Brian Tariq

Muslim, Husband, Father, anti-zionist, fiery poet and autodidact

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

@beeker_jam24189 @NotSonnyFaz I disagree any person that willingly accepts but can't explain the Trinity CAN'T say they understand Islam .

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

@enesovat22 @jrackham81 You're ridiculous and everytime I see you post or give your ignorant opinions I think about how your mother must be ashamed and how @muslimorthodoxy sonned you when he exposed you as really a confused gooner.....

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

@KR3Wmatic Hey genius, you're a liar because we know from authentic hadith that one of the companions who ate the lamb also died instantly and Prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him died 4 years later so why lie?

[Sazanka Idris @Sazan96723]

@Edenlife9 And that is the miracle.

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

Several misconceptions hope I and help you clear them up. Now you're changing the subject.
I asked you for the “verifiable historical evidence” that Abraham himself existed.
You answered,
“At least we have evidence for David.”
Okay.
But David is not Abraham.
The Tel Dan Stele is legitimate evidence for a “House of David” dynasty in the ninth century BCE. Fine. I have no problem conceding that.
But how does evidence for David prove Abraham?
It doesn't.
So let's go back to YOUR claim
“I believe Abraham existed because of verifiable history and evidence of his existence.”
Great.
Then produce that evidence.
Where is the contemporary inscription naming Abraham?
Where is the archaeological artifact identifying Abraham son of Terah?
Where is the independent contemporary historical record of Abraham?
You still haven't provided one.
Instead, you jumped forward roughly a millennium to David.
That's not an answer.
And now you're calling Ishmael a “bastard child,” which is even stranger because your own Bible doesn't describe him that way.
Genesis 16:3 says Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham “as a wife.”
Genesis 25:12 calls Ishmael “Abraham's son.”
So the insult doesn't even help your biblical argument.
Now, regarding Quraysh, I already gave you the historically careful answer
Can I produce a surviving pre-Islamic Quraysh inscription saying,
“We descend from Ishmael”?
No.
I can't.
And I haven't pretended otherwise.

But can we show that Arabs were being associated with Ishmael centuries before Muhammad?
Yes.
Josephus, writing around 93–94 CE, describes Ishmael's descendants as an “Arabian nation” and connects those tribes with Abraham.
That is more than 500 years before Muhammad.
Sozomen, writing in the fifth century, likewise says the Saracens originated from Ishmael son of Abraham and says earlier people called them Ishmaelites.
Again: before Muhammad.
Neither source proves Muhammad's personal genealogy.
I've already said that.
But they completely destroy the claim that Muhammad invented the Arab–Ishmael connection from scratch.
So let's stop moving the goalposts.
My position is very simple,
I cannot independently prove every generation between Muhammad and Ishmael.
You cannot independently prove Abraham's existence using the historical standard you demanded.
And we DO have pre-Islamic evidence that Arabs were being connected with Ishmael long before Muhammad.
Those are the actual historical facts.
Now, if you still want to claim Abraham is “verified by history,” then stop talking about David and give the evidence for Abraham.
That's the claim you made.
Show the workings.

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

@akogunsmith @Oladimejilxz7 @KR3Wmatic Because you believe without evidence doesn't make it true. I don't believe Abraham existed because of religion, i believe because of verifiable history and evidence of his existence....Produce it.

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

@AnthonyTrucano @MikeWingerii The thing is what you claim about Islam is a lie.

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

@GamersLimit1 @egtapere

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

@akogunsmith @KR3Wmatic And you playing the inept Islamic scholar still can't reconcile Jesus having two completely different genealogies, really think you should address that tbh

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

So if we're doing strict historical criticism, Muslim 2276 doesn't independently prove that Muhammad originated the claim. It proves that the later Islamic hadith tradition attributed that statement to Muhammad.
If you want to accept the hadith as historically reliable evidence of Muhammad's own words, okay.
But then you're relying on Islamic transmission to establish your argument.
You can't use the transmission confidently when it helps you accuse Muhammad of lying, then become completely skeptical of Islamic transmission everywhere else.
Same standard both ways.
So here's where I think the evidence actually leaves us:
Muhammad → ʿAdnān: preserved in the traditional Arab genealogy.
ʿAdnān → Ishmael: the exact intermediate genealogy is disputed and cannot be independently reconstructed with confidence.
Quraysh specifically → Ishmael: I do not know of surviving pre-Islamic evidence that independently proves that particular genealogy.
Arabs/Ishmaelites generally → Ishmael: that association clearly existed in Jewish and Christian literature centuries before Muhammad.
That's a much more careful historical conclusion.
So if you want to argue:
“You cannot historically prove Muhammad's biological descent from Ishmael.”
That's fair.
I wouldn't fight you on that.
But if you want to argue:
“Muhammad invented the Arab connection to Ishmael because nobody had ever heard of it before him,”
now you've got a first-century Jewish historian and a fifth-century Christian historian standing in the way.
That's the evidence.
That's the working.

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

Okay, now we can actually deal with the historical question instead of talking past each other.
I’ll concede something upfront because I don’t need to defend more than the evidence allows:
We do not have a historically verifiable, generation-by-generation genealogy connecting Muhammad through ʿAdnān all the way back to Ishmael.
Once you get beyond ʿAdnān, the genealogy becomes disputed. Muslim scholars themselves acknowledged that.
No argument from me there.
But you're taking that fact and making it say something it doesn't say.
You keep citing Ibn ʿAbbās and Ibn Kathīr as though they said, “Muhammad can only be traced to ʿAdnān, therefore ʿAdnān was NOT descended from Ishmael.”
Ibn Kathīr says the opposite in
In al-Bidāyah wa-l-Nihāyah, while discussing ʿAdnān, he writes:
“لا خلاف أن عدنان من سلالة إسماعيل بن إبراهيم الخليل”
“There is no disagreement that ʿAdnān is from the descendants of Ishmael son of Abraham.”
Then he immediately discusses the disagreement over how many generations were between ʿAdnān and Ishmael—four, seven, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, etc.
So yes, the chain is uncertain.
But Ibn Kathīr's position is NOT:
“We don't know the chain, therefore ʿAdnān wasn't Ishmaelite.”
His position is:
“We accept ʿAdnān as Ishmaelite, but we don't know the intervening genealogy.”
Whether you think Ibn Kathīr can historically prove that belief is another question. But don't make Ibn Kathīr say something he plainly didn't say.
And Ibn al-Athīr is even more cautious. He says the genealogists agree down to Maʿadd ibn ʿAdnān, but beyond that the accounts disagree enormously—even giving anywhere from four to forty ancestors between ʿAdnān and Ishmael.
Again, that's a problem for reconstructing the genealogy.
Agreed.
It is not proof of non-descent.
Now to the bigger historical claim you made
“There’s no earlier connection to Abraham or Ishmael in history before Muhammad.”
That one simply doesn't work.
Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews around 93–94 CE.
That's more than 500 years before Muhammad.
Discussing Ishmael's sons, Josephus says they inhabited territory stretching toward the Red Sea and describes them as an “Arabian nation.” He even refers to Ishmael as the founder of their nation and connects their tribal identity to Abraham.
Josephus, Antiquities, Book 1, chapter 12.
That doesn't prove Quraysh descended from Ishmael.
I'm not claiming it does.
What it DOES prove is that Muhammad did not invent the general idea of Arab peoples being descended from Ishmael. That association was already in circulation centuries before Islam.
And Josephus isn't the only one.
Sozomen, a fifth-century Christian historian—again, before Muhammad writes about the Saracens:
“This is the tribe which took its origin and had its name from Ishmael, the son of Abraham; and the ancients called them Ishmaelites after their progenitor.”
Ecclesiastical History, Book 6, chapter 38.
Once again, does Sozomen prove Muhammad's genealogy?
No.
Does he prove that an Arab/Saracen–Ishmael association existed before Muhammad?
Absolutely.
So let's narrow this properly.
If your claim is
“Show me a pre-Islamic document saying Muhammad's Quraysh ancestors descended from ʿAdnān, who descended from Ishmael, with every generation listed.”
I can't.
Neither can anyone else that I'm aware of.
That's a legitimate historical limitation.
But that's not what you originally claimed.
You claimed there was NO Arab connection to Ishmael before Muhammad and that Muhammad essentially invented the whole thing.
Josephus and Sozomen make that position very difficult to maintain.
And there's another issue with how you're using Sahih Muslim 2276.
You quoted
“Allah chose Kinānah from the children of Ishmael...”
and then said Muhammad gave Quraysh this story.
But Sahih Muslim was compiled over two centuries after Muhammad.

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

You're taking a real issue in the genealogy and stretching it way beyond what the sources actually say.
Yes, Muslim scholars acknowledged that the exact genealogy between ʿAdnān and Ismāʿīl could not be reliably reconstructed. Ibn ʿAbbās and other early authorities are reported to have been cautious about naming all those generations.
I have no problem admitting that.
But that is NOT the same thing as saying:
“Therefore Muhammad was not descended from Ishmael.”
Those are two completely different claims.
The established genealogy runs through Muhammad ﷺ back to ʿAdnān. Once you go beyond ʿAdnān, the exact names and number of generations become disputed. That is why scholars warned against confidently reciting long genealogies between ʿAdnān and Ismāʿīl.
But the broader tradition that ʿAdnān belonged to the descendants of Ismāʿīl is precisely what those same Muslim genealogical sources maintained.
So saying, “They couldn't name the 30–40 people in between, therefore there was no relationship,” simply doesn't follow.
Think about it.
If I know a man living centuries ago was my ancestor, but I no longer possess the names of every single person connecting us, does the missing documentation prove he wasn't my ancestor?
Of course not.
It means the intermediate genealogy cannot be independently reconstructed.
And Sahih Muslim 2276 makes the Islamic claim even more explicit:
“Allah chose Kinānah from the descendants of Ishmael, and chose Quraysh from Kinānah, and chose Banū Hāshim from Quraysh, and chose me from Banū Hāshim.”
So you can certainly challenge whether that tradition is historically demonstrable. That's a legitimate historical discussion.
You can say
“We cannot independently prove every biological generation between Muhammad and Ishmael.”
Fair enough.
What you CANNOT honestly say is,
“Islamic sources show Muhammad had nothing to do with Ishmael.”
They don't.
They say almost the opposite: the exact chain after ʿAdnān was uncertain, while ʿAdnān's Ishmaelite ancestry remained the traditional position.
And the last part of your argument is even weaker.
You jump from
“There are missing generations in the genealogy”
to,
“Therefore Muhammad invented an Abrahamic ancestry so he could plagiarize Judaism and Christianity.”
Where did that conclusion come from?
Certainly not from Ibn ʿAbbās.
Certainly not from the missing genealogy itself.
That's speculation about Muhammad's motives being inserted where the historical evidence stops.
So let's keep the claims straight:
Muhammad to ʿAdnān: traditional genealogy preserved.
ʿAdnān to Ismāʿīl: exact intervening names disputed and not reliably preserved.
ʿAdnān being regarded as descended from Ismāʿīl: part of the classical Islamic genealogical tradition.
You are perfectly free to say the Ishmaelite connection cannot be independently proven to modern historical standards.
But “cannot reconstruct every generation” and “proven unrelated” are not remotely the same statement.
That's the problem with your argument. And this from people with TWO completely different genealogies for Jesus.

[The Orthodox Muslim @muslimorthodoxy]

Muhammed ﷺ is the awaited Son of Man.

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

This is a false choice.
Qur’an 5:47 does not say, “Christians, judge by every word in the Bible you currently possess.” It says
“Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.”
What Allah revealed therein. That is the part this argument conveniently skips.
The Qur’an has no problem holding two things together at the same time: Allah genuinely revealed the Torah and the Injīl, and people later distorted, concealed, twisted, or even wrote things themselves and attributed them to God. See 2:79, 3:78, 5:13, 5:15.
So the options are not
“The Bible is 100% perfectly preserved”
or
“The Bible is 100% corrupt and contains nothing true.”
Islam does not teach either one.
The position is much simpler: the original revelation was from Allah, some of that truth remained, corruption and human interference occurred, and the Qur’an came as the final criterion over what came before it.
And that is exactly why 5:48 matters. The very next verse calls the Qur’an muhaymin over the previous scriptures.
If the Christian scriptures available in Muhammad’s time were already perfectly preserved and completely authoritative in every detail, then what exactly is the Qur’an being muhaymin over?qqq
So this poll does not expose an “Islamic dilemma.” It creates one I would rather call the "Christian Delusion" by forcing Muslims into two positions the Qur’an itself never gives us.

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

@Islaminator14 @MakiTheSalafi No, what's remarkable is you fan boying cannibals.

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

The biblical prophets consistently taught that God is one—never that God is three persons sharing one being. Here are several examples:

Moses:
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.”
Deuteronomy 6:4

“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me.”
Deuteronomy 32:39

David:
“For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.”
Psalm 86:10

“O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee.”
1 Chronicles 17:20
David is explicitly called a prophet in Acts 2:30.

Isaiah:
“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”
Isaiah 44:6

“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.”
Isaiah 45:5

Jeremiah:
“But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king.”
Jeremiah 10:10

Hosea:
“Thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.”
Hosea 13:4

Joel:
“And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else.”
Joel 2:27

Malachi:
“Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?”
Malachi 2:10

Zechariah:
“And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.”
Zechariah 14:9

Jesus:
“The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.”
Mark 12:29

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
John 17:3

Muhammad: "There is no god but Allah. He is One and has no partner." -Sahih al-Bukhari 1797.

The prophetic message is remarkably consistent: the Lord is one, He alone is God, there is no God beside Him, and Jesus reaffirmed this same teaching. Jesus did not answer by saying, “God is one being existing as three coequal persons.” He repeated the uncompromising monotheism of Moses: “The Lord our God is one Lord.” Doesn’t look inconsistent to me 🤷🏾‍♂️

[H’s mom @aiishadahir]

He was born in MECCA, buried in Madina, he is the most noble creature on the earth and hereafter.His name is Muhammad (ﷺ)🥹❤️

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

@enesovat22 And you leave out Romans 6:4 "Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father."
Or
Acts 2:24 "But God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death."
Or
Acts 5:30 "The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree."
🤷🏾‍♂️

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

Muslims understand Jesus as the Messiah, but not as God incarnate. In that respect, Islam is closer to the Jewish expectation of a human Messiah than to the Christian doctrine of a divine Messiah. Christianity’s later claims about Christ’s divine nature were formulated using Greek philosophical categories that go beyond the original Jewish concept of a human, Davidic messianic figure.

[trollz_ @Zach05718873]

@JeromeChukwuwem Christians worship a Man.

Muslims worship God.

They are not the same.

[Brian Tariq @tikkitodd]

@listoftraitors_ @akhi__ex You must have a gay humiliation kink sir because where did you get that from?