Could have Islam exist without Judaism & Christianity?

[F0uad]

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

Quote:
Muhammad was leading the prayer when he received revelations from God instructing him to take the Kaaba as the Qiblah (literally, "Turn then Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque:").According to the traditional accounts contained in the hadith and sira, Muhammad, who had been facing Jerusalem, upon receiving this revelation, immediately turned around to face Mecca, and those praying behind him also did so. Some have claimed that the Qur'an does not identify or allude to Jerusalem as being the first Qiblah and that the practise of facing Jerusalem is only mentioned in traditional biographies of Muhammad and hadith collections.

This doesn't mean Mohammed(saws) changed it but god did.

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

Answered you below but here is a interesting Article that actually debunks your claim.

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

Simple answer no there were many pagans who didn't follow any Tradition of Judasim and prayed even Egyptians so the same argument goes for Moses(p), i also do not see Jews praying 5 days a time. Mohammed(saws) himself prayed 6times and there is a well known oral saying that people used to pray more then 5imes but god showed hes mercy for making it 5.

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?

Your iceberg melts when you use logic

Your trying to assume with these questions that Mohammed(saws) never could have a revelation therefore copied.

You do not see the logic behind when muslims tell you that we belief that what was revealed to Moses, Jesus and Mohammed (peace be upon them) was one and the same Religion. So when something revealed to Moses(p) is later confirmed by Mohammed(p) does that mean he copied tradition? :no: but its god word just confirmed by Mohammed(saws) what Moses(p) and the previous messengers taught.

Can't you see the same arguments can be used against the other prophets and messengers?
Please don't pretend that you know Islamic history because if you would, you would never come to the conclusions you made i really recommend doing research about the subjects from Islamic sources

 

[gnostic]

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.

I didn't say that.

He didn't get rid of any inconsistencies or contradictions. He is a hack. He couldn't tell a complete narratives of any biblical event. He draw a lot of his materials that were clearly apocryphal/midrashic (like Solomon using magic to control demons/jinns) and pseudigraphal (like enoch) and add and blend native Arabic folk traditions (jinns) with Christian myths (like the devil/Satan). He didn't make Jewish or Christian scriptures or traditions better; no he just made it very different.

You don't understand the historical and dynamic nature of literature and folk traditions that people ( not just talking about Muhammad, but he is no different from other people) have the tendencies to borrow these traditions from elsewhere. It is far easy to start to borrow these traditions.

Must have been the smartest man on earth.

of course he was smart. Where did I say that he was stupid?

Don't imply something I didn't say or write. You have the tendencies to twist something I've written.

 

[F0uad]

I think it all comes to this people are assuming things without a reasonable argument nor any proof.
Therefore i can conclude that Mohammed(saws) didn't copy tradition.

 

[loverOfTruth]

I didn't say that.

He didn't get rid of any inconsistencies or contradictions. He is a hack. He couldn't tell a complete narratives of any biblical event. He draw a lot of his materials that were clearly apocryphal/midrashic (like Solomon using magic to control demons/jinns) and pseudigraphal (like enoch) and add and blend native Arabic folk traditions (jinns) with Christian myths (like the devil/Satan). He didn't make Jewish or Christian scriptures or traditions better; no he just made it very different.

You don't understand the historical and dynamic nature of literature and folk traditions that people ( not just talking about Muhammad, but he is no different from other people) have the tendencies to borrow these traditions from elsewhere. It is far easy to start to borrow these traditions.



of course he was smart. Where did I say that he was stupid?

Don't imply something I didn't say or write. You have the tendencies to twist something I've written.

Vain talk without an iota of evidence.

 

[gnostic]

I think it all comes to this people are assuming things without a reasonable argument nor any proof.
Therefore i can conclude that Mohammed(saws) didn't copy tradition.

Vain talk without an iota of evidence.

There are plenty of evidences, you're both just too blind to see them...or don't want them.

The Qur'an, Sunnah and Hadith are far more indebted to all the Jewish and Christian lores than you realized. You just aren't prepare to do objective researches.

But for some stupid reasons, you think that borrowing ideas or concepts from Jewish and Christian traditions to be negative. It is not. Muhammad is far more smarter than you know. Without those previous traditions, Muhammad would have to start from scratch. He could not have developed a new religion in such a short time, if he had to something completely new.

Caladan have explain a number of things about traditions to you, but you dismiss it without doing a single research of what he meant. Caladan clearly have better grasp of the transmission of traditions than you both, combined. Because if you do, then you will have to rethink about Allah being an author of the Qur'an.

You are both to "indoctrinated" to see anyone else's perspectives, but your own. You dismiss everything else's views but you own. You both are stuck in a box, and you refused to look beyond your preconceptions. You seem to think that God-did-it is the only answer required.

And in the world of literature and traditions, I don't think your narrow views much to me.

 

[arthra]

The question here though could just as well have been Could Christianity exist without Judaism?

Consider the references to Moses by Jesus:

5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

(King James Bible, John)


7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? 7:20 The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? 7:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.
7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.
7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

(King James Bible, John)

8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

(King James Bible, John)

All the Prophets build on what went before and give a new teaching...suitable to Their time:

Those who have bought this worldly life with the Future, the torment shall not be lightened from them nor shall they be helped. We gave Moses the Book and we followed him up with other apostles, and we gave Jesus the son of Mary manifest signs and aided him with the Holy Spirit. Do ye then, every time an apostle comes to you with what your souls love not, proudly scorn him, and charge a part with lying and slay a part?

(The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 2:87 - The Heifer)

136. Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord, we make no difference between one and another of them, and we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 2)

13. The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah-the which We have sent by inspiration to thee-and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in Religion, and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than Allah, hard is the (way) to which thou callest them. Allah chooses to Himself those whom He pleases, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him).

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 42)

 

[F0uad]

There are plenty of evidences, you're both just too blind to see them...or don't want them.

The Qur'an, Sunnah and Hadith are far more indebted to all the Jewish and Christian lores than you realized. You just aren't prepare to do objective researches.

But for some stupid reasons, you think that borrowing ideas or concepts from Jewish and Christian traditions to be negative. It is not. Muhammad is far more smarter than you know. Without those previous traditions, Muhammad would have to start from scratch. He could not have developed a new religion in such a short time, if he had to something completely new.

Caladan have explain a number of things about traditions to you, but you dismiss it without doing a single research of what he meant. Caladan clearly have better grasp of the transmission of traditions than you both, combined. Because if you do, then you will have to rethink about Allah being an author of the Qur'an.

You are both to "indoctrinated" to see anyone else's perspectives, but your own. You dismiss everything else's views but you own. You both are stuck in a box, and you refused to look beyond your preconceptions. You seem to think that God-did-it is the only answer required.

And in the world of literature and traditions, I don't think your narrow views much to me.

Ok and where did he show that Mohammed(saws) copied traditions he made a assumptions that he did and made certain claims without proving with Historical evidence. You agreed that Mohammed(saws) was one of the most Historical figures yet you are willing to accept anything what a person says about him without quoting historical evidence... aren't you doing the same thing your accusing me off?

I have studied Hadith for over 3year and i am willing to have a debate ''discussion'' about it, i can clearly see that Caladan didn't do hes homework because if he is willing to accept the assumptions that Mohammed(saws) copied tradition then he has to show it to me on Historical Evidence or any possibility of it according to Historical Evidence. But then again you would have the problem of the argument that it could have been a revelation from god instead of a copy.

You accused me of being indoctrinated while i think your the one who is, you simply reject something by believing assumptions. Please show me evidence that the claims you make are true! Because the claims that i make have HISTROICAL EVIDENCE to back them up and both of you have shown us Zero so far...

 

[gnostic]

Do you remember this post of yours:

Where is your proof that its ''Exaggerated'' and isn't the real message where the biblical stories have gone wrong... heck if you are a atheist you surely know Bart Erhman who describes in detail how the development of the gospels started and ended, you have ''faith'' that its copied/borrowed from other religions without having proof.

While on the other hand i have Hadiths ''Scripture'' that go back to the time of Mohammed(saws) that describes all the events that happened in detail and nothing of whatever you assumed and claimed shows as even a possibility that it happened or could have happened.

When I stated (in POST 207) that some parts of the Qur'an were more exaggerated or embellished than the Bible. That was your reply to me. This was followed by rude post of yours here.

So wait.. you have nothing more to say so you pick out text.....
First of all where is the proof they didn't like i said Muslims do not belief that the Torah or Bible are authentic, heck most atheist and gnostic's do not even belief this anyway this is a different subject.

If the definition of Islam means submission to god wouldn't they call it Islam, didn't Moses or Jesus (peace be upon them) submit themselves to god... They Did...

Nor did the 50 or more prophets in the bible ever called the religion Christianity funny right?..

For one, I don't always stay in the same thread. And for another, I was busy, so I don't spend all my time on the computer. Thirdly, it was getting late, and since we on the Internet and we may live on different time zones, I may not get back to the thread, the next day.

And lastly, I did reply, but never got your response. I gave an example of embellishment of the Qur'an. Either you've ignored my reply (which would be rude), or simply miss it. I don't know which.

But I will copy-and-paste here, to see if you will respond and reply this time.

--------------------------- post 221 --------------------------------

The story of Solomon.

In the Hebrew version, Solomon prayed to God for WISDOM, so that he could rule "wisely".

Solomon just ruled and judged wisely. Whereas David's kingdom was built upon wars, Solomon's empire comes more from diplomacy with his neighbors and marriages to other royalties, and wealth through trades and mining.

In the Islamic version, Solomon could talk to animals - command army of ants and birds, and even jinns. Not only that, he could control winds.

16. And Solomon was David's heir.
He said: "O ye people!
We have been taught the speech"
Of Birds, and on us
Has been bestowed (a little)
Of all things: this is
Indeed Grace manifest (from God.)"


17. And before Solomon were marshalled
His hosts,—of Jinns and men
And birds, and they were all
Kept in order and ranks.


18. At length, when they came
To a (lowly) valley of ants,
One of the ants said:
"O ye ants, get into
Your habitations, lest Solomon
And his hosts crush you
(Under foot) without knowing it."

12. And to Solomon (We
Made) the Wind (obedient):
Its early morning (stride)
Was a month's (journey),
And its evening (stride)
Was a month's (journey);
And We made a Font
Of molten brass to flow
For him; and there were
Jinns that worked in front
Of him, by the leave
Of his Lord, and if any
Of them turned aside
From Our command, We
Made him taste
Of the Penalty
Of the Blazing Fire.

Nothing in the Biblical version say that Solomon could do such things. The Islamic version of Solomon sounds more like fable or fairytale. Hardly realistic, certainly a lot of embellishment. A lot harder to believe than the biblical version about Solomon.

Hence, exaggeration!

But of course, there are cases, where the Qur'anic version is more believable and realistic than the biblical version. One example is Noah's Flood. In Genesis it was global flood where even the highest mountains in the world was covered with water. The Islamic version implied a more acceptable regional flood.

Of course, if we were to believe it is regional flood, and Noah was forewarned about the Flood 100 years earlier, like it say in the Bible (Noah was warned at 500, and the flood arrived when he was 600), then why would Islamic version have Noah built an ark, when he could have easily migrated to higher region, not affected by the flood. HECK! In 1 or 2 years, you can travel a great distance, even at walking pace, easily flood region. The whole Ark thing is pretty pointless in regional flood, especially if you're supposed to a prophet.

 

[Caladan]

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.

This circular reasoning is tiring. And where did all these men arrive from? the Hebrew Bible!, from Judaism and later from Christianity.

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.

First of all there WERE Arab monotheists called Hanifs, various traditions hold that Muhammad had various encounters and experiences with these men. Furthermore, the historical fact still remains that monotheists did certainly live in the region and had direct contact with the pagan population.
Muhammad was not the first one (or even the last one) to speak about monotheism in the region.

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.

The Qiblah was only changed to Mecca LATER. Muhammd did set the first direction of prayer towards Jerusalem, and included other traditions which are clearly Jewish. It goes hand in hand with the fact that many claim that he turned to the Jews with his message first and tried to conform his message with their religion. Only after Islam started to become a religion on its own with a more experienced identity did these elements began to change.

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.

Again. I am not looking for what happened AFTER Islam began to build its own distinct traditions. Before that stage Muhammahad most certainly took these Jewish practices. Including the Qibla and a day of fast which fell on the Jewish Yom Kippur.

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 ?

Again. It doesn't need to be exactly the same way Muslims pray today. Your mistake is simple, you take a finished Muslim product instead of looking at the original emergence of the practice. Daily prayer was inspired by Judaism. All these things which I brought up are dicussed by modern Islamic scholars themselves.

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.

In other words you are saying what we have been saying all along. That Muhammad was inspired by existing Abrahamic traditions which Jews and Christians have been practicing for centuries.

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

You have not shown me such, because it is impossible to do so.

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' ?

I have not been evading it AT ALL. The 10 commandments had other contemporary equivalents such as the laws of Hammurabi. But this thread is NOT about diffusion between Judaism and other Near Eastern cultures or religions. but about the inspirations for Islam!

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 ?

Jewish texts certainly existed in Arabic form. furthermore as I have already said I do not believe he was illiterate. In any case how do you explain all the Jewish material which clearly DOES EXIST in Islamic texts?

 

[beerisit]

I think it all comes to this people are assuming things without a reasonable argument nor any proof.
Therefore i can conclude that Mohammed(saws) didn't copy tradition.

Well of course that is what you have been taught and therefore believe rather than conclude. You claim that all three religions are really Islam but then deny any relationship between the Qu'ran and the other two religions while at the same time claiming that the Qu'ran rectifies errors in the earlier scriptures. Do you understand having your cake and eating it too?

 

[gnostic]

Well of course that is what you have been taught and therefore believe rather than conclude. You claim that all three religions are really Islam but then deny any relationship between the Qu'ran and the other two religions while at the same time claiming that the Qu'ran rectifies errors in the earlier scriptures.

It's senseless and hypocritical.

 

[loverOfTruth]

There are plenty of evidences, you're both just too blind to see them...or don't want them.

The Qur'an, Sunnah and Hadith are far more indebted to all the Jewish and Christian lores than you realized. You just aren't prepare to do objective researches.

But for some stupid reasons, you think that borrowing ideas or concepts from Jewish and Christian traditions to be negative. It is not. Muhammad is far more smarter than you know. Without those previous traditions, Muhammad would have to start from scratch. He could not have developed a new religion in such a short time, if he had to something completely new.

Caladan have explain a number of things about traditions to you, but you dismiss it without doing a single research of what he meant. Caladan clearly have better grasp of the transmission of traditions than you both, combined. Because if you do, then you will have to rethink about Allah being an author of the Qur'an.

You are both to "indoctrinated" to see anyone else's perspectives, but your own. You dismiss everything else's views but you own. You both are stuck in a box, and you refused to look beyond your preconceptions. You seem to think that God-did-it is the only answer required.

And in the world of literature and traditions, I don't think your narrow views much to me.

Quite an impressive slur - after failing to provide any evidence to prove your point, you resort to personal attack ?

If you do not believe in revelation, you have no business comparing 3 of the Abrahamic faiths all of which involves divine revelation. You are only reducing your credibility by doing that. If you really think that those Abrahamic religions are man made religions out of historical influences, you are only kidding yourself - no religious Jew or Christian would take you seriously on that. And if you don't believe that, it would be hypocritical to think the same for Islam.

You guys have not shown an iota of evidence. All you have done is shown that since Z speaks of information some of which X and Y also speaks of, so Z must have gotten those from X and Y. That is just absurd and doesn't prove anything. It ignores the possibility that the same Teacher could have taught the information to A...Z and hence you find some similarities yet significant differences as well (as usually happens through lack of preservation of the teachings).

But anyway, if you still want to prove anything - you should answer the following questions (and please remember to provide sources and not just your assumptions and please do not use any scriptures as your source as that would be same as God doing it which you vehemently oppose):

* 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). Why didn't that happen ?

* 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 ?

* 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?

* 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.

* 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?

* 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?

* 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?

* 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]

This circular reasoning is tiring. And where did all these men arrive from? the Hebrew Bible!, from Judaism and later from Christianity.

I think you are guilty of the same arrogance that you are accusing the muslims of. You think all source of knowledge is the Hebrew Bible ?

First of all there WERE Arab monotheists called Hanifs, various traditions hold that Muhammad had various encounters and experiences with these men. Furthermore, the historical fact still remains that monotheists did certainly live in the region and had direct contact with the pagan population.
Muhammad was not the first one (or even the last one) to speak about monotheism in the region.

I did not say that there were not a single person who knew of Monotheism in Makkah. However, they were so few in numbers that they could be counted. But it doesn't change the fact that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was preaching something foreign to majority of the people for which muslims were persecuted in Makkah for the first 13 years. Paganism was in fact the dominant religion in Arabia at that time. You can get more details about Hunafa if interested here : Commentary On Seerah And History: Info Seerah: The Story of Four Hunafa (1/4)

The Qiblah was only changed to Mecca LATER. Muhammd did set the first direction of prayer towards Jerusalem, and included other traditions which are clearly Jewish. It goes hand in hand with the fact that many claim that he turned to the Jews with his message first and tried to conform his message with their religion. Only after Islam started to become a religion on its own with a more experienced identity did these elements began to change.

I guess you didn't read the entire thing I wrote regarding this. The Prophet did change the Qiblah from Jerusalem to Makkah but He longed for the Qiblah to be Makkah even before that. He was just waiting for the God's command for that to happen and then God commanded him to change it. Plus, God gave the reason in that Quranic verse as to why He made him face to Jerusalem first and then to Kaaba - to test the believers.

Again. I am not looking for what happened AFTER Islam began to build its own distinct traditions. Before that stage Muhammahad most certainly took these Jewish practices. Including the Qibla and a day of fast which fell on the Jewish Yom Kippur.

Again. It doesn't need to be exactly the same way Muslims pray today. Your mistake is simple, you take a finished Muslim product instead of looking at the original emergence of the practice. Daily prayer was inspired by Judaism. All these things which I brought up are dicussed by modern Islamic scholars themselves.

As I have mentioned, Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) asked muslims to fast on Ashura to honor Prophet Musa(pbuh) as we have been saying from the beginning that all those are prophets from the same God and we believe in them all.

In other words you are saying what we have been saying all along. That Muhammad was inspired by existing Abrahamic traditions which Jews and Christians have been practicing for centuries.

You have not shown me such, because it is impossible to do so.

When did I deny the Abrahamic background of the Islamic faith ? I didn't. I have been saying all along that we are part of the same Abrahamic faith as the Jews and the Christians are and we Honor Prophet Abraham(pbuh) more than any Jew or a Christian as many of our Islamic rituals are part of honoring him but that doesn't come from the Jewish or Chrstian scriptures. It is because God commanded Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) to do so and some of which God also commanded to the Jews and the Christians. I will show you that in a while.

I have not been evading it AT ALL. The 10 commandments had other contemporary equivalents such as the laws of Hammurabi. But this thread is NOT about diffusion between Judaism and other Near Eastern cultures or religions. but about the inspirations for Islam!

This thread is not about Judaism but is comparing all 3 of those religions so you cannot talk about just one without the other. Now are you saying that the '10 commandments' of Moses(pbuh) did not come from God to Moses(pbuh) but rather Moses(pbuh) wrote them as historically influenced by the laws of Hammurabi ?
If answer to the above question is 'no', then you are being hypocritical when you say that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) couldn't have gotten the laws from God as a revelation where as Prophet Moses(pbuh) did. As you can show no evidence to prove either.
On the other hand, if the answer to the above questions is 'yes', then you are putting your credibility into question as I highly doubt that majority of the Jewish Rabbis would agree with you on that. Let me give you some references here :

And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. 13 And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua: and Moses went up into the mount of God.
— First mention of the tables in Exodus 24:12,13

They have a uniquely terse style.[21] Of all the biblical laws and commandments, the Ten Commandments alone[21] were "written with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18). And lastly, the stone tablets were placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:21).[21]
Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the Talmud (tractate Makkoth 23b), Deut. 33:04 states that Moses transmitted the "Torah" from God to the Israelites: "Moses commanded us the Torah as an inheritance for the community of Jacob".
613 commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In due logical development of this theology, the Rabbis came to assume that the Law comprised 613 commandments (see Commandments, The 613), of which 611 are said to have been given through Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 4, being numerically equal to 611); the first two commandments of the Decalogue were given by the mouth of God Himself (R. Joshua b. Levi, in Pes. R. xxii.; compare Mak. 24b-25a; Hor. 8a; Pirḳe R. El. xli.).
COMMANDMENT - JewishEncyclopedia.com

And if you don't believe in those scriptural quotes above from the references I noted, you are essentially admitting that the Torah is corrupted or tells you lies, in which case, it is more absurd to assume that people should take those books of lies as historical evidence for other religions that came after it.

Jewish texts certainly existed in Arabic form. furthermore as I have already said I do not believe he was illiterate.

You have shown no evidence whatsoever for the above. On the contrary, the Arabic version of the OT/NT didn't exist until much later (and I don't think I need mention anything about the Talmud) :

"The first Jewish translations of the Hebrew Bible, and the bible translations by Roman Catholic clergy date from c. AD 1000. One of the oldest Arabic bibles was discovered in the 19th century at Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai."
Bible translations into Arabic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In any case how do you explain all the Jewish material which clearly DOES EXIST in Islamic texts?

Simple. The same Teacher taught the information to Moses(pbuh) and Muhammad(pbuh) and hence you find some similarities yet significant differences as well (as usually happens through lack of preservation of the teachings). That teacher is none but God alone as I have shown you the case for the Jewish laws. Regarding the significant difference, you can clearly see as those 3 religions stand today - Judaism empahsizes on the covenant betweent the Jewish people and God while Christianity focuses on the person of Christ, where as in Islam the emphasis is on the concept of submission to the will of One God (alone).

In retrospect, what I see happening here is you guys are acting as Jewish scholars trying to change not only what Islam is but even Judaism. I highly doubt if majority of the Jewish Rabbis would agree to the fact that the teachings of Judaism didn't come from God but rather historical influences. And if that is the case, there is no reason to not believe that it could happen for Islam and infact I have given enough evidences as to why you simply can't assume that just because some of those informations existed earlier so the latter just borrowed it from the former.

You are falsely assuming that the laws/teachings of Islam are not of divine origin just because some of the the ideas and traditions it contains existed earier. As I have shown you that the earlier ideas and traditions are revealed by God himself so God can use similar earlier revelations in his final testament, the Quran.Thus despite some very close parallels between what Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (pbuh) had to say and what was said before them, they can be true prophets of God bringing genuine divine revelation as we have been saying from the getgo as the Holy Qur'an states : "This Qur’an is not such as can be produced by anyone other than God. It is a confirmation of earlier revelations..."(Al-Qur’an 10:37) and yet again "He has ordained for you of religion what He enjoined upon Noah and that which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what We enjoined upon Abraham and Moses and Jesus - to establish the religion and not be divided therein."(Al-Qur’an 42:13)

 

[Caladan]

Let me get this straight. If I don't believe that major religions such as in the case of Judaism experienced diffusion with other Near Eastern cultures and religions than I am a hypocrite, but if I do believe so then I am blaspheming?
Well its good to know that your arguments are based on a sole principle: circular reasoning.
You fail to understand a simple thing, religious beliefs do not carry more weight in historical debats, on the contrary in order to get to the bottom of things we need to see beyond tradition and into the facts.
What I (and others) are claiming is that new religious movements are not created in a cultural vacuum. Instead we see social reforms in an environment which is brewing with existing traditions and cultures. To say that Israelite culture has influenced or was influenced by other Near Eastern cultures is not blasphemy, it is understanding the course of ancient history. In fact we can trace many religious and philosophical developments this way and understand the religious movements themselves.
By the same tokken, if I said that the world was created in 6 days because the Bible says so and that the theory of evolution is completely discredited on this basis people would rightly say that my argument fell on its butt.

 

[beerisit]

As I have shown you that the earlier ideas and traditions are revealed by God himself so God can use similar earlier revelations in his final testament, the Quran.

You most certainly have not shown any such thing and the reason is that nobody can show that something was revealed by god. It is quite simply impossible. Maybe you need to find reality before any more posts.

 

[loverOfTruth]

As I have shown you that the earlier ideas and traditions are revealed by God himself so God can use similar earlier revelations in his final testament, the Quran.

You most certainly have not shown any such thing and the reason is that nobody can show that something was revealed by god. It is quite simply impossible. Maybe you need to find reality before any more posts.

I think you are making a fool out of yourself here. Rather than responding to all those other arguments I brought up, all you could do is pick on me on this ? That even because you probably didn't read all that I mentioned in my earlier post and hence quoting me out of context. All that was referring to is 'as I have shown as stated in the Torah and and believed by the Jews'. Please see below what I was referring to (references to God doing it from Jewish Scripture):

... Now are you saying that the '10 commandments' of Moses(pbuh) did not come from God to Moses(pbuh) but rather Moses(pbuh) wrote them as historically influenced by the laws of Hammurabi ?
...
if the answer to the above questions is 'yes', then you are putting your credibility into question as I highly doubt that majority of the Jewish Rabbis would agree with you on that. Let me give you some references here :

And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. 13 And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua: and Moses went up into the mount of God.
— First mention of the tables in Exodus 24:12,13

They have a uniquely terse style.[21] Of all the biblical laws and commandments, the Ten Commandments alone[21] were "written with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18). And lastly, the stone tablets were placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:21).[21]
Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the Talmud (tractate Makkoth 23b), Deut. 33:04 states that Moses transmitted the "Torah" from God to the Israelites: "Moses commanded us the Torah as an inheritance for the community of Jacob".
613 commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In due logical development of this theology, the Rabbis came to assume that the Law comprised 613 commandments (see Commandments, The 613), of which 611 are said to have been given through Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 4, being numerically equal to 611); the first two commandments of the Decalogue were given by the mouth of God Himself (R. Joshua b. Levi, in Pes. R. xxii.; compare Mak. 24b-25a; Hor. 8a; Pirḳe R. El. xli.).
COMMANDMENT - JewishEncyclopedia.com

If you can't understand context, that is your problem.

 

[beerisit]

I think you are making a fool out of yourself here. Rather than responding to all those other arguments I brought up, all you could do is pick on me on this ? That even because you probably didn't read all that I mentioned in my earlier post and hence quoting me out of context. All that was referring to is 'as I have shown as stated in the Torah and and believed by the Jews'. Please see below what I was referring to (references to God doing it from Jewish Scripture):



If you can't understand context, that is your problem.

I don't see any PROOF, all you present is claims. Claims don't equal proofs. So yes I can say that nobody has ever shown that ANYTHING was revealed by God himself. You are entitled to believe it if you wish but you haven't proved it.

 

[loverOfTruth]

I don't see any PROOF, all you present is claims. Claims don't equal proofs. So yes I can say that nobody has ever shown that ANYTHING was revealed by God himself. You are entitled to believe it if you wish but you haven't proved it.

This is not a thread about Proof of existence of God. If you are interested in that there is already a thread for that titled 'is there any evidence for the Truth of Islam?' All I am saying here is, if you are going to talk about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - either accept or deny that divine revelation exist for all or none. Can't pick and choose. And if you don't believe in divine revelation at all, you have no business comparing 3 of the major religions all of which involve divine revelation.

 

[beerisit]

This is not a thread about Proof of existence of God. If you are interested in that there is already a thread for that titled 'is there any evidence for the Truth of Islam?' All I am saying here is, if you are going to talk about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - either accept or deny that divine revelation exist for all or none. Can't pick and choose. And if you don't believe in divine revelation at all, you have no business comparing 3 of the major religions all of which involve divine revelation.

No you claimed to have shown you that the earlier ideas and traditions are revealed by God himself so God can use similar earlier revelations in his final testament, the Quran.

Do you see where you claim to have SHOWN revelations by God, it has nothing to do with proving the existence of God, it has to do with your claim to have SHOWN evidence of God's revelation.
I'm sorry but you have done no such thing. If you have then reproduce it here. Not your claims but your proof.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Let me get this straight. If I don't believe that major religions such as in the case of Judaism experienced diffusion with other Near Eastern cultures and religions than I am a hypocrite,

Please do not misrepresent what I said here. Read what I said again : "then you are being hypocritical when you say that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) couldn't have gotten the laws from God as a revelation where as Prophet Moses(pbuh) did ". So I said it would be hypocritical ONLY when you can accept that Judaism involves divine revelation but not Islam (as you have not provided any evidence to the contrary and I have shown you references from Jewish Scriptures for the same).

but if I do believe so than I am blaspheming?

Yes, unless you can prove that majority of the Scholars of those religions agree with you on no divine revelation theory (which you cannot).

Well its good to know that your arguments are based on a sole principle: circular reasoning.
You fail to understand a simple thing, religious beliefs do not carry more weight in historical debats, on the contrary in order to get to the bottom of things we need to see beyond tradition and into the facts.

You are sounding more like a broken record with your theory of 'circular reasoning' without responding to any arguments. First of all, we are in a religious debate forum comparing 3 of the major religions. So you cannot separate the religion from it's history. Secondly, you are taking cover behind history even after falsely claiming that Jewish Scriptures existed in Arabic at the time of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) (which has been clearly refuted from historic accounts)?

Let me tell you what is wrong with your 'history' argument here. Imagine this scenario : someone goes to a historian and claims that Islamic laws/texts have historically evolved from Christian and ultimately Jewish scriptures (as you have claimed regarding the names of the earlier Prophets and other traditions/rituals). What is the first thing the historian is going to try to establish ? Where did those Jewish Scriptures get those information (names, laws etc.) from (unless he is biased enough to always stop questioning when it reaches Judaism) ? And he will end up coming with the answer 'No one knows' or 'God'(as claimed in those scriptures as well as contemporary people
themselves). So then he would ask the same plausible question, if God could reveal these to Moses(pbuh), why couldn't God do it to Muhammad(pbuh) again ? And then once the historian starts researching further - he would find out that the scriptures from the time of Muhammad(pbuh) is more historically authentic with complete information on chain of narrator of events than the scriptures from the time of Moses(pbuh).

So it is quite evident that your argument wouldn't fly with either the religious scholars or the historians.

What I (and others) are claiming is that new religious movements are not created in a cultural vacuum.

I wouldn't have any problem accepting that God would send a messenger to a people with at least some remnants of earlier messages to make it easy on the new messenger. But that doesn't mean that the new messenger doesn't bring divine revelation including stories/laws of the past. See further explanation below ...

Instead we see social reforms in an environment which is brewing with existing traditions and cultures. To say that Israelite culture has influenced or was influenced by other Near Eastern cultures is not blasphemy, it is understanding the course of ancient history. In fact we can trace many religious and philosophical developments this way and understand the
religious movements themselves.

But, it is quite a different thing to say that the culture of the following nation of that religion evolved and yet quite another to say the Scriptures and the laws in the scriptures evolved. For example, where I come from even though it is a muslim majority nation, the culture of the country is heavily influenced by a completely different religious traditions/culture of a neighboring country. Yet our scriptures are completely different and practicing muslims do not follow those cultural traditions of the other country. There is a huge difference between those two things. Muslims took great care to preserve there 'scripture, the Qur'an' so the scripture is not influenced by the culture (though Muslims themselves can be).

By the same tokken, if I said that the world was created in 6 days because the Bible says so and that the theory of evolution is completely discredited on this basis people would rightly say that my argument fell on its butt.

That's when you need to look at each individual claims of each individual scriptures and analyze.

Note: I am glad you edited out the part about who lost the debate. It would have been quite arrogant to decide your own victory.