Did Islam Come From Babylon?

a reply to: whereislogic

Text There's something odd going on with your quotation, it says "a reply to Sahabi" but it quotes my words. Your thread has not offended me but perhaps that part of your response is really for Sahabi. There doesn't seem to be any logical justification for bringing up that subject based on my comment to me at least. Did I give you any indication of being offended in my comment or the part that you quoted? Or that your thread or commentary hits a nerve as you described it earlier?

I noted and have corrected several glitches in that very same thing on this entire thread. What is going on? I have no idea but even from the start of this thread it has been continuous errors which at first i thought was my computer. Will now try another key board and will watch that in the future.

a reply to: Seede

"I think I hit your nerve here.....

.....my thread has offended you....."

Hello there Seede. Can we focus on facts, circumstantial evidence, literary sources, and archeology, while refraining from personal assumptions? You did not hit any of my nerves, and I am not offended, because I am not a Muslim, nor do I follow any organized/authoritarian religion.

As you say that you often frequent the religious content of ATS, I guess you missed these threads authored by me?

Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

Becoming Muslim: I Did Not Read The Fine Print

Islam's Lie: "There Is No Compulsion In Religion" (2:256)

"Particularly that Jesus was not the Begotten Son of God."

I'm guilty of making one of those threads too.

Jesus Is NOT The Literal Son of God!!!

"I believe I have shown evidence that Muhammad was not as he was depicted as being....."

I have done so also. Islam's Prophet Muhammad is propagated as a peace-loving liberator of ignorance. I have highlighted that he only held this type of character during the Meccan-Era of his religious mission, and that his rise to power during the Medinan-Era of Qur'anic revelation actually corrupted his heart and turned him into an intolerant, totalitarian, war-mongering theocratic warlord.

There are two foundational eras of Islam; the passive, peaceful, and open brotherhood of the early Meccan period,... and then the controlling, intolerant, violent, murdering, and conquering Medinan period. Depending on the teachings of the Islamic era that a Muslim prefers, this is why we see beautifully peace-loving Muslims, or radically apathetic Muslims today. It is difficult to realize these two contradictory eras just from reading the Qur'an, because the sentences and verses of both eras are mixed and intertwined, instead of being chronologically coherent.

"One very important thing to consider is that Islamic faith hinges upon the Hebrew faith but that the Hebrew God did not make any covenant with Ishmael at any time. The covenant was with Abram and with Isaac but never with Ishmael."

I opine that you are completely wrong on this fact. I made a thread about this too:

Why Bastardize Ishmael but not the Tribes of Israel? The binding of Isaac or Ishmael?

I that thread, I clearly and methodically illustrate, from purely Biblical scripture, that Ishmael is indeed the legitimate first born son of Abraham, born from Abraham's second wife Hagar, that Ishmael received blessings from God, and that if we attempt to bastardize Ishmael based upon man-made dogma and reasoning, then that we must also bastardized the Israel Tribes of Gad, Asher, Dan, and Naphtali.

Go ahead and give the thread a look over, and let us know what you think.

"In that respect is the main reason that Muhammad cannot claim any legal form of authority in the Hebrew mind. I realize what the Quran says and I realize what the book of Hadiths teaches as I also realize that there is nothing that substantiates the Hebrew conception that this Islamic Muhammad can claim to be a Hebrew prophet."

Muhammad was of the "Hebrew mind", as he, himself, was Hebrew.

In the post: Hebrew Branch of the "House of Shem", in my ATS thread, "Noahic Curse: "Japheth dwells in the tents of Shem", I laid out a clear genealogy illustrating that both the Pure-Arabs and the Ishmaeli-Arabs (Arabized-Arabs) are directly descended from Eber, the patriarch of all Hebrew People.

"because if this Muhammad is of the same faith as Abram then that means that he would have been a prophet of the same God as Abram."

I agree here. Muhammad often proclaimed that he was a prophet of the God of Abraham. In this thread of yours, I've already provided ample evidence that El and Allah are related.

When we study the Biblical scriptures, we find evidence that Abraham was an adherent of El, while Jacob/Israel took on the worship of a Benei Elohim known as YHWH, JHVH, Yahweh, Jehovah, and "LORD God".

If you'd like to explore this reasoning of mine, feel free to check out my ATS thread:
New Proposed Etymology: "Israel"




In conclusion, and as already mentioned in this thread, the Qur'an states that Allah created the moon, sun, and stars,... Muhammad forbid any images or representations,... and the Crescent Moon and Star symbol was incorporated into Islamic culture through the most recent Islamic Empire: Ottoman Turks.

a reply to: Seede

Very interesting read. Thanks for sharing. I’m still trying to read everyone’s response.
Switching back to Egypt and the Exodus of the Hebrews…

I have always been puzzled as to why the Israelites fall back to a cow god at Mt. Sinai. After browsing ATS for a long time I have come to the conclusion that the Great Pyramid of Giza was originally built for Sin. You say the dual horn is a representation of Sin. Well, a sacred horned bull may be the motivation behind the construction of that pyramid. This bull god is known as Apis to the Egyptians.



www.cheops-pyramide.ch...

The “double gabled roof with a box below it” seems to be the most common hieroglyph of this deity. You can see variant hieroglyphs of his name on the wikipage below.

Apis deity

Great Pyramid of Giza


The Great Pyramid of Giza, currently attributed to the Egyptian pharaoh Khufu, has three important areas that demonstrate the double gabled roof construction. These include the top of the Queen’s chamber, the top of the King’s chamber and the Main entrance.

The Main entrance.


The King’s chamber


The Queen’s chamber


www.cheops-pyramide.ch...

There was no writing found on the walls in the pyramid, except for one graffiti mark by a construction worker in a hidden location. The inconspicuous hieroglyph was Khufu’s name but the bulk of the walls were to remain empty.

I came to this conclusion about these amazing pyramids after reading that the untouched tomb of Khafre (the large middle pyramid) only contained bull bones when it was first excavated. Knowing all this I believe the pyramid of Khufu was really meant to house a sacred bull. Apis and Sin could be interchangeable.

Did you know the Enoch 1 mentions Noah and his sons as colored cows in a prophetic parable? I believe the Jews picked up Enoch 1 after leaving the Babylonian captivity. I believe it was housed in the ancient Babylonian archives.

a reply to: Sahabi

Text Hello there Seede. Can we focus on facts, circumstantial evidence, literary sources, and archeology, while refraining from personal assumptions? You did not hit any of my nerves, and I am not offended, because I am not a Muslim, nor do I follow any organized/authoritarian religion.

No we cannot focus on facts without circumstantial evidence because it doesn't exist. That is why we call it theology and that is what this type of forum is for. I don't believe that I had suggested you were Muslim nor have I suggested that I fault you even if you were Muslim. That choice belongs to each individual as they see life and that should include me as well as you.

I had read your threads that you have listed and have given you stars and much credit for your scholarly knowledge and presentation of that knowledge. You have done a marvelous and I believe a very understandable presentation. My thread was purposed for only one avenue of thought and to be as simplified as possible so that ATS readers could read, understand, and check material that is readily available to them.

In conclusion, and as already mentioned in this thread, the Qur'an states that Allah created the moon, sun, and stars,... Muhammad forbid any images or representations,... and the Crescent Moon and Star symbol was incorporated into Islamic culture through the most recent Islamic Empire: Ottoman Turks.

I also have agreed that the Ottoman Empire introduced the iconography of moon and stars but I also disagree in that if this is not accepted by Islam today then modern structures since the demise of the Ottoman Empire would not have this same iconography. This plainly shows the acceptance of this iconography by the Muslim faith and by the Muslim nation of Saudi Arabia. It cannot be shown that it is still in practice today in a Muslim state owned structure and still not be accepted by that same Muslim owned Saudi state. That makes no common sense whatsoever.

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: Seede

When we study the Biblical scriptures, we find evidence that Abraham was an adherent of El, while Jacob/Israel took on the worship of a Benei Elohim known as YHWH, JHVH, Yahweh, Jehovah, and "LORD God".

When I study the Biblical Scriptures (not something else) without trying to find something to argue for my preferred version of history, I find extremely clear evidence that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the same one. For example (which is by no means all the evidence available):

Exodus 3:6,7 (NW)
He went on to say: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at the true God. 7 Jehovah added: “I have certainly seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and I have heard their outcry because of those who force them to work; I well know the pains they suffer.

(ASV, Darby and YLT likewise use "Jehovah" in verse 7)

Genesis 28:13
13 And look! there was Jehovah stationed above it, and he said:
“I am Jehovah the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you are lying, to you I am going to give it and to your offspring.

Genesis 32:9
9 After that Jacob said: “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O Jehovah, you who are saying to me, ‘Return to your land and to your relatives, and I will deal well with you,’

Matthew 22:32
32 ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.”

Acts 7:32
32 ‘I am the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob.’ Moses started trembling and did not dare to investigate further.

Genesis 2:4
4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah* God made earth and heaven.

*: The first occurrence of God’s distinctive personal name, יהוה (YHWH). See App. A4.

And for those who like the argument I recently read from ChesterJohn about people not using the name Jehovah/יהוה before Moses was told something that was meant figuratively somewhere in Exodus 3.

Genesis 4:1
Now Adam had sexual relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant. When she gave birth to Cain, she said: “I have produced* [Or “given birth to.”] a male child with the help of Jehovah.”

That would be the first recorded instance of a human saying God's name in the bible (unless I missed one, and that's not saying that they didn't say that name before that quotation, which they probably did).

Genesis 17:
When Aʹbram was 99 years old, Jehovah appeared to Aʹbram and said to him: “I am God Almighty. Walk before me and prove yourself faultless.* [Or “blameless.”] 2 I will establish my covenant between me and you, and I will multiply you very, very much.”

3 At this Aʹbram fell facedown, and God continued to speak with him, saying: 4 “As for me, look! my covenant is with you, and you will certainly become a father of many nations. 5 Your name will no longer be Aʹbram;* [Meaning “Father Is High (Exalted).”] your name will become Abraham,* [Meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude); Father of Many.”] for I will make you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very, very fruitful and will make you become nations, and kings will come from you.

Genesis 18:3 (he = Abraham, don't want to have to quote too much)
Then he said: “Jehovah, if I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant.

Abraham was a servant of Jehovah God, just like Isaac, Jacob and Jesus.

Acts 3:13
The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus, whom you handed over and disowned before Pilate, even though he had decided to release him.

And so on and so on, so much evidence from the bible, it's hard to choose when to stop. The frequent use of referring to "the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob" might make one almost wonder about Someone (hint, hint ) anticipating a contradicting argument as put forward by Sahabi.

2 Peter 3:15,16
Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant* [Or “untaught.”] and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Well, I might as well do Isaac (the father of Jacob and son of Abraham) as well...
Genesis 26:22-25 (he = Isaac)
Later he moved away from there and dug another well, but they did not quarrel over it. So he named it Re·hoʹboth and said: “It is because now Jehovah has given us ample room and has made us fruitful in the land.”

23 Then he went up from there to Beʹer-sheʹba. 24 That night Jehovah appeared to him and said: “I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you, and I will bless you and multiply your offspring on account of Abraham my servant.” 25 So he built an altar there and called on the name of Jehovah. And Isaac pitched his tent there, and his servants dug a well there.

Pretty consistent I'd say...

13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah* will be saved.” (Romans 10:13; see also Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21)

*: See App. A5.

And everyone who belongs to this category...
Jeremiah 23:
25 “I have heard the prophets who are prophesying lies in my name say, ‘I had a dream! I had a dream!’ 26 How long will this continue in the heart of the prophets, to prophesy lies? They are prophets of the deceit of their own heart. 27 They intend to make my people forget my name by the dreams they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot my name because of Baʹal. 28 Let the prophet who has a dream relate the dream, but the one who has my word should speak my word truthfully.”

“What does the straw have in common with the grain?” declares Jehovah.

29 “Is not my word just like a fire,” declares Jehovah, “and like a forge hammer that smashes the crag?”

30 “So here I am against the prophets,” declares Jehovah, “who steal my words from one another.”

31 “Here I am against the prophets,” declares Jehovah, “those who use their tongue to say, ‘He declares!’”

32 “Here I am against the prophets of lying dreams,” declares Jehovah, “who relate them and lead my people astray because of their lies and their boasting.”

“But I did not send them or command them. So they will not benefit this people at all,” declares Jehovah.

33 “And when this people or a prophet or a priest asks you, ‘What is the burden* of Jehovah?’ you should reply to them, ‘“You people are the burden! And I will cast you off,” declares Jehovah.’ [*: Or “burdensome message.” The Hebrew word has a double meaning: “a weighty divine pronouncement” or “something burdensome.”]

2 Corinthians 11:14, 15
14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.

a reply to: Sahabi

Text If you'd like to explore this reasoning of mine, feel free to check out my ATS thread: New Proposed Etymology: "Israel"

I did and I thought it was a very good paper indeed. You also resemble the Scholar Dr. Michael Heiser in that it is almost the very same understanding that he teaches. My opinion is that if I did not believe otherwise you could be the image of Dr. Heiser.

With that teaching in mind, I find no quarrel with Heiser nor with your paper on the same premise. I have not only read but have re read your premise and compared it with Dr. Heiser and find it most agreeable. That shows me that you are a cut above the average and have the gift of expression.

I do agree that your understanding is based upon the Judaic understanding but not totally upon the Nazarene teachings of the same literature. That is the prerogative of theology. Judaic philosophy is far removed from Nazarene philosophy in certain matters such as the heavenly council and El being related to Yahweh. That could lead into an entirely different concept of understanding the God of Moses by my understanding. Most people who are dogmatic in religion will not consider or will not even try to understand the connections of differences in religions. All religions originate from traditions and most all are edited and rethought in time. We have no autographs of any religions and certainly could never
challenge any word without the autographs. Word play is a game of theology with no certainty as you well know. With all respect I admire your threads and posts.

a reply to: lostinspace

I have always been puzzled as to why the Israelites fall back to a cow god at Mt. Sinai. After browsing ATS for a long time I have come to the conclusion that the Great Pyramid of Giza was originally built for Sin. You say the dual horn is a representation of Sin. Well, a sacred horned bull may be the motivation behind the construction of that pyramid. This bull god is known as Apis to the Egyptians.

Very good indeed and am still thinking on your Egyptian concept of the god Nanna/Sin. Great information which I was not aware of and am now reading more of.

The Israelites prior to the Exodus were kept from the god Sin by exclusion [racial prejudice] only. This made it more secure for the Levites to keep their God EL predominate with the tribes of Israel. They were not allowed to be considered Sin's children because they were considered outsiders and only invaders of the Egyptian culture.

When Moses ascended Mt. Sin, the Israelites did not expect it to entail a forty day wait and see operation. Actually I do not even believe Aaron expected the long conference of which Moses and God took in this covenant. My opinion is that the people lost faith in El because they thought that Moses was wrong and the Egyptian god Sin was correct. The calf or horned bull was a long tradition that associated the horned animal as being Nanna/Sin and in this fear of reprisal from denial of the great god Sin, the Israelites decided to abandon EL and accept Sin.

Along with this decision to choose Nanna/Sin over EL comes the fact that Nanna/Sin embraced sexual perversions and discredited the commands of El as was taught by the Levitical teachers while in Egypt. It was more fun to be free of those restrictions that Israel was taught. Everybody can be a god to themselves under the Father god Sin. And so we have the very same happening today.

The only complete rendition of Enoch 1 comes to us today through the Ethiopian bible [which is the oldest bible in the world today] and we should not forget that Moses was king of Ethiopia for forty years. That could suggest where the Enochian literature might have been kept. Just food for thought.

Want to thank you for a great bunch of thoughts lostinspace --

a reply to: Seede

Did Moses obtain his wife in Ethiopia as well? I knew she was dark skinned. Where did you get that info about him being king of Ethiopia for 40 years?




Maybe the original form of the Sphinx was Apis the bull.

a reply to: lostinspace

Text Did Moses obtain his wife in Ethiopia as well? I knew she was dark skinned. Where did you get that info about him being king of Ethiopia for 40 years?

Lewis Ginzberg is the author of four volumes called "The Legends Of The Jews" and I believe you can down load the four volumes from the internet. It has been quite some years ago [long before internet] that I purchased the hard copy while in my studies in London. In fact I just now completed looking this up and it in Volume 2 and pages 192-197. That is in this series that I have. The pages may vary by the printer's fonts and page length.

The story as told by tradition is that Moses fled from Egypt and in his travels came across the Ethiopian army led by the king of Ethiopia who had engaged the rebellious subjects of eastern lands and had punished them. In returning to his throne he found that he had been overthrown by Ballaam and his two sons. King Kikanos of Ethiopia then instructed a siege against his capital which lasted 9 years and had employed Moses as a great schooled Strategist in his army.

Within that 9 years the King fell ill and died leaving no one to succeed him. By vote, Moses was chosen to be the best replacement even though the king had left a young son and a wife named Adoniah. Moses was 27 when he became king and reigned 40 years. At this time the people rebelled against Moses as he was not of their race and the rightful son of Kikanos should be king. Moses agreed that it was a proper birthright and stepped down. The marriage to the queen was never consummated and Moses left Ethiopia in great respect and love of the people as well as great wealth from the subjects of Ethiopia. Moses was 67 years old when he left Ethiopia and trekked to Midian.

That is the general outline of Moses as a military man. He was regarded as a great military man and a great warrior who had seen many battles as King. Most people are not aware of the fact that Moses was a bloody man

Numbers 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

It is tradition that Miriam and Aaron were not privy to all that Moses had done and had assumed that He had consummated the automatic marriage of a Queen and King. With out realizing the custom and the circumstances of Moses being the king, it was assumed by Miriam and Aaron that Moses took a Canaanite to wed which was against their instructions from God. The punishment to Miriam was because she instigated the entire matter. Actually it was a racial matter which God did not honor just the same as the Ethiopians wanted their own blood as king.

a reply to: Seede

Thanks for the giving me the source and writing out the legend in the post. Very interesting indeed.

I've read portions of Legends of the Jews but did not read or remember that part. When I first stumbled across Legends of the Jews I was searching for extra sources on the great deluge. I was looking to see if there was some astronomical event that caused the massive rainfall. Let me just say, the passage content was better than I expected. The legend mentioned stars being re-positioned but I knew it meant planets.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Source this please

a reply to: Seede

originally posted by: Seede
I also have agreed that the Ottoman Empire introduced the iconography of moon and stars but I also disagree in that if this is not accepted by Islam today then modern structures since the demise of the Ottoman Empire would not have this same iconography. This plainly shows the acceptance of this iconography by the Muslim faith and by the Muslim nation of Saudi Arabia. It cannot be shown that it is still in practice today in a Muslim state owned structure and still not be accepted by that same Muslim owned Saudi state. That makes no common sense whatsoever.

Eh?
What on earth is the relevance of what a Muslim state does TODAY (going back only to about 600-700 years ago) got to do with theological history of over 1400 years ago?
If people suddenly started using the nazi swastika to represent christianity, would that have any relevance at all to what Jesus himself taught?

It makes no difference, and it is utterly irrelevant what a hotel today has on its building. If you could show any reference to the crescent or crescent and star used in Islam that is contemporary to Muhammad, then THAT would be relevant. Otherwise, in your own words, your argument makes no common sene whatsoever

a reply to: babloyi

Eh? What on earth is the relevance of what a Muslim state does TODAY (going back only to about 600-700 years ago) got to do with theological history of over 1400 years ago? If people suddenly started using the nazi swastika to represent christianity, would that have any relevance at all to what Jesus himself taught? It makes no difference, and it is utterly irrelevant what a hotel today has on its building. If you could show any reference to the crescent or crescent and star used in Islam that is contemporary to Muhammad, then THAT would be relevant. Otherwise, in your own words, your argument makes no common sene whatsoever

I believe you have missed the point entirely. The relevance is not totally what the Muslim state of today is in comparison to 600 or 700 years ago. The relevance in this discussion is “Did Islam Originate In Babylon.”

The iconography topic came about as only one aspect of the entire subject of a standard representing Islam. I used the Islamic flag as an example but should have used the entire iconography of crescent and star which in various times in the past has and still does represent Islam.

The hotel is more than just a hotel. The clock tower of Makkah [hotel] has a prayer room built into the crescent of which towers as the finished pinnacle of the building. This hotel is strictly for those of the Islamic faith and overlooks the Kaaba in Medina. The hotels purpose is to house those who purpose is to take part in the ritual of Kaaba. So to infer that it is simply another hotel is to cloud the issue entirely. Infidels are not allowed near the Kaaba nor any of its facilities.

If people suddenly started using the nazi swastika to represent christianity, would that have any relevance at all to what Jesus himself taught?

It most certainly would if Jesus indeed had an army that slaughtered those who would not accept His premise. But being that Jesus taught love and not murder makes that a ridiculous comparison. You could make that relevant with the Nazi swastika and Islam as both have the likeness of murder.

If you could show any reference to the crescent or crescent and star used in Islam that is contemporary to Muhammad, then THAT would be relevant. Otherwise, in your own words, your argument makes no common sene whatsoeverText

That is the very subject matter of this thread. To make that contemporary to Muhammad is to realize that the face of Islam has changed outwardly but not inwardly. The Ottoman Empire used the iconography of crescent and star of the moon god Sin up to and including its demise. The worshipers of the moon god of Babylon also used the very same iconography and belief as that of the Ottoman Turks. You seem to be of the mind that the crescent and star are the only factors in your contemporary understanding on this subject and also you seem to overlook the Kaaba and black stone of the moon god Sin which is adopted by Muhammad.

Now if you are saying that somehow the Islamic Ottoman Turks were of a different understanding than the Muslims of today, then you have a case to consider. All were and are of the father of Islam [Muhammad] but the overwhelming evidence shows the religion of Muhammad originates from the Kaaba and the stone of the moon god Sin. This stone of the god Sin was but one of the many [over 300] gods of Kaaba long before Muhammad was even thought of and evidence shows that he [Muhammad] cast out all gods from Kaaba except the moon god Sin.

It is strongly believed that this god Sin became the Allah of Muhammad and became represented by the crescent and star which had existed and still exists in the very religion that Muhammad himself established. Today that very symbolism is shown in many structures as well as Muslim literature. This crescent of Makkah is likewise shown in the very Muslim nation who controls the Ka'aba and by the same Muslim family who built this hotel. You would have to be totally ignorant not to understand that the moon god of Islam is sanctified by this very same iconography that has existed since before Muhammad established it and even allowed Sin and his black rock to survive in the very shrine [Ka'aba] in Mecca today.

Of course this is my opinion only --------

a reply to: Seede

originally posted by: Seede
I believe you have missed the point entirely. The relevance is not totally what the Muslim state of today is in comparison to 600 or 700 years ago. The relevance in this discussion is “Did Islam Originate In Babylon.”

The iconography topic came about as only one aspect of the entire subject of a standard representing Islam. I used the Islamic flag as an example but should have used the entire iconography of crescent and star which in various times in the past has and still does represent Islam.

I get the point totally. It's in the subject of the thread. And as part of the subject, you mentioned iconography. And since you mention iconography, I addressed iconography. I realise it is "only one aspect", but it is listed there. Are you acknowledging that that aspect of your thread turned out to be somewhat erroneous? I can stop addressing it, then.

originally posted by: Seede
The hotel is more than just a hotel. The clock tower of Makkah [hotel] has a prayer room built into the crescent of which towers as the finished pinnacle of the building. This hotel is strictly for those of the Islamic faith and overlooks the Kaaba in Medina. The hotels purpose is to house those who purpose is to take part in the ritual of Kaaba. So to infer that it is simply another hotel is to cloud the issue entirely. Infidels are not allowed near the Kaaba nor any of its facilities.

Your line of reasoning is faulty. The entire city of Makkah (the Kaaba is in Makka and not Medina) is only for muslims. That doesn't attach any relevance or meaning to any and every building there. The the iconography of the McDonalds in Makkah isn't special because only muslims go there, and it has a prayer area.

originally posted by: Seede
It most certainly would if Jesus indeed had an army that slaughtered those who would not accept His premise. But being that Jesus taught love and not murder makes that a ridiculous comparison.

I'm sorry, but Revelation lays out that Jesus will do exactly all that- lead an army that will wage war against all who do not accept him, his robes dripped in blood, he will strike them down and release the fiery wrath of God so much so that every people on earth will mourn because of him, and after doing that, will rule with an iron rod. So you're saying the connection is even stronger (than the off-hand comparison I made to exemplify the absurdity of the premise)?

originally posted by: Seede
It is strongly believed that this god Sin became the Allah of Muhammad and became represented by the crescent and star which had existed and still exists in the very religion that Muhammad himself established. Today that very symbolism is shown in many structures as well as Muslim literature.

Strongly believed by you? As I keep saying, the crescent and moon was completely and totally absent from islamic iconography up until the 14th century, 700 years after the death of Muhammad (who neither used nor advocated the use of any emblem for the religion of Islam), after which it was adopted as the emblem of an empire that just happened to be made up of muslims, that conquered vast portions of what is the Muslim world today, through which it spread through the muslim world.

a reply to: babloyi

Your line of reasoning is faulty. The entire city of Makkah (the Kaaba is in Makka and not Medina) is only for muslims. That doesn't attach any relevance or meaning to any and every building there. The the iconography of the McDonalds in Makkah isn't special because only muslims go there, and it has a prayer area.

Yes, I do stand corrected in that the Ka'aba is in Makkah which I did type, Medina, as the wrong city. Nevertheless, is there not a hadith that states Mohammed, on his death bed, said that 'no two religions can co-exist' in Arabia? Upon that premise is the city of Makkah not only is off limits to non Muslims but that all non Muslims, if discovered, are deported? If that be true then it does indeed include all buildings in the city of Makkah does it not? If all infidels are subject to be expelled from the entire city then it stands to reason that it does include all buildings that the infidels are occupying. Common sense?

As I keep saying, the crescent and moon was completely and totally absent from islamic iconography up until the 14th century, 700 years after the death of Muhammad (who neither used nor advocated the use of any emblem for the religion of Islam), after which it was adopted as the emblem of an empire that just happened to be made up of muslims, that conquered vast portions of what is the Muslim world today, through which it spread through the muslim world.

That is an excuse and not a statement. Let us assume that what you have said is true, where is the iconography of Muhammad today? Are you telling me that Muhammad had no standard? That is not true and you know it to be not true. As I have said before, the standard [face] of Islam has changed many times with many people and that the Ottoman Empire was but one of the many changes in iconography. It makes no difference whether the Turkish flag had an eight pointed star yester year and today banners a six pointed star. What matters is that they still use the same Quran and are a 98 percent Muslim country.

The Muslims of the 12th century were just as qualified as being Muslim as the Muslims of today. The standard of Turkey today is a white crescent and six pointed star on a red field while being about 98 percent Muslim. Those Muslims of Turkey are just as qualified as the Saudi Muslims are they not? The Saudi standard is a white sword on a green field while over 95 percent are Muslim Are both nations Muslim and do both nations use the same book of faith? As you can see the national iconography of Muslims have and will continue to change but does not alter the faith of Islam. The very same reasoning applies to the Babylonian era as it does today in that iconography is not the primary factor. Muhammad is known to have had several standards during his rule but those standards did not alter his dictating his will to the conquered moon worshipers.

I'm sorry, but Revelation lays out that Jesus will do exactly all that- lead an army that will wage war against all who do not accept him, his robes dripped in blood, he will strike them down and release the fiery wrath of God so much so that every people on earth will mourn because of him, and after doing that, will rule with an iron rod. So you're saying the connection is even stronger (than the off-hand comparison I made to exemplify the absurdity of the premise)?

Jesus shall never return as the man Jesus. Christianity believes that Jesus has perished as flesh and has been restored as the Begotten Son of The Most High Father and now resides in the heaven of His Father. His substance has been changed from flesh to celestial.

Jesus returns to establish His 1,000 years reign of this world as The Word Of God in the book of Revelation. His wrath is not against those who do not accept Him but only those who war against Him. That is a big difference than what you have presented. Muhammad waged war and slaughtered millions who would not accept his opinions and in that comparison it is not true that the Christ will do the same. At the end of the reign of the Word of God is when the end of this creation will all disintegrate and then those who did not accept the name of Jesus as the Begotten Son Of God will be judged unfit for His kingdom. So as you can see that the gift of choice has never been taken from any of His creation and The Word Of God does not slaughter those who disagree with Him.

a reply to: babloyi

I'm sorry, but Revelation lays out that Jesus will do exactly all that- lead an army that will wage war against all who do not accept him,

Incorrect ....show me where it says believe or die

Revelation 19:11-16New King James Version (NKJV) Christ on a White Horse 11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had[a] a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp[c] sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

a reply to: the2ofusr1
This is hilarious
This entire thread seems to have started as an attempt to show the "moral"(?)/theological(?) superiority of Christianity over Islam, and then when I made an offhand remark as a form of comparison to give an example, people really seem to have gone off the rails needing to "defend".

Don't be so insecure about your faith.


But yeah, Jesus doesn't appear to say "Convert or die". I don't think the option to convert is even given. All the stuff in Revelation seems to be about killing all the rulers and people in power, killing all the opposers of truth, destroying all his enemies, so much so that EVERY PEOPLE ON EARTH will mourn.

Real peaceful. So yeah, "Jesus is ALL about love and not murder" (except when he's about murder). It'd only work if Jesus indeed had an army that slaughtered those who would not accept His premise (which he will).

The Prince of Peace and the Lord of Hosts!

Are you done being insecure about the violence your religious book promises (and preached) so we can get back on topic?

a reply to: Seede

Good thread ...one of the better YTubers on Islam is David Wood . He gives sources to how modern day Islam came to be but also has some ancient sources ...go to 5:40 and listen for a short . you will get a laugh I guarantee it

a reply to: babloyi

Don't be so insecure about your faith. But yeah, Jesus doesn't appear to say "Convert or die".

I am quite secure in my faith but thought I should point out your error seeing it was attached to a comparison of Jesus to your false prophet . The biggest problem Muslims seem to have is believing the lies told to them by their teachers . The koran says kill but the teachers say its a peaceful religion . David Wood points out many many inconsistencies within the religion . In fact there could not be a bigger pagan religion to have ever been on earth other then maybe before the flood .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
I am quite secure in my faith but thought I should point out your error seeing it was attached to a comparison of Jesus to your false prophet . The biggest problem Muslims seem to have is believing the lies told to them by their teachers . The koran says kill but the teachers say its a peaceful religion . David Wood points out many many inconsistencies within the religion . In fact there could not be a bigger pagan religion to have ever been on earth other then maybe before the flood .

I'm sorry, I never made any comparison between Jesus and Muhammad. Like I mentioned, I have no such insecure need to prove one better than the other. I had simply used Jesus as part of an off-hand comment to show the absurdity of one of the OP's arguments.
But it really seems to be irking you, so much so that you've turned "Did Islam Come From Babylon?" to "No, Jesus totally won't slaughter loads of people" to now "Nuhuhh, but Muhammad is so much worse!"
I don't need to compare to Muhammad to point out that Jesus will bring death, destruction, bloodshed and mourning to every people on earth. It's written right there in the Bible. The fact that in your eyes the people who will be meted out this justice would deserve it is not relevant.

Also, treating the guy behind answering-islam as a serious source of knowledge is pretty funny too. I watched some of his arguments from the video you linked, it seems to be down to "Islam says Abraham did this, but Abraham couldn't have done this, because the Bible says he doesn't".
So....useful?