Also - I can claim say something of Buddhism was from Allah - and we can argue till the end of Earth - but to an avail - as neither will have any conclusive proof.
I doubt you can convince me that Buddhism is from Allah, I doubt you can convince any Buddhists of this. If you want to make a claim that Buddhism is from Allah then the burden of proof is on you, you are the one making the positive claim, not me.
Which discrepancies have you brought forward? None.
Gabriel, circumcision, dogs, idolatry, hijab, etc.
The only reasonable response you gave to any of these was the one about the Hijab, and for that you had to argue that Islam only mandates moderate dress code not Hijab, which is fine, but you did not identify any other cultures from other continents that also mandate moderate dress code.
Look you can whatever attitude you wish - the person's name was Mohammed.
Well that is one of the many anglicized ways of saying his name, but what is the reason for even putting 2 ms there? There are only 4 letters in Arabic, so why make it so long? "Mo" is short hand and less time consuming. If you prefer I can use Mhmd.
Sorry - but that is not true - as you say "think" - that implies you don't either. Ancient cultures before Islam that are non-semitic did used to practice circumcision - but {!Important} - I do not know - and neither can you - whether that was down to Allah or not. hence I said plainly - No. Rather than making things up.
Which ancient, non Semitic cultures practiced circumcision? Obviously no knowledge is absolute, you can never be 100% certain of anything, but there is always a body of evidence that lends weight to one theory over another. Currently there is no evidence for Islam outside of any area that was in contact with it. Therefore we can "think" that it is highly unlikely that a Prophet was sent to any other people with the message of Islam.
Now you could say that the people in other continents simply ignored the true Prophets and that is why we have no knowledge of them. But that is a claim you are making without any evidence to support it. You are simply making up stories. Besides we already know that the same thing happened to Mhmd anyway. Many did not listen to him. So what did God do? He sent down an army of angels to make sure Mhmd won the Battle of Badr and defeated his enemies. So according to Islamic history, when the people don't heed the message then God intervenes to insure that the Muslims win. So why did God never intervene on any other continents to insure the Muslims won?
Is it not somewhat suspicious that God only intervened to insure the true religion won out in the areas of the Middle East? Surely a more plausible explanation is that these peoples (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) share the same religious traditions because they were in contact with each other and so they heard the same fairy tales, rather than that they all Got the same message independently from God?
Those ancient communities too were sent messengers. That is according to Islam. But how do you know - that they don't have different names for them? For example - Judaism, Aramaic and Arabic are sister langauges - hence the name Gabriel - is recognizable.
According to your religion and the other Abrahamic faiths, the name Gabriel/Jbril comes from God and Gabriel himself not from the people of the area.
"The angel answered, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news." Luke 1:19
"Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael - then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers." Baqarah 98
Ah? How do you know? Just because similarities exist . . . that still isn't definitive proof - one way or the other.
Because for a historical account to be believable, there has to be a source for the information. Either a discovery of hard evidence such as an inscription that can be scientifically dated to the time when these prophets were sent, or a written account that is contemporary to, or near contemporary to, when these events occurred. And there are ways to determine with a reasonable level of certainty whether those written accounts are genuinely from that time period, or fakes created later. Based on the style of the writing, the words and language used, etc.
Simply stating that Sufis from the late Medieval Era believe these prophets went to India is not a source, unless they themselves are basing that information on verifiable sources like the ones I just described. Otherwise they are just making stuff up 1,000s of years after these events supposedly occurred.
Topic: polytheism / monotheism