Could have Islam exist without Judaism & Christianity?

[F0uad]

OK, now I understand your confusion with my thread, and why you keep talking about the name "Judaism" or "Christianity", and why you keep sidetracking this thread.

I don't give a fig for the "names" of the religions. This thread has nothing to do with the religions themselves and not just the "names".

Religion is more than just the name it goes by. The name is unimportant. What is important is the religion itself, like the teachings, oral tradition, scriptures (hence, the written traditions), the moral codes and (religious) laws.

If all the biblical figures (from Abraham to Jesus) didn't exist, if the Judaeo-Christian scriptures didn't exist, then Islam couldn't exist the way it do.

Thanks for clarifying but keep in mind that Islam is not only a ''name'' of religion but also a way of behaving, thinking and living as the definition clearly states.

On-topic:

Ok lets take all those people out of the way and the scriptures, why couldn't it exist?
If your argument is that if Moses(p) never lived then i would say no that is not a reason, because the quran would simply not mention him if that was the case. I personally belief your only argument could have been if God didn't exist could islam exist... then my answer would be no.

 

[gnostic]

Thanks for clarifying but keep in mind that Islam is not only a ''name'' of religion but also a way of behaving, thinking and living as the definition clearly states.

As are Christianity and Judaism, but none of the names, including Islam, actually teaches any of these. Buddhism also about the way of behaving, thinking and living, but the name itself is not what Buddhism is about.

Ok lets take all those people out of the way and the scriptures, why couldn't it exist?
If your argument is that if Moses(p) never lived then i would say no that is not a reason, because the quran would simply not mention him if that was the case. I personally belief your only argument could have been if God didn't exist could islam exist... then my answer would be no.

The thread poses some hypothetical questions.

The way I see it, Islam are indebted to the traditions of both Judaism and Christianity, and to some lesser extent, to Zoroastrianism.

Without the Judaism (the core teachings and traditions, and not the name), you wouldn't have Adam, Abraham or Ishmael in Islam. Without the gospels, there wouldn't be Jesus in the Qur'an.

To me, it is clear that Muhammad have encountered teachings of Judaism and Christianity, because there were Christians and Jews all around Arabian peninsula, some living there, while just there doing trades. Muhammad was a trader, and taught by his uncle, who took him in.

Muslims may say that Muhammad didn't read or write, but that is completely meaningless, because there are more than one way to learn religion. It is naive to think that Muhammad knew nothing about the stories in Hebrew or Christian scriptures. Ordinary Christians didn't all have every writings (gospels, letters) available to them. They were taught through orally, either by recitals, or though memories.

 

[F0uad]

As are Christianity and Judaism, but none of the names, including Islam, actually teaches any of these. Buddhism also about the way of behaving, thinking and living, but the name itself is not what Buddhism is about.



The thread poses some hypothetical questions.

The way I see it, Islam are indebted to the traditions of both Judaism and Christianity, and to some lesser extent, to Zoroastrianism.

Without the Judaism (the core teachings and traditions, and not the name), you wouldn't have Adam, Abraham or Ishmael in Islam. Without the gospels, there wouldn't be Jesus in the Qur'an.

To me, it is clear that Muhammad have encountered teachings of Judaism and Christianity, because there were Christians and Jews all around Arabian peninsula, some living there, while just there doing trades. Muhammad was a trader, and taught by his uncle, who took him in.

Muslims may say that Muhammad didn't read or write, but that is completely meaningless, because there are more than one way to learn religion. It is naive to think that Muhammad knew nothing about the stories in Hebrew or Christian scriptures. Ordinary Christians didn't all have every writings (gospels, letters) available to them. They were taught through orally, either by recitals, or though memories.

Thanks for pointing that out but don't you see what i am saying, i am saying that the name ''Islam'' itself what Islam is about.(Submission to god in peace) so i don't see how your argument works.

I see now, so your real argument comes to this if A existed before B therefore B copied from A and cannot be the real deal.. I don't see any logic in that, i also want to ask have you took time to acquire information that Mohammed(saws) did the things you ''claim'' and actually have proof to back them up. I mean we have over 40,000 Hadiths and not a single one comes even to the possibility you mentioned


You have to see this in a muslim-perspective to fully understand what we are saying.

Islam what was taught to Moses(p) What is called ''Judaism and changed'' (Muslims perspective) was the same message of the Quran before the changes.
Islam what was taught to Jesus(p) What is called ''Christianity has changed'' (Muslims perspective) was the same message of the Quran' before the changes.

So therefore the Quran is the final revelation that has some of the teachings of Moses(p) and some teachings of Jesus(p) meaning anything that the Torah or Gospels agree on with the Quran is still intact and probably from god. Muslims also never claimed that ''Islam'' was a new religion but the religion the previous messengers taught.

I hope you understand what i am saying, if i didn't answer your points please tell me so.

 

[loverOfTruth]

As are Christianity and Judaism, but none of the names, including Islam, actually teaches any of these. Buddhism also about the way of behaving, thinking and living, but the name itself is not what Buddhism is about.



The thread poses some hypothetical questions.

The way I see it, Islam are indebted to the traditions of both Judaism and Christianity, and to some lesser extent, to Zoroastrianism.

Without the Judaism (the core teachings and traditions, and not the name), you wouldn't havep Adam, Abraham or Ishmael in Islam. Without the gospels, there wouldn't be Jesus in the Qur'an.

To me, it is clear that Muhammad have encountered teachings of Judaism and Christianity, because there were Christians and Jews all around Arabian peninsula, some living there, while just there doing trades. Muhammad was a trader, and taught by his uncle, who took him in.

Muslims may say that Muhammad didn't read or write, but that is completely meaningless, because there are more than one way to learn religion. It is naive to think that Muhammad knew nothing about the stories in Hebrew or Christian scriptures. Ordinary Christians didn't all have every writings (gospels, letters) available to them. They were taught through orally, either by recitals, or though memories.

I think you are making one unreasonable assumption here. That is : All the biblical figures wouldnt exist if Judaism and Christianity didn't exist. That assumption presumes that the
Bible(OT + NT) created those characters. In reality, Adam is the first human whether or not Bible stated it or not. Same applies for all the prophets prior to Moses. So whether or not the Bible was ever written has no bearing on the fact that GOD sent Abraham as a Prophet. Hence people at present time would have known about Abraham from one source - the Quran if Judaism and Christianity didnt exist - instead of 3 sources as in reality.

 

[Rakhel]

I think it is possible that Islam could have existed. It may not have carried the same "stories"-for lack of a better word- but it is possible for one man to have found a way to help people live a certain way of life.
The same could be said for Christianity. One man disliking the way people are living and sought to instill a better way of life.
And Judaism, for that matter.
It is possible that these religions could, if they didn't share the same stories, have existed on their own.
Whether these instructions where divinely inspired or not may not have mattered.

 

[YmirGF]

Thats why i said ''We belief'' and your point is?

Yes, I know that, F0uad. My point is that it remains an incredibly arrogant position, to tell members of other faiths that their faiths are wrong, have been corrupted, consciously altered and that Muhammad was only teaching what was already taught (but long since forgotten). This is particularly true in regards to Christians who viewed Christ as God Incarnate. And Muslims wonder where the enmity came from.

My guess is that Muslims, in particular, would not take kindly to being told that their faith was wrong, deliberately distorted and that the new "prophet" was only teaching what all the other prophets before him taught. For example, things didn't go especially well for The Báb or Bahá'u'lláh.

Even if you actually did make a point whatever it maybe be then give me one reference from the bible or Torah were Moses(p) or Jesus(p) named there religion that sounds like Christianity or Judaism.

I am not sure why anyone would even think that this was a relevant point? At best, it is an inconsequential point.

 

[F0uad]

Yes, I know that, F0uad. My point is that it remains an incredibly arrogant position, to tell members of other faiths that their faiths are wrong, have been corrupted, consciously altered and that Muhammad was only teaching what was already taught (but long since forgotten). This is particularly true in regards to Christians who viewed Christ as God Incarnate. And Muslims wonder why people bitterly opposed Muhammad from day one.

Hmm i don't think this has anything to do with being ''Arrogant'' because both religions and teachings deny each other its based on which one you belief. For a Muslim the Christian is arrogant and vice versa.

There were almost no Christians in Mecca or Medina, most of them were Pagans and in Medina Jews.

I am not sure why anyone would even think that this was a relevant point? At best, it is an inconsequential point.

I agree but its you who broth the subject forward if i recall correctly

 

[YmirGF]

I think you are making one unreasonable assumption here. That is : All the biblical figures wouldnt exist if Judaism and Christianity didn't exist. That assumption presumes that the
Bible(OT + NT) created those characters. In reality, Adam is the first human whether or not Bible stated it or not. Same applies for all the prophets prior to Moses. So whether or not the Bible was ever written has no bearing on the fact that GOD sent Abraham as a Prophet. Hence people at present time would have known about Abraham from one source - the Quran if Judaism and Christianity didnt exist - instead of 3 sources as in reality.

The things that pass as reason in the mind of some Muslims... sad, really.

The point is, LoverOfTruth, the people would not have had any idea who Muhammad was talking about when he spoke of Abraham.

 

[F0uad]

The things that pass as reason in the mind of some Muslims... sad, really.

The point is, LoverOfTruth, the people would not have had any idea who Muhammad was talking about when he spoke of Abraham.

I think your sentences goes for you 2.

Because that's not even a argument Islam would have enlighten the people who he was so therefore Islam could have exist without Christianity or Judaism. Also i think you make a flaud assumpstion by thinking that Mohammed(saws) was trying to announce everything to Christians or Jews it was towards pagans in the first place yeah they have could heard about Ibrahim(p) maybe 30% or lets say 80% in sack of argument they still rejected Monotheism as religion and i do not see what Christianity or Judaism has anything to do with it.

If your argument still says people knew what Monotheism was and the previous messengers therefore making it easier, i can give you the same argument about Christianity or Judaism and so on...

And if you really think it was that easy why don't you do some research about the History of Mohammed(saws) and how the message was spread i can give you some recommendations for websites that use Authentic Historical Evidence.

 

[arthra]

Gnostic wrote:

The way I see it, Islam are indebted to the traditions of both Judaism and Christianity, and to some lesser extent, to Zoroastrianism.

My comment:

Judaism contains revelations from Abraham to Moses to various prophets afterward.. Without Abraham there would be no covenant and the promised land wouldn't be there.. Without Moses and Abraham where would the rest of the later prophets rest on?

Without Abraham and Moses, where would Jesus be..?

Without Abraham, Moses, Jesus..now comes your statement.. there would be no mention of Them in the Qur'an..

But in essence They are spiritually one and from a Common Source.

When God entered into covenant with the prophets, he said, "This is the
Book and the Wisdom which I give you. Hereafter shall a prophet come unto you
to confirm the Scriptures already with you. Ye shall surely believe on him,
and ye shall surely aid him. Are ye resolved?" said he, "and do ye accept the
covenant on these terms?" They said, "We are resolved;" "Be ye then the
witnesses," said he, "and I will be a witness as well as you.

(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 3 - The Family of Imran)

 

[loverOfTruth]

The things that pass as reason in the mind of some Muslims... sad, really.

The point is, LoverOfTruth, the people would not have had any idea who Muhammad was talking about when he spoke of Abraham.

How did the Jews know who Moses was talking about without any prior knowledge of those prophets?

 

[YmirGF]

Because that's not even a argument Islam would have enlighten the people who he was so therefore Islam could have exist without Christianity or Judaism.

That is assuming it got "off the ground" as it were. Obviously, if people actually bothered to pay attention to Muhammad, they would have learned the version of events that he espoused, but given that he would have been speaking about someone they had never heard of before (or dimly, at best) his message would, necessarily, have been looked up with doubt.

Also i think you make a flaud assumpstion by thinking that Mohammed(saws) was trying to announce everything to Christians or Jews it was towards pagans

True, Mecca was mostly inhabited by pagans. Khadija's relative Waraqa ibn Nawfal was an Ebonite Christian priest, and there were most certainly Jews living in Mecca at the time.

In the first place yeah they have could heard about Ibrahim(p) maybe 30% or lets say 80% in sack of argument they still rejected Monotheism as religion and i do not see what Christianity or Judaism has anything to do with it.

Mecca was inhabited by mostly Arab pagans, but there were also Christians and Jews. It is reasonable to assume that Christians and Jews would have come and listened to him to find out what he was saying about their religion. The Pagan response was, on the other hand, entirely predictable. They, simply put, were not impressed with the message or the messenger. They probably thought that Muhammad had stayed out in the sun too long, regardless of whatever respect he may have formerly commanded.

If your argument still says people knew what Monotheism was and the previous messengers therefore making it easier, i can give you the same argument about Christianity or Judaism and so on...

You could try, but I wouldn't advise it. :flirt:

And if you really think it was that easy why don't you do some research about the History of Mohammed(saws) and how the message was spread i can give you some recommendations for websites that use Authentic Historical Evidence.

Thanks for the offer, F0uad, but I am already fairly well read on the topic. At this time I am not taking any further submissions. Thanks anyway.

 

[F0uad]

That is assuming it got "off the ground" as it were. Obviously, if people actually bothered to pay attention to Muhammad, they would have learned the version of events that he espoused, but given that he would have been speaking about someone they had never heard of before (or dimly, at best) his message would, necessarily, have been looked up with doubt.

And that point valids the question Islam couldn't exist without Christianity or Judaism how?

True, Mecca was mostly inhabited by pagans. Khadija's relative Waraqa ibn Nawfal was an Ebonite Christian priest, and there were most certainly Jews living in Mecca at the time.

I never denied this but as i said the Overwelming majority were Pagans, these pagans were even in war with the Jews in Medina... If there was a Major ''Group'' of Jews living in Mecca they would have been whipped out by the Pagan Tribe leaders.
And i still don't see what this has to do with anything that was raised.

Mecca was inhabited by mostly Arab pagans, but there were also Christians and Jews. It is reasonable to assume that Christians and Jews would have come and listened to him to find out what he was saying about their religion. The Pagan response was, on the other hand, entirely predictable. They, simply put, were not impressed with the message or the messenger. They probably thought that Muhammad had stayed out in the sun too long, regardless of whatever respect he may have formerly commanded.

Yeah sure we can assume that but do you actually have proof of this and that is the problem you don't i can proof with Evidence that these pagans were afraid of him because he was starting to get more followers ''Pagan followers who were converting to islam''

You could try, but I wouldn't advise it. :flirt:

The Argument was raised before but how is this different from Christianity copying Judaism or Judaism coping previous religions... I don't see any difference please enlighten me. :flirt:

Thanks for the offer, F0uad, but I am already fairly well read on the topic. At this time I am not taking any further submissions. Thanks anyway.

I was offering this because i can see that you made some errors when you assumed a couple of things and mostly with reason, like i said before History clearly shows that Mohammed(saws) had the hardest live and lived in the hardest kind of environment yet he prevailed (this has off-course nothing to do with the topic but you are trying to assume it was a easy job)

 

[beerisit]

As a hypothetical, remove all human knowledge of Judaism, Christianity and all knowledge of the people and events portrayed in those religions. Now have Muhammad reveal the Qu'ran as is, does the Qu'ran make any sense? Or have the Qu'ran revealed without any reference to those people or events, does the Qu'ran make any sense?

 

[Caladan]

Yes that's why we have hadiths off-course, and sometimes the Quran does address those things. But as i understand the Quran is a direct revelation instead of detailed information about how other people lived or did.

The Hadith are not elaborative on this matter either, not in the sense that I mean anyway. What I am saying is, that if you want to see what the Hebrew Prophet Ezekiel, or Jeremiah, or Isaaiah preaced, then you have to read the Biblical books. There is no Islamic alternative to this. The Islamic and Qur'anic discussion over these men and their narratives is inspired by the Bible. Not vica versa.

I know this, but then we have to ask if Moses(p) and Jesus(p) never named there religion or at least according to the scriptures why should we?
And why can Muslims not say its Islam when the simply definition of Islam is ''Peace in submission to god'' for example you described what Judaism meant and Christianity and they both have nothing to do with the Religion of God but instead what People were named who followed and after that a religion was named. We also have that its called: Mohammedian but we do not use it.

Muslims are free to have any theological developments they want. But the rest of us non Muslims obviously look at it completely different. We see a chronology and actual development. You understand that there is not much sense for the rest of us to refer to David or Adam as Muslims?
As this discussion goes, you realize that while David was the Biblical king of a united monarchy of Judah and Israel, Adam was the first man. Not necessarily the first Israelite or the first Jew.

Yes i know that The Talmud for example contains oral tradition and writings like for example the hadiths and there are muslims that belief that some hadiths are also the word of god and i think some of the jews belief that The Talmud also has it.

Yes there are levels of considerations to the Talmud by various Jews. Some ultra orthodox streams of Judaism place a great importance on the Talmud, which many other Jews don't much appreciate, because to them there is no substitute to the Biblical text. And that is despite the fact that part of the Talmud's portion is elaborating on the Bible.

Now you know as a jew that Muslims belief that God has indeed send a revelation to Moses(p) and the Jewish prophets so therefore that Verse or Sentence we still see as god's word because its in agreement with the Quran and actually its only confirmed in the Quran that not everything has been lost from the Jewish scriptures (in a muslim perspective off-course).

This is a great beginning of motivation to understand the Hebrew Bible, and to at least come to terms with the fact that it contains so much moral and ideological richness that Jews have been studying it for centuries, in fact centuries more than Muslims have been studying the Qur'an. There is not much point in telling Jews that their Bible is corrupted. Because the Bible is their central book, their Umm al Kitab.

There are also some things from the Hebrew bible that can be traced down to other things before it, but that doesn't mean its not god's word or it is simply copied from somewhere else. I would say if God revealed something to Moses(p) and it still is in the Torah and its also mentioned by the Quran does that mean Mohammed(saws) simply copied it or does that mean its a ''REAL'' revelation given to Moses(p) and later confirmed by Mohammed(saws)

The term 'copy' should not be used in this discussion at all. What the Qur'an does is discussing various Abrahamic traditions in the discussion between Muhammad and the native Arabs in the Hejaz. These people new these traditions and there is no surprise that they discuss their context.
Like wise, the Judahaites who wrote the Bible have long roots in the ancient Near East, there is no surprise that their literature and religion discusses long held traditions in the region.

 

[F0uad]

As a hypothetical, remove all human knowledge of Judaism, Christianity and all knowledge of the people and events portrayed in those religions. Now have Muhammad reveal the Qu'ran as is, does the Qu'ran make any sense? Or have the Qu'ran revealed without any reference to those people or events, does the Qu'ran make any sense?

Still don't understand.. you can simply look back to the comments that are posted before and see the answer for your question but ill repeat myself again

The revelations to Moses(p) and Jesus(p) are a part of Islam but that doesn't mean the Quran cannot explain itself, like i said before the Quran is the final revelation therefore making it the most important one and the Quran itself doesn't describes all the prophets and messengers in detail but why would it, its not meant to be a biography of the past its meant to be a revelation of god for the people in the present and future. I still don't see how this argument what has been discussed 5times already be any benefit for the question ''Can Islam exist without Christianity or Judaism'' there are millions of people who never heard of the bible or torah or even know the stories of them yet they are Muslims and accepted them with a open heart.

 

[F0uad]

The Hadith are not elaborative on this matter either, not in the sense that I mean anyway. What I am saying is, that if you want to see what the Hebrew Prophet Ezekiel, or Jeremiah, or Isaaiah preaced, then you have to read the Biblical books. There is no Islamic alternative to this. The Islamic and Qur'anic discussion over these men and their narratives is inspired by the Bible. Not vica versa.

Ok thats a fair point but what has Islam existent to do with these three ''Prophets'' they are not even mentioned in the Quran so i don't need to accept them as prophets at all, they could have been off-course but how is that important for me?

Muslims are free to have any theological developments they want. But the rest of us non Muslims obviously look at it completely different. We see a chronology and actual development. You understand that there is not much sense for the rest of us to refer to David or Adam as Muslims?
As this discussion goes, you realize that while David was the Biblical king of a united monarchy of Judah and Israel, Adam was the first man. Not necessarily the first Israelite or the first Jew.

Uhm sorry but i don't get what this has to do with the question raised maybe you can clarify what your trying to point out.

Yes there are levels of considerations to the Talmud by various Jews. Some ultra orthodox streams of Judaism place a great importance on the Talmud, which many other Jews don't much appreciate, because to them there is no substitute to the Biblical text. And that is despite the fact that part of the Talmud's portion is elaborating on the Bible.

I think this can be found almost in any religion.

This is a great beginning of motivation to understand the Hebrew Bible, and to at least come to terms with the fact that it contains so much moral and ideological richness that Jews have been studying it for centuries, in fact centuries more than Muslims have been studying the Qur'an. There is not much point in telling Jews that their Bible is corrupted. Because the Bible is their central book, their Umm al Kitab.

I will save this for a different discussion off-course, if wanted we can discuss this in a different topic.

The term 'copy' should not be used in this discussion at all. What the Qur'an does is discussing various Abrahamic traditions in the discussion between Muhammad and the native Arabs in the Hejaz. These people new these traditions and there is no surprise that they discuss their context.
Like wise, the Judahaites who wrote the Bible have long roots in the ancient Near East, there is no surprise that their literature and religion discusses long held traditions in the region.

Hijaz is a huge place lets keep the focus on Mecca and Medina for now, how is having a dialogue with someone proving anything, and as i remember Mohammed(saws) actually had once a debate for three days and which they then converted. But can you quote me a authentic reference to support your claim. Anyhow i never said that Mohammed(saws) never talked about other religions or there were none around him. I simply said you have to proof something instead of amusing that he copied traditions or religious ideas and how is this different from Jesus(p) where the guy actually says i am upholding Mose's(p) law?

 

[Caladan]

Ok thats a fair point but what has Islam existent to do with these three ''Prophets'' they are not even mentioned in the Quran so i don't need to accept them as prophets at all, they could have been off-course but how is that important for me?

You will be surprised to know that although these three prophets are not mentioned in the Qur'an, they are certainly considered as prophets in Islamic tradition.
Furthermore, if you still disregard them. Then we have plenty of other examples. There are no Islamic alternatives for the Biblical narratives about King David and Solomon, and those prophets of the People of Israel who ARE mentioned in the Qur'an. And of course no Islamic alternatives for the narratives about Jesus in the gospels.

Uhm sorry but i don't get what this has to do with the question raised maybe you can clarify what your trying to point out.

There is no better way I can say it. Give another read, I'm sure you'll understand.

Hijaz is a huge place lets keep the focus on Mecca and Medina for now, how is having a dialogue with someone proving anything, and as i remember Mohammed(saws) actually had once a debate for three days and which they then converted. But can you quote me a authentic reference to support your claim. Anyhow i never said that Mohammed(saws) never talked about other religions or there were none around him. I simply said you have to proof something instead of amusing that he copied traditions or religious ideas and how is this different from Jesus(p) where the guy actually says i am upholding Mose's(p) law?

But I just said that the word 'copy' is irrelevant. Muhammad and his followers did not 'copy' Judaism, they discussed Abrahamic traditions. I am saying that the Arabs knew the Jewish Abrahamic traditions before they became Muslims, and Muhammad and the Qur'an discussed these traditions more directly in the context of Monotheism, or what has emerged as Islam. It was a regional development.

 

[beerisit]

Still don't understand.. you can simply look back to the comments that are posted before and see the answer for your question but ill repeat myself again

The revelations to Moses(p) and Jesus(p) are a part of Islam but that doesn't mean the Quran cannot explain itself, like i said before the Quran is the final revelation therefore making it the most important one and the Quran itself doesn't describes all the prophets and messengers in detail but why would it, its not meant to be a biography of the past its meant to be a revelation of god for the people in the present and future. I still don't see how this argument what has been discussed 5times already be any benefit for the question ''Can Islam exist without Christianity or Judaism'' there are millions of people who never heard of the bible or torah or even know the stories of them yet they are Muslims and accepted them with a open heart.

Perhaps you'd now like to answer the questions I posed.

 

[Godobeyer]

That's not too clear.

accuatly
God in the Quran , did not mention to the contian of message (teaching) that
God gave to Adam (pbuh)

edited :
-maybe because that message in the special heaven between God and Adam , and maybe because Adam (pbuh) was the first sane human , which is suppose there were not much disbelievers, it's not necessaire to publish it to us .
because most of them were believers .

God the best knows .

but its certainly God taught him what He taught the other prophets and messangers .