farouk
Active Member
Peace upon the seekers of knowledge.
J2hapydna wrote
"You have proved that the Christians chronicled that this is what the Arabs were saying. It doesn't mean these Christians spoke to the prophet and independently verified from him if he was claiming to be the son of Ishmael or not".
I have dealt with this in post 55 in detail.
J2hapydna wrote.
"So the first question could be, how did the Arabs know if he was the descendant of Ishmael?"
This was dealt in post 56 and 57.
J2hapydna wrote
"We have examined the Quran on this thread and it calls the Arabs the Ummah of Ishmael, which can loosely be translated to sons of Ishmael. However, we know that members of an Ummah don't have to be the patrilineal genetic descendants of the founding tribe. By marrying their daughters, learning their culture and language etc people can be grafted to the Ummah without being a paternal descendant of the founding tribe. So, we can understand how based on the Quran the Arabs could claim to be the Ummah of Ishmael or loosely sons of Ishmael. However, it is not clear, at least based on the Quran, how they could claim the prophet was the patrilineal descendant of Ishmael".
This was dealt with in detail in post 57.
J2hapydna wrote
"So, the next question is, did the Arabs learn it from an oral tradition of the prophet i.e. Hadith or was it something they assumed because of their pre Islamic traditions? "
Since you posted your concerns in the Quranist Dir i am not sure if we should discuss the Hadith.Nontheless if you insist and there is no objection from Quranist then only i am prepared to refer to the Hadith.
J2hapydna wrote
"To answer this question, if you have any accounts of the prophet directly meeting with Jews and Christians and them recording his answer, then share it. Otherwise, what you have are only third party accounts of Jews and Christians about what the Arabs were claiming. They only substantiate what we have already determined to be true i.e. the Arabs were claiming it. We don't know why they were claiming it, but we do know it wasn't because it was written in the Quran. Does that sound fair?"
I have dealt with all these concerns in post 56,58,59,60.
So far as "third party accounts" this will be dealt with in my posting 62.
Peace
Farouk
J2hapydna wrote
"You have proved that the Christians chronicled that this is what the Arabs were saying. It doesn't mean these Christians spoke to the prophet and independently verified from him if he was claiming to be the son of Ishmael or not".
I have dealt with this in post 55 in detail.
J2hapydna wrote.
"So the first question could be, how did the Arabs know if he was the descendant of Ishmael?"
This was dealt in post 56 and 57.
J2hapydna wrote
"We have examined the Quran on this thread and it calls the Arabs the Ummah of Ishmael, which can loosely be translated to sons of Ishmael. However, we know that members of an Ummah don't have to be the patrilineal genetic descendants of the founding tribe. By marrying their daughters, learning their culture and language etc people can be grafted to the Ummah without being a paternal descendant of the founding tribe. So, we can understand how based on the Quran the Arabs could claim to be the Ummah of Ishmael or loosely sons of Ishmael. However, it is not clear, at least based on the Quran, how they could claim the prophet was the patrilineal descendant of Ishmael".
This was dealt with in detail in post 57.
J2hapydna wrote
"So, the next question is, did the Arabs learn it from an oral tradition of the prophet i.e. Hadith or was it something they assumed because of their pre Islamic traditions? "
Since you posted your concerns in the Quranist Dir i am not sure if we should discuss the Hadith.Nontheless if you insist and there is no objection from Quranist then only i am prepared to refer to the Hadith.
J2hapydna wrote
"To answer this question, if you have any accounts of the prophet directly meeting with Jews and Christians and them recording his answer, then share it. Otherwise, what you have are only third party accounts of Jews and Christians about what the Arabs were claiming. They only substantiate what we have already determined to be true i.e. the Arabs were claiming it. We don't know why they were claiming it, but we do know it wasn't because it was written in the Quran. Does that sound fair?"
I have dealt with all these concerns in post 56,58,59,60.
So far as "third party accounts" this will be dealt with in my posting 62.
Peace
Farouk
Last edited: