Could have Islam exist without Judaism & Christianity?

[gnostic]

Sorry.


Ps: I have edited my previous post.

Then rewrite your questions in a new post. I am not going back to old post.

 

[F0uad]

Then rewrite your questions in a new post. I am not going back to old post.

The Question: if a person never lied and all witnesses confirmed this even hes enemies and hes one of the most historical persons in history, for example we know so much about him we even how much grey hairs he had on hes beard.
Would you belief the claim that he never lied?

or would you consider him a liar...

I don't consider this as ''evidence'' i just want your personal answer about it.

 

[gnostic]

Are you still comparing this "person" to Muhammad? And about religion?

Or are you talking about a "person" in general, and not just about religion?

I am not dodging your question. Because I just need something more specific to actually answer your question, and your question is rather vague.

Are we talking about Muhammad and Gabriel?

 

[F0uad]

Are you still comparing this "person" to Muhammad? And about religion?

Or are you talking about a "person" in general, and not just about religion?

I am not dodging your question. Because I just need something more specific to actually answer your question, and your question is rather vague.

Are we talking about Muhammad and Gabriel?

Imagine it was someone else (without revelation or claiming he had one)

''Person in general''

 

[gnostic]

Still not specific enough, but I will give it a try.

It's really depends on what the claim is about.

Let's say it is a trial of that "person", of say a murder. And the witnesses, including the person's enemy - all say that this person didn't commit the murder, then I would give him the "benefit of doubt" and that person's statement could be telling the true.

But this topic is not about a murder trial.

You didn't like what I said about revelation...particularly about Muhammad.

How do we know that the so-called revelation is not a LIE?

Just because Muhammad claimed that he was visit by Gabriel, doesn't make it true. How do we know for certain that the Qur'an come from God? How do we know he didn't get many of the stories from contemporary Jews and Christians, and embellished it some more?

The problem with revelation - and I am not just talking about Muhammad's revelation - is that there is no way to verify it. There is no way for other people to witness such revelation.

You have to take it on faith to believe that an archangel named Gabriel did visit Muhammad. No other followers of Muhammad actually "witness" such meeting taking place. Hence, there are no witnesses.

Faith and belief are powerful weapons. And they don't require evidences.

You may believe you what. But I don't trust FAITH alone. Faith alone is really not the best indicator to determine what is true and what is not.

A conman is good at their trade, they can make you believe or buy anything. To me, a prophet is either a real prophet or a conman, and the jury are still out on Muhamamd, Jesus and Moses on whether they are con artists or not.

 

[beerisit]

No the hypothetical doesn't say that. All it says is if Judaism and Christianity didn't exist and hence the scriptures of those two religions which has the stories of Adam, Noah, Abraahm etc. didn't exist. You can't just assume that just because those two scriptures didn't exist that everything else before that would get wiped off or that the stories wouldn't continue to exist via other means.



And by the way, regarding the above statement - first of all, the numbers are incorrect. But regardless of the actual number of years, we can see from history itself how the Jews accepted Jesus(pbubh) just 600yrs before Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) with open arms even with all those accepted history. That clearly proves that availability of the historical information would have no bearing on the belief of the people.

First of all read the hypothetical again and it covers all of your points. Secondly Jesus was most certainly NOT accepted by the Jews who already had prophecies allegedly foretelling of his coming.

 

[loverOfTruth]

I would believe it MORE, if the exact opposite of what you saying to be true.

The whole revelation thingy is more of supernatural and superstitious god-did-it hocus-pocus, which rely more on FAITH & BELIEF. It is nothing that you can prove. And it is LESS believable.

Revelation or scripture can't prove itself. It is faith-based, not evidence-based...and it doesn't take a genius for you to know what I prefer.

How do we know that the so-called revelation is not a LIE?

Just because Muhammad claimed that he was visit by Gabriel, doesn't make it true. How do we know for certain that the Qur'an come from God? How do we know he didn't get many of the stories from contemporary Jews and Christians, and embellished it some more?

Just because the gospels say that Jesus was son of God, and he was resurrected afterward, doesn't mean it is true.

And just because the Exodus narrate the plagues, Moses parting of the Red Sea (or more likely sea of reeds), and supposedly had revelation about his ancestors (Adam, Noah, Abraham), doesn't make any of these to be true.

There is no way that you can supply evidences to support of the above claims to be true. That's why (all) religion is based on faith, and not evidences. It is why we call Islam, Christianity and Judaism - religions - and not science.

I think you just made a 180 degree turn from the topic. The topic was not the 'evidence for the truth of Islam'. I think we already have a thread for that. It would have been more honorable for you to admit(first) that Islam could exist without Judaism and Christianity since Islam has come into existence exactly the same way as those other two - and then move on to other valid questions. I have shown you that via both the revelation or the historical background method. If you don't believe in revelation, you should do that for all of those 3 religions and not just one (10 commandments in OT, story of Jesus's(pbuh) birth via angel Gabriel in NT etc.). And if you assumed your OP thinking all those religions came into existence because of historical information being passed down:
#1 you are wrong as I have stated the revealed stuff above from OT/NT
#2 you are wrong again even if I excluded revelation. Because if the existence of earlier stories in history dictated peoples' belief - Jews would have believed/accepted Jesus(pbuh) without any problem (given the amount of history available to them and yet closest to history) - but that didn't happen did it ?

 

[loverOfTruth]

No the hypothetical doesn't say that. All it says is if Judaism and Christianity didn't exist and hence the scriptures of those two religions which has the stories of Adam, Noah, Abraahm etc. didn't exist. You can't just assume that just because those two scriptures didn't exist that everything else before that would get wiped off or that the stories wouldn't continue to exist via other means.

And by the way, regarding the above statement - first of all, the numbers are incorrect. But regardless of the actual number of years, we can see from history itself how the Jews accepted Jesus(pbubh) just 600yrs before Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) with open arms even with all those accepted history. That clearly proves that availability of the historical information would have no bearing on the belief of the people.

First of all read the hypothetical again and it covers all of your points.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Secondly Jesus was most certainly NOT accepted by the Jews who already had prophecies allegedly foretelling of his coming.

Precisely, my point - but I guess you don't understand sarcasm (see the smiley again in my quote above). So I'll repeat. If the existence of earlier stories in history dictated peoples' belief - Jews would have believed/accepted Jesus(pbuh) without any problem (given the amount of history available to them and yet closest to history) - but that didn't happen did it ? So your notion that People wouldn''t believe Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), without the historical information, is nonsense.

 

[gnostic]

#2 you are wrong again even if I excluded revelation. Because if the existence of earlier stories in history dictated peoples' belief - Jews would have believed/accepted Jesus(pbuh) without any problem (given the amount of history available to them and yet closest to history) - but that didn't happen did it ?

Have you even read the Messianic prophecy in the Hebrew texts?

If Jesus was really the Messiah, then Jesus should have been the king that reunited the 12 tribes into 1 nation, and ruled it, like in the day of Saul, David and Solomon. That was the most important of the prophecies concerning .

Jesus didn't do that.

So it is understandable why many of the Jews didn't follow him.

2nd, Jesus' teaching was quite foreign, even by Hellenistic Judaism standard. The idea that people can be resurrected after they died, and actually live in Heaven with God, would sound sacrilege to Jews. Only God and his angels lived in heaven; everyone goes to Sheol when they die. (Do not confuse Sheol with Hell. Sheol is simply a Netherworld that shades go. The idea of Hell being a eternal place of torment is also foreign to Judaism; Hell is more like borrowing of the Greek Tartarus.)

And Islam have the same idea as Christianity about the afterlife. And that's probably why they couldn't accept Muhammad as a prophet. 2nd, Muhammad was not a Jew.

If you have actually read the Bible, particularly that of Genesis and Abraham's covenant, the reward for Abraham's descendants (Isaac-Jacob line) being faithful was the promised land, Canaan, and have wealth and countless descendants. Nothing about the covenant state they would have afterlife in heaven. The rewards were here on Earth, in the land that were promised to Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, not in heaven.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Have you even read the Messianic prophecy in the Hebrew texts?

If Jesus was really the Messiah, then Jesus should have been the king that reunited the 12 tribes into 1 nation, and ruled it, like in the day of Saul, David and Solomon. That was the most important of the prophecies concerning .

Jesus didn't do that.

So it is understandable why many of the Jews didn't follow him.

2nd, Jesus' teaching was quite foreign, even by Hellenistic Judaism standard. The idea that people can be resurrected after they died, and actually live in Heaven with God, would sound sacrilege to Jews. Only God and his angels lived in heaven; everyone goes to Sheol when they die. (Do not confuse Sheol with Hell. Sheol is simply a Netherworld that shades go. The idea of Hell being a eternal place of torment is also foreign to Judaism; Hell is more like borrowing of the Greek Tartarus.)

And Islam have the same idea as Christianity about the afterlife. And that's probably why they couldn't accept Muhammad as a prophet. 2nd, Muhammad was not a Jew.

If you have actually read the Bible, particularly that of Genesis and Abraham's covenant, the reward for Abraham's descendants (Isaac-Jacob line) being faithful was the promised land, Canaan, and have wealth and countless descendants. Nothing about the covenant state they would have afterlife in heaven. The rewards were here on Earth, in the land that were promised to Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, not in heaven.

Nice one. Now you are changing things even more and saying regardless of what happened Jews wouldn't have accepted Christianity or Islam because the prophecy has not been fulfilled and because the concept of hereafter is different and in the same breath suggesting that the people of Muhammad(pbuh) got those information from the Jews (otherwise, they wouldn't believe)? Who said Jews needed to believe in Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ? I said the people of the time of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) - not the same. Not to mention you are trying to use prophecy from the scripture (same as revelation) to support your argument of history. I think your OP is coming crushing down.

 

[gnostic]

Now you are changing things even more and saying regardless of what happened Jews wouldn't have accepted Christianity or Islam because the prophecy has not been fulfilled and because the concept of hereafter is different and in the same breath suggesting that the people of Muhammad(pbuh) got those information from the Jews (otherwise, they wouldn't believe)? Who said Jews needed to believe in Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ?

No you have misunderstood me.

Muhammad didn't get the idea of the afterlife from Jewish teaching, but from Christian concept. The idea of living afterlife in heaven or paradise is foreign to Judaism.

Because Islamic teaching (about the afterlife) is similar to Christian concept, then it is understandable why Jews don't accept Jesus as messiah and Muhammad as a prophet.

 

[gnostic]

I said the people of the time of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) - not the same. I think your OP is coming crushing down.

No, that's not true.

It had already crashed 250 posts ago, because you, godobeyer and loveroftruth failed to understand my hypothetical concept in the OP.

This topic has been rudderless for a long time. You got us so far off the beaten track that we have been permanently sidetracked pages ago. So when the wind blows east, I go east. When the wind change direction, I simply go where this thread has taken me.

 

[loverOfTruth]

No you have misunderstood me.

Muhammad didn't get the idea of the afterlife from Jewish teaching, but from Christian concept. The idea of living afterlife in heaven or paradise is foreign to Judaism.

Because Islamic teaching (about the afterlife) is similar to Christian concept, then it is understandable why Jews don't accept Jesus as messiah and Muhammad as a prophet.

Wow - so you are suggesting that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) got some info from Jews and some from Christians and then removed all the contradictions and inconsistencies of those scriptures and came up with the simplest and most consistent monotheistic religion. Must have been the smartest man on earth. Nice theory without an iota of evidence.

 

[Caladan]

Wow - so you are suggesting that Islam got some info from Jews and some from Christians and then removed all the contradictions and inconsistencies of those scriptures and came up with the simplest and most consistent monotheistic religion. Must have been the smartest man on earth. Nice theory without an iota of evidence.

The evidence for the origin of Islamic traditions are all over the place. They are in the Sharia which takes material from Roman law and the Jewish Talmud as it does from local traditions, it is in the the Qur'an and in the Hadith which draw on Biblical, Talmudic, and other sources, it is in the reforms Muhammad placed such as in marriage which are rooted in Judaism. It is in the fact that Muhammad started to construct his religion on Jewish basis. For example he set the day of fast to the same day of Yom Kippur the Jewish day of fast, he set the direction of prayer to Jerusalem before it was changed to Mecca, daily prayer was also taken from Judaism.

Historically the emergence of new religious movements is ALWAYS influenced by existing major religions. For example the early Christian movement directly originated by Jews, and had a considerable diffusion with Hellenic and Roman elements.

This does not necessarily mean that one religion was 'simply copied' from the other, it means that we witness a social process in the making, and we trace its historical roots in this debate.

 

[loverOfTruth]

The evidence for the origin of Islamic traditions are all over the place. They are in the Sharia which takes material from Roman law and the Jewish Talmud as it does from local traditions, it is in the the Qur'an and in the Hadith which draw on Biblical, Talmudic, and other sources, it is in the reforms Muhammad placed such as in marriage which are rooted in Judaism. It is in the fact that Muhammad started to construct his religion on Jewish basis. For example he set the day of fast to the same day of Yom Kippur the Jewish day of fast, he set the direction of prayer to Jerusalem before it was changed to Mecca, daily prayer was also taken from Judaism.

Historically the emergence of new religious movements is ALWAYS influenced by existing major religions. For example the early Christian movement directly originated by Jews, and had a considerable diffusion with Hellenic and Roman elements.

This does not necessarily mean that one religion was 'simply copied' from the other, it means that we witness a social process in the making, and we trace its historical roots in this debate.

Nice try in evidence mining. If the message is from the same one and only God - He is going to say believe in one God and pray and fast etc. to everyone of A,B,C ... Z. Does that mean Z got it from A or was influenced by A? It doesn't. So what influenced the '10 commandment of Moses(pbuh)' ?

In this regard, Dr. Jamal Badawi's statements are worth noting. He says: “It would be highly imaginary to say that through his occasional chats with Jews and Christians, while busy with his caravan, Muhammad, learned enough about either or both religions to formulate a new powerful and viable religion, a task that defies the collective efforts of scholars for centuries.” as is the case for Christianity and Judaism.

Furthermore, the above assertion raises a number of questions. Dr. Jamal Badawi puts forth the following six questions:

1. Why is it, that in spite of the abundance of historical material on the life of Prophet Muhammad, and in spite of the extensive research on his life for centuries by his critics, why was it not possible to discover the mysterious teacher who allegedly taught Muhammad, , all that he learned?
2. It is known that Muhammad, , was opposed, ridiculed and persecuted for nearly thirteen years by his own contemporaries. Was it not possible for his enemies to prove to the masses that Prophet Muhammad's, claim of revelation was sheer fabrication? Was it not possible for them to reveal and name whom they alleged to be the human sources of his teachings? Even some of his adversaries who made this assertion changed their minds later on, and accused him, instead, of magic or of being possessed by evil.
3. Prophet Muhammad, , was raised among his people and every aspect of his life was exposed to them, especially by the openness that characterizes tribal life in the desert. How could his contemporaries, including many of his close relatives who knew him so well, believe in his truthfulness if they had any doubt that he was claiming credit for ideas taught to him by some other teachers, without bothering to give them credit?
4. What kind of teacher might have taught Muhammad, , a coherent and complete religion that changed the face of history? Why did he or they (if any) not speak against the alleged student who continued learning from them, while ignoring them and claiming some other Divine source for his teachings?
5. How could many Jews and Christians amongst his contemporaries become Muslims and believe in his truthfulness, if they knew that he was copying from their scriptures or learning from their priests or rabbis?
6. It is known that some of the Quranic revelations came to Prophet Muhammad, , in the presence of people. The Quran was revealed during the span of 23 years. If the Prophet, , had a teacher, where was he? How could he, , have hidden the teacher for so long? On the other hand, how could Prophet Muhammad, , who was constantly surrounded by followers, be able to make frequent secret visits to that mysterious teacher or teachers for 23 years without being ‘caught’ even once?

 

[loverOfTruth]

No, that's not true.

It had already crashed 250 posts ago, because you, godobeyer and loveroftruth failed to understand my hypothetical concept in the OP.

This topic has been rudderless for a long time. You got us so far off the beaten track that we have been permanently sidetracked pages ago. So when the wind blows east, I go east. When the wind change direction, I simply go where this thread has taken me.

Sorry couldn't help it seeing all those double standards such as denying/mocking revelation while quoting 'Messianic prophecy in the Hebrew text' to support your argument.

 

[Caladan]

You are completely evading the debate in its basic form.
No one is discussing 'truthfullness' and no one is blaming Muhammad of fabrication.
This conversation is not different from the times we discuss the influences over early Christianity, over what Jesus said, and over what the New Testament said.
The fact that Jesus and the early Christians originated in Jewish and Hellenic societies does not take away from the new prespective and new philosophies of Christianity.

 

[loverOfTruth]

You are completely evading the debate in its basic form.
No one is discussing 'truthfullness' and no one is blaming Muhammad of fabrication.
This conversation is not different from the times we discuss the influences over early Christianity, over what Jesus said, and over what the New Testament said.
The fact that Jesus and the early Christians originated in Jewish and Hellenic societies does not take away from the new prespective and new philosophies of Christianity.

I am letting it all out in the open with all possible alternatives. You are the one keep changing your mind and evading by not answering anything.

 

[Caladan]

I am letting it all out in the open with all possible alternatives. You are the one keep changing your mind and evading by not answering anything.

So far I gave much more material than you. You are doing everything in order to evade the core issues here. You repeatedly turn to the circular reasoning of religious claims.
Answer the question: Did not Muhammad imitate Judaism in the infancy of his message?
Did he not set the direction of prayer towards the holy city of Judaism? (later it was changed to Mecca)
Did he not set the day of fast to the Jewish day of fast? (later it turned into the month of Ramadan)
Did he not set daily prayers after the tradition of Judaism?

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Ask yourself, why did he do all that?
because he based his message on long standing body of beliefs and traditions which have existed in the region for centuries and have been known to him and the Arab tribes.

Why are you so afraid of understanding the social and historical background for Islam? as well as the motivations Muhammad had when promoting these things?
tell me was Jesus less of a man because he read from the Torah? did it take anything from his message?

 

[loverOfTruth]

So far I gave much more material than you. You are doing everything in order to evade the core issues here. You repeatedly turn to the circular reasoning of religious claims.
Answer the question: Did not Muhammad imitate Judaism in the infancy of his message?

No he didn't unless you mean the same way Moses(pbuh) imitated Abraham(pbuh) and Abraham(pbuh) imitated Noah(pbuh) in their message of Monotheism because it is from the same God and hence same message. And in fact, the concept of Monotheism wasn't even prevalent in Makkah at the time of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) - it was the pagans busy worshipping Idols. Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was preaching something foreign for which muslims were persecuted in Makkah for the first 13 years of Islam - there were no Jews or Christians standing up for the new Muslims then.

Did he not set the direction of prayer towards the holy city of Judaism? (later it was changed to Mecca)

Jews and Christians asked the same question to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and in fact, revelation was sent as a response to it right then.

"And thus we have made you a just community that you will be witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you. And We did not make the qiblah which you used to face(Jerusalem) except that We might make evident who would follow the Messenger from who would turn back on his heels. And indeed, it is difficult except for those whom Allah has guided. And never would Allah have caused you to lose your faith. Indeed Allah is, to the people, Kind and Merciful." (Al-Qur'an 2:143)

Muhammad bin Ishaq reported that Al-Bara' narrated: Allah's Messenger used to offer prayers towards Bayt Al-Maqdis (Jerusalem), but would keep looking at the sky awaiting Allah's command (to change the Qiblah). Then Allah revealed:

"We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram(Kaaba). And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it [in prayer]. Indeed, those who have been given the Scripture well know that it is the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do." (Al-Qur'an 2:144)

So now you know why and how that was done. And according to Islam Kaaba was the Qiblah of Abraham(pbuh) too.

Did he not set the day of fast to the Jewish day of fast? (later it turned into the month of Ramadan)

No. What you refer as Jewish day of fast, we refer as fast of Ashura and that is an optional fast and we still do that in addition to the obligatory fast of month of Ramadan.

And that is also because the Jews stated : "This is a righteous day, it is the day when Allah saved the Children of Israel from their enemies, so Musa fasted on this day." Then the Prophet(pbuh) said:
"We have more right to Musa than you," so he fasted on that day and commanded [the Muslims] to fast on that day. [Reported by al-Bukhari, 1865] and additionally he asked muslims to fast an additional day before or after the day of Ashura to differ from the Jews.

Did he not set daily prayers after the tradition of Judaism?

No again and actually it is funny that you said that. How many Jews do you know that prays 5 times a day in the cycle of standing, bowing, prostating like the muslims ?

And for all of the above 'concepts' (direction of prayer, fasting, prayer) actually proves what we muslims have been saying all along that it was Islam from the getgo without the actual ritual of Islam because all these prophets starting from Adam(pbuh) until Muhammad(pbuh) came from the same God with the same basic message and concept of submission to God's will. Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) just finalized the laws. We never claimed that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) invented all those things.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Ask yourself, why did he do all that?
because he based his message on long standing body of beliefs and traditions which have existed in the region for centuries and have been known to him and the Arab tribes.

Wrong again - it is because God commanded Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) to do so as I have shown you.

Why are you so afraid of understanding the social and historical background for Islam? as well as the motivations Muhammad had when promoting these things?
tell me was Jesus less of a man because he read from the Torah? did it take anything from his message?

I am not afraid of understanding anything. Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) had no other motivation than to please God and spread His message as commanded just like all the other Prophets before him which is quite evident from the Qur'an and the Hadiths. And for you to claim otherwise, you would have to accuse Him of lying and accuse the the Qur'an and Hadith to be false (even his enemies knew him as Al Amin - the trustworthy). No it doesn't take away anything from Jesus(pbuh) - but if it didn't happen that way, I am not gonna say that it did.

Historically the emergence of new religious movements is ALWAYS influenced by existing major religions. For example the early Christian movement directly originated by Jews, and had a considerable diffusion with Hellenic and Roman elements.

Its funny how you always stop at Judaism.

So now I hope you will answer my question which you had been evading for the longest time.

So what influenced Judaism and the '10 commandments of Moses(pbuh)' as you have mentioned that 'new religious movements is ALWAYS influenced by existing major religions' ?

And

How through his occasional conversations with Jews and Christians, while doing his business, Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), learned enough about both religions (OT, NT, Talmud, Midrash - none of which was available in Arabic at that time + Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was unlettered) to formulate a new powerful and viable religion, a task that defies the collective efforts of scholars for centuries, as is the case for Judaism and Christianity ?