Muslims insist that Islam is the purest, most uncompromising form of monotheism, the very standard by which they condemn Christians for worshipping the Trinity and Jews for allegedly elevating Uzayr (Ezra) to divine sonship, a charge that has no footing in Jewish texts or history.
The article is broadly right in its main direction. Islam did not appear in Arabia as a pure, self-contained revelation untouched by its surroundings. The Kaaba, pilgrimage, circumambulation, sacrifice, sacred months, Safa and Marwa, Arafat and related practices clearly belong to an older Arabian religious world that Islam retained, purified, renamed and reinterpreted.
But we should be careful not to treat this as a problem unique to Islam. All so-called Abrahamic religions need to be placed back into history. Judaism developed over time as a legal, moral and social framework for a particular people, with monotheism emerging as an endpoint rather than as the obvious starting position. Christianity grew out of Jewish apocalyptic expectation, then built a theology around Jesus after that expectation failed to arrive in the form anticipated. Islam came later, absorbed Jewish and Christian narrative structures, retained Arabian ritual practice, and declared itself the final correction of both.
The Abraham issue is central. There is no independent historical evidence that Abraham existed as described. He appears as a later foundational figure used to create ancestry, covenant, continuity and authority. Islam’s claim that Abraham built or was connected to the Kaaba is therefore not historical recovery. It is a theological retrofit, taking an already mythic foundation figure and relocating him into Mecca to legitimise an Arabian shrine.
Of course, one can always say there may have been some distant memory behind the Abraham story. But that is not evidence; it is a permission slip for speculation. By that standard, Abraham may as well have been Abracadabra, a wandering Bronze Age magician whose camel had strong theological opinions.
So yes, the article gives a reasonable explanation of Islam’s pagan inheritance. But the wider point is larger: religions regularly turn later stories into sacred history. Islam did this with Mecca and Abraham, Christianity did it with Jesus, and Judaism did it with its ancestral narratives. The difference is not that one tradition is historical and the others are fiction. The difference is how each tradition constructed authority, identity and continuity from the materials available to it.
While using Chatgpt might appear to sound highly intellectual, it doesn't make you an expert in theology. It was programmed by humans, with agendas and bias. You're missing a very important component when it comes to the Biblical aspect. You've not read it in the Spirit. It is the inerrant Word of God. Where you might believe you’ve come across mistakes or contradictions (if you've read it), that's rectified by studying who wrote the passage you’re having difficulty with, who the audience was, what was the entire chapter discussing before and after. Context. Jesus is the Word, from beginning to end. There's no mistakes with the true and Triunal Creator, only human err and bias.
You are making assumptions about how I reached my view rather than addressing the argument.
Also, belief is not expertise. An expert on religion is not someone who has blind faith; it is someone who studies the texts, history, languages, archaeology, manuscript traditions and development of doctrine. If only experts may comment, then most believers would also be unable to make claims about scripture. If ordinary believers may assert that the Bible is inerrant, then ordinary critics may ask where the historical evidence is.
Saying a text must be read “in the Spirit” is not a historical method. It is a faith claim. My argument is historical: Abraham is treated as foundational in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yet there is no independent historical evidence that he existed as described. Islam then places that already unverified figure into Mecca to legitimise the Kaaba. That is theological retrofitting, not history.
This may or may not contain or refer to anything related to your point of no historical evidence. But, does no historical evidence mean there is absolutely and will never be any? Or that something that has been found won’t be reconsidered in the light of something yet to be found, or yet to be reevaluated? And if there is absolutely and never will be found any scrap or chunk of anything with Abraham’s name on it, does that mean none of his extended family or neighbours or acquaintances or “countrymen” existed either, because their names are never found recorded? What if the historical evidence that does exist is the only historical evidence that exists?
A coworker occasional likes to point out to me that “you *believe*”, emphasizing “believe”. It always lands strangely. It seems to me the emphasis should be on “you”, not “believe”, unless I’m just taking it wrong. If belief is relegated to some ethereal, nebulous, mystical, intangible, “blind” thing than can never be experientially known, I suppose it fits. But if it’s trust founded on knowledge and experience, or sound judgement based on evidence and testimony, then I suppose otherwise. I don’t know Abraham existed because I’ve read corroborating evidence. I know Abraham exists because I know and trust the one who told me he did. I can give you no evidence of that, though.
The Holy Spirit enables all Believers to understand. 1 Corinthians 2:13–14: “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”
The Holy Spirit enables all Believers to understand. 1 Corinthians 2:13–14: “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”
There is no such thing as cultural appropriation. On Monday Whit Monday, I attended a well-dressing. It was both a secular and a Christian rite and is older by far than Christianity being a pagan rite. The particular saint invoked is a historical king but the original spirit of the well was most likely some version of St Bridget or St Bride (same person). Religions borrow and remake. They reinterpret as well so Christians have pagan sacred trees to celebrate Jesus's birth and rabbits (hares) to mark the resurrection. Christianity also recognises sacred mountains and most churches have one on which sits an altar. Judaism also borrowed and may have acquired the idea of a monotheist god when they ruled Egypt. That borrowing happen does not make the religion less based in fact - God uses the familiar to reveal the transcendant. And no, I did not use AI for this.
The article is broadly right in its main direction. Islam did not appear in Arabia as a pure, self-contained revelation untouched by its surroundings. The Kaaba, pilgrimage, circumambulation, sacrifice, sacred months, Safa and Marwa, Arafat and related practices clearly belong to an older Arabian religious world that Islam retained, purified, renamed and reinterpreted.
But we should be careful not to treat this as a problem unique to Islam. All so-called Abrahamic religions need to be placed back into history. Judaism developed over time as a legal, moral and social framework for a particular people, with monotheism emerging as an endpoint rather than as the obvious starting position. Christianity grew out of Jewish apocalyptic expectation, then built a theology around Jesus after that expectation failed to arrive in the form anticipated. Islam came later, absorbed Jewish and Christian narrative structures, retained Arabian ritual practice, and declared itself the final correction of both.
The Abraham issue is central. There is no independent historical evidence that Abraham existed as described. He appears as a later foundational figure used to create ancestry, covenant, continuity and authority. Islam’s claim that Abraham built or was connected to the Kaaba is therefore not historical recovery. It is a theological retrofit, taking an already mythic foundation figure and relocating him into Mecca to legitimise an Arabian shrine.
Of course, one can always say there may have been some distant memory behind the Abraham story. But that is not evidence; it is a permission slip for speculation. By that standard, Abraham may as well have been Abracadabra, a wandering Bronze Age magician whose camel had strong theological opinions.
So yes, the article gives a reasonable explanation of Islam’s pagan inheritance. But the wider point is larger: religions regularly turn later stories into sacred history. Islam did this with Mecca and Abraham, Christianity did it with Jesus, and Judaism did it with its ancestral narratives. The difference is not that one tradition is historical and the others are fiction. The difference is how each tradition constructed authority, identity and continuity from the materials available to it.
While using Chatgpt might appear to sound highly intellectual, it doesn't make you an expert in theology. It was programmed by humans, with agendas and bias. You're missing a very important component when it comes to the Biblical aspect. You've not read it in the Spirit. It is the inerrant Word of God. Where you might believe you’ve come across mistakes or contradictions (if you've read it), that's rectified by studying who wrote the passage you’re having difficulty with, who the audience was, what was the entire chapter discussing before and after. Context. Jesus is the Word, from beginning to end. There's no mistakes with the true and Triunal Creator, only human err and bias.
You are making assumptions about how I reached my view rather than addressing the argument.
Also, belief is not expertise. An expert on religion is not someone who has blind faith; it is someone who studies the texts, history, languages, archaeology, manuscript traditions and development of doctrine. If only experts may comment, then most believers would also be unable to make claims about scripture. If ordinary believers may assert that the Bible is inerrant, then ordinary critics may ask where the historical evidence is.
Saying a text must be read “in the Spirit” is not a historical method. It is a faith claim. My argument is historical: Abraham is treated as foundational in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yet there is no independent historical evidence that he existed as described. Islam then places that already unverified figure into Mecca to legitimise the Kaaba. That is theological retrofitting, not history.
(answersresearchjournal.org/abraham-chronology-ancient-mesopotamia/)
This may or may not contain or refer to anything related to your point of no historical evidence. But, does no historical evidence mean there is absolutely and will never be any? Or that something that has been found won’t be reconsidered in the light of something yet to be found, or yet to be reevaluated? And if there is absolutely and never will be found any scrap or chunk of anything with Abraham’s name on it, does that mean none of his extended family or neighbours or acquaintances or “countrymen” existed either, because their names are never found recorded? What if the historical evidence that does exist is the only historical evidence that exists?
A coworker occasional likes to point out to me that “you *believe*”, emphasizing “believe”. It always lands strangely. It seems to me the emphasis should be on “you”, not “believe”, unless I’m just taking it wrong. If belief is relegated to some ethereal, nebulous, mystical, intangible, “blind” thing than can never be experientially known, I suppose it fits. But if it’s trust founded on knowledge and experience, or sound judgement based on evidence and testimony, then I suppose otherwise. I don’t know Abraham existed because I’ve read corroborating evidence. I know Abraham exists because I know and trust the one who told me he did. I can give you no evidence of that, though.
The Holy Spirit enables all Believers to understand. 1 Corinthians 2:13–14: “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”
The Holy Spirit enables all Believers to understand. 1 Corinthians 2:13–14: “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”
This is very interesting esp the bit about the black stone.
Yes, the history of religions is cultural appropriation and modification within a religio-cultural matrix to create something both old and new.
There is no such thing as cultural appropriation. On Monday Whit Monday, I attended a well-dressing. It was both a secular and a Christian rite and is older by far than Christianity being a pagan rite. The particular saint invoked is a historical king but the original spirit of the well was most likely some version of St Bridget or St Bride (same person). Religions borrow and remake. They reinterpret as well so Christians have pagan sacred trees to celebrate Jesus's birth and rabbits (hares) to mark the resurrection. Christianity also recognises sacred mountains and most churches have one on which sits an altar. Judaism also borrowed and may have acquired the idea of a monotheist god when they ruled Egypt. That borrowing happen does not make the religion less based in fact - God uses the familiar to reveal the transcendant. And no, I did not use AI for this.
Yes, religions borrow and adapt. Doesn’t make them not true. That’s appropriation. We seek to be in agreement.
Dr jay smith who has studied Islam exposes the narratives of Mohammed and Islam