is garbledThen a reporter in the chain has bad memory and that weakens the report. Christians do matn criticism with no methodology and with a single report? No wonder your church fathers literally swap the word order of verses in the bible to insert their theology into the text.
>>18403497>says he's an Egyptian with Greek ancestryAmusingly, that is basically what Alexander said about himself, that he had an Egyptian father and a Greek mother. Of course that Egyptian father was Amon :P>and a Persian nameIt's not a *name* exactly. Remember how we saw from Encyclopedia Iranica that it's a title? >That's exactly what the report says. Ibn Ishaq said he's heard this but expresses intense doubt about it. >Based on what criteria are you accepting one but not the other?Ibn Ishaq says he doubts it and the doubt he expresses is quite strong, and his editor Ibn Hisham adds a note that says it's Alexander the Great.>Because I require evidenceI think you really need to rephrase what you keep saying here since I'm not picking it up. You keep saying Ibn Kathir has some knockout argument but not saying what it is despite me repeatedly saying to go ahead and go for it.Here, let's look at more of what Ibn Kathir says at https://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A/%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1_%D8%B0%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%86.I'll give it in English:>Al-Azraqi and others mentioned that Dhul-Qarnayn accepted Islam at the hands of Abraham the Friend, and that he circumambulated the honored Ka‘bah with him and with IshmaelMuhammad Al-Azraqi lived almost 3000 years after Abraham. Utterly useless as a historical source. This is no different from the Romances that have Two Horn as a devout monotheist, except here the legend is that he was a devout Muslim who did hajj. And that's really it. Ultra-late Islamic sources repeating what amounts to their own version Islamic Romance legends where Two Horn is a righteous Hajji who met Abraham and Ishmael, among other tales, are all he gives for the point. Honestly I see why you've been so hesitant to actually present this.
>>18403497>>18404275>Ibn Hisham makes no such statementDo you see the "(168)" in your screenshot? Those are Ibn Hisham's editorial notes, go to 168>Meaning the man you claim everyone was so familiarThe Koran, itself, says people ask Muhammad about Two Horn.>needed divine revelation to be known"Divine" revelation that matches Alexander Romance legends beat for beat. You objectively do not need the Koran to "know" that Two Horn is an ardent monotheist who went to the east where the sun rises and people lack protection from it and to the west where it sets in fouled water and built an iron and copper wall to keep out Gog and Magog but God will destroy it at the end and let them out. All of this you get from Alexander Romance literature.>Then a reporter in the chain has bad memory and that weakens the report.Well yes, exactly, Muhammad's environment was full of a garbled legendary version of Two Horn that he believed wholeheartedly and stuck into the Koran. That is the reason this falsifies Islam. If Muhammad presented accurate information about Two Horn then there would be no issue.
>>18404291>he had an Egyptian fatherIt says his father was Greek so it can't be him.>It's not a *name* exactly. Marzuban bin Mardhaba is a name. Father and son both are named too. What's your name? I am pretty sure it derives from some root word. And in this case it was border guard. Abu Hanifa himself has a "Marzuban" ancestor who was just a merchant.>Ibn Ishaq said he's heard thisAnd that proves it was a common belief amongst the early muslims. You're saying that he believes Alexander could have been an angel. >since I'm not picking it upIt can't get any simpler. You made a positive claim about his argument but no evidence to back it up. It's an ass pull just like everything else you're inventing on the sport right now. You are changing your argument to authenticity as we went over before. Even if it was 100% false early Muslims believed in it. This was the Quran's immediate audience. And your own point refutes you.>Ibn Hisham's editorial notesGreat and it still doesn't help you. I know the trinity confuses you but outside of that nonsense Alexander isn't the same being as his own father.>people askSo they don't know who he was now?>"Divine" revelation that matches judeochristian traditions Great and just like with the bible/talmud/etc they contain truth and falsehood. No other single source earlier than the Quran exists that combines all of these narratives the right way. You are still missing the point why that specific later Syriac text is what the orientalists push for. Rejecting it means you have whole classes of problems that you must now solve.>Well yes, exactlyThen there is no reason to believe the prophet ever said it. Simple. Thanks for conceding that your report fails our rigorous standards for authenticity. This is exactly why we don't fall into errors like believing in Jesus commanding people to eat him every Sunday
>>18402363I think it's clear to see that the guy claiming Alexander the Great is connected to the Dhul Qarnayn won the argument.
>>18404500pretty much true. all muslims do is distort history with fabricated cliams.
bump 4 phun
lol imagine falling forthis stupid dawah raid thread, they literally have a chat where they are organizing the responses. God mudslimes are pathetic.
>>18405565It’s regular shill central in this thread, quite the engagement lol
>>18404403>What made you think it's true that a man talked to an angel in a cave 1500 years ago?Sure, why not? :)
>>18396223> How do you interact with the philosophies of other non-Muslim civilizations?Plotinus is pretty interesting, the Night Journey reminds me of the short moments of enlightenment the seeker feels that he seemed to be talking about
