Sui,
I am a non-Muslim, so I have no obligation to accept the authority of what Islam says in response to objections I level at it. You cannot refute my objections against Islam with what Islam says, that is called begging the question. I am interested in only secular information. Please try to look outside of Islam to see what secular historians are saying.
So if a single king refers to solely himself as "we", then we should just assume he's schizophrenic? That hardly seems logical. It is nothing more than a form of language. The Quran is written very formally and considered the masterpiece of the Arabic language, therefore I don't find it odd that the majestic plural would be encountered.
A king is a servant of its subjects. He speaks on behalf of the state, not on his own behalf. If you are saying Allah is just like a king, then Allah is our servent. But this goes against Islamic theology which claims Allah is the supreme, one without a second, answerable to no one, then why would Allah say "We" Why does he not say "I created man from an extract from clay"
As a non-Muslim I think that Allah was nothing more than Mohammed's servant, catering to his every need and wish and when the plural we is used, I think it means, "Allah and Mohammed" it is the most direct evidence of the subconscious process behind the Qurans compositon. If you read non-Muslim discourses, the idea that Allah was an alter-ego of Mohammed is a widely discussed one.
As soon as I saw the link, I was tempted not to read the article, simply because it is from faithfreedom.org. In any case, I still took a look. I'm not impressed at all and I don't see why you would be either.
I can see why would not be impressed, but a secular non-Muslim would find no reason to reject what this man is saying. That is because the author is producing real evidence to support what he is saying. He even challenges Muslims to prove him wrong, and if they do, he will take down the site. Besides, anyone with knowledge in the history of the Middle east, knows clearly that Allah was originally a pagan god. This is secular knowledge, partial to no religion.
The Pagan Arabs knew Allah to be the Almighty God because of Abraham (pbuh). With his son Ishmael, he built the Kabah in Makkah. In turn, the descendants of Ishmael (pbuh) passed down the beliefs and worship rites all the way down to the Arabs of the time of Muhammad (pbuh). Though with the passing of these generations, the Arabs began using idols.
There is another discussion going on this issue exactly. The fact is there is no other source that supports this, thus due to the lack of transparency, I cannot accept what Muslims say here. The secular evidence clearly indicates that the Kabah was a Pagan shrine, containing 360 idols, of which Mohammed's own uncles were priests. There are no records of this being built by Abraham anywhere. In fact the earliest records we have of Abraham, the Hebrew texts, mention nothing about a Kabah or Muslims.
You have a burden of proof to prove the Kabah was built by Abraham, and saying that "Mohammed says so" is begging the question i'm afraid.
It makes no sense that a verse promoting idolatry would be put in the middle of a chapter where idolatry is strongly condemned.
Proof by contradiction is not proof unless you can show that something which contains no contradictions has an odd contradiction. The fact is, again from a secular perspective, the Quran and Hadiths are full of contradictions.
The alternative hypothesis which is the simplest explanation is that Muhammed included those verses to convert the Meccans in the earlier years of Islam, but due to the opposition by his followers, he had them removed claiming he was possessed by satan when they were revealed.
Actually this is exactly what the Hadith reports:
From Wiki: Satanic verses
The prophet was eager for the welfare of his people, desiring to win them to him by any means he could. It has been reported that he longed for a way to win them, and part of what he did to that end is what Ibn Humayd told me, from Salama, from
Muhammad ibn Ishaq, from Yazīd ibn Ziyād al-Madanī, from Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazī:
When the prophet saw his people turning away from him, and was tormented by their distancing themselves from what he had brought to them from
God, he longed in himself for something to come to him from God which would draw him close to them. With his love for his people and his eagerness for them, it would gladden him if some of the hard things he had found in dealing with them could be alleviated. He pondered this in himself, longed for it, and desired it.
Then God sent down the revelation. 'By the star when it sets! Your companion has not erred or gone astray, and does not speak from mere fancy
' [Q.53:1] When he reached God's words, "Have you seen al-Lāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt, the third, the other?' [Q.53:19-20] Satan cast upon his tongue, because of what he had pondered in himself and longed to bring to his people, 'These are the high-flying cranes and their intercession is to be hoped for.'
When
Quraysh heard that, they rejoiced. What he had said about their gods pleased and delighted them, and they gave ear to him. The Believers trusted in their prophet with respect to what he brought them from their Lord: they did not suspect any slip, delusion or error. When he came to the prostration and finished the chapter, he prostrated and the Muslims followed their prophet in it, having faith in what he brought them and obeying his command. Those
mushrikūn of Quraysh and others who were in the mosque also prostrated on account of what they had heard him say about their gods. In the whole mosque there was no believer or
kāfir who did not prostrate. Only al-Walīd bin al-Mughīra, who was an aged
shaykh and could not make prostration, scooped up in his hand some of the soil from the valley of Mecca [and pressed it to his forehead]. Then everybody dispersed from the mosque.
Quraysh went out and were delighted by what they had heard of the way in which he spoke of their gods. They were saying, 'Muhammad has referred to our gods most favourably. In what he has recited he said that they are "high-flying
cranes who intercession is to be hoped for".'
Those followers of the Prophet who had emigrated to the land of Abyssinia heard about the affair of the prostration, and it was reported to them that Quraysh had accepted Islam. Some men among them decided to return while others remained behind.
Gabriel came to the Prophet and said, O Muhammad, what have you done! You have recited to the people something which I have not brought you from God, and you have spoken what He did not say to you.'
Please try to see this from a non-Muslim perspective and you will understand why we are incredulous. A man claims he is a prophet of god from the linage of other prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus. He reveals passages from the Quran which is apparently coming from god directly. Then he reveals another passage, and his followers detecting the contradiction are angry and infuritated. Noticing this the man says, "Oh wait, sorry I was under the influence of Satan for that verse" and retracts it. That to us sounds like conveniance and brings the credibility of Muhammed into severe scrutiny. Even if we accept that his man was under the influence of Satan at times, then how do we know he was not under the influnce of Satan at others time, or the rest of the times, or all of the time?
It's a bit like me saying something which causes mass upset, and then retracting it and claiming I did not say it, something else made me say it. If anyone believes that they would have to be very gullible.
It can't be fact if it isn't true. We don't worship the Black Stone. It is considered of a sign of Allah and the only reason people kiss it is because Muhammad (pbuh) kissed it. Most people don't even try to kiss it anyway, since not everyone can fit on the main floor - everyone else must circle on the upper floors. Other than that, the only importance of the Black Stone is it marks the start and end point of circumbulation. If it were really an object of worship, Islam would not have been able to function without it when it was taken away from Makkah in 930 CE and not returned until about 70 years later.
What you are describing is idol worship. This is idol worship. If this particular black stone is considered a sign of Allah, what about the countless other black stones that were worshipped through pre-Islamic Arabia, were they all signs of Allah? In that case Allah is none other than the Arabic Pagan god Manat, the moon god. Which means that Islam of today is nothing more than reformed paganism.
A secular historian can clearly see that just like Judaism went from polytheism to monotheism, but there are still traces of polytheism in it. Likewise, Arabic Paganism went from polytheism to monotheism, and there are still traces of polytheism in it.
???