Could have Islam exist without Judaism & Christianity?

[loverOfTruth]

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.

Read my post again. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2891032-post316.html

I meant to refer to showing what I mentioned in the post above which is "shown you that (as stated in Torah and believed by the Jews) the earlier ideas and traditions are revealed by God himself so God can use similar earlier revelations in his final testament, the Quran" and not what you are claiming.

 

[beerisit]

Read my post again. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2891032-post316.html

I meant to refer to showing what I mentioned in the post above which is "shown you that (as stated in Torah and believed by the Jews) the earlier ideas and traditions are revealed by God himself so God can use similar earlier revelations in his final testament, the Quran" and not what you are claiming.

OK so what I quoted you as saying you now wish to withdraw?

 

[loverOfTruth]

OK so what I quoted you as saying you now wish to withdraw?

Finally, you get it ? And that paragraph where you quote it from would still apply the same way even with the inserted text in the parenthesis. I have been saying since you brought it up that I meant that I showed from Jewish scripture that they believe God did it and hence you can't say that God cannot do it for the Muslims. I never claimed to have shown how the angel brought the revelation to the prophets. And that's why I have said 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]

But in that case your claim that the revelations (from God) to the two earlier religions have been corrupted can only be verified by a belief in the innerancy of your revelations (from God).
You claim support for your revelations (from God) by the revelations (from God) in the earlier religions at the same time as you claim that the record of those DIVINE revelations are false.
So calling on the history of divine revelations at the same time as you are decrying the accuracy of those revelations is completely disingenuous, isn't it?
And either way you make the argument for the OP proved.

 

[loverOfTruth]

But in that case your claim that the revelations (from God) to the two earlier religions have been corrupted can only be verified by a belief in the innerancy of your revelations (from God).
You claim support for your revelations (from God) by the revelations (from God) in the earlier religions at the same time as you claim that the record of those DIVINE revelations are false.
So calling on the history of divine revelations at the same time as you are decrying the accuracy of those revelations is completely disingenuous, isn't it?
And either way you make the argument for the OP proved.

It doesn't prove anything regarding the OP. Nice try though - without responding to actual arguments/questions I posted, just state OP is proved. Good one.

Again those false assumptions arises from not reading my entire argument.
Read it again :

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).

And it does not take away anything from the fact that divine revelation was involved in all 3 religions to begin with and then not all of the followers of those divine teachings preserved it to the extent the Qur'an was preserved. See it for yourself here :
Proof of The Preservation of the Quran

 

[beerisit]

It doesn't prove anything regarding the OP. Nice try though - without responding to actual arguments/questions I posted, just state OP is proved. Good one.

Again those false assumptions arises from not reading my entire argument.
Read it again :



And it does not take away anything from the fact that divine revelation was involved in all 3 religions to begin with and then not all of the followers of those divine teachings preserved it to the extent the Qur'an was preserved. See it for yourself here :
Proof of The Preservation of the Quran

That is exactly what I said

But in that case your claim that the revelations (from God) to the two earlier religions have been corrupted can only be verified by a belief in the innerancy of your revelations (from God).

Or did you ignore that as you do with every post you respond to?

 

[beerisit]

Islam is true because it is based on divine revelations.
Those divine revelations are supported by the divine revelations revealed earlier in Judaism and Christianity.
The divine revelations in Judaism and Christianity can't be believed.
Judaism and Christianity are just prior forms of Islam, that got it wrong because of the distortion of the divine revelations.
Islams divine revelations have not been distorted and that is why they support the divine revelations of Judaism and Christianity.
Islam never needed Judaism and Christianity.
Is any of this in error?

 

[loverOfTruth]

Islam is true because it is based on divine revelations.

Partially true. Islam never says just 'believe' but the Qur'an repeatedly states rather to think, ponder, inquire and then believe. But that's where you need to think about the issues discussed in threads such as 'is there any evidence for the Truth of Islam?'

Those divine revelations are supported by the divine revelations revealed earlier in Judaism and Christianity.

Incorrect. I have never said that the revelations in the Qur'an is supported by the revelations in Jewish or Christian scriptures. You have misunderstood my point here. Only the 'concept' of divine revelation in Islam is supported by the 'concept' of divine revelation in those other two religions. The only reason I brought that up is because it would be hypocritical to say that you don't accept 'divine revelation' as the source of Islam where as those other two religions came into being exactly the same way. This is especially important since we are in a comparative discussion about 3 of the Abrahamic faiths all of which involves 'divine revelation'. And as I have repeatedly mentioned, someone who doesn't believe in 'divine revelation' shouldn't be discussing the source of these 3 religions or if they do, at least should accept/reject 'divine revelation' for all or none. Because we are not discussing whether God exists or even whether/how God can communicate to humans here, we are just discussing about the origin of 3 of the religions all of which already believe that God communicated to humans via messengers of God.

The divine revelations in Judaism and Christianity can't be believed. Judaism and Christianity are just prior forms of Islam, that got it wrong because of the distortion of the divine revelations.

Partially correct as I have clearly stated that God sent the same message of Submission to God (Islam) to all the Prophets but not necessarily the exact same laws and rituals (though there could be some similarity). But due to lack of preservation of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, as it stands currently, it would be hard to know which parts are actually the 'divine revelation' and which parts are not.

Islams divine revelations have not been distorted and that is why they support the divine revelations of Judaism and Christianity.

That didn't make any sense to me. I would rephrase it as follows : "Islam's divine revelations have not been distorted and that is why whatever parts of Jewish/Christian scripture are in line with the Qur'an, we have no problem accepting as divine."

Islam never needed Judaism and Christianity.

Isn't that what we have been discussing the whole time ?

 

[loverOfTruth]

That is exactly what I said

Or did you ignore that as you do with every post you respond to?

Not exactly. You said "But in that case your claim that the revelations (from God) to the two earlier religions have been corrupted can only be verified by a belief in the innerancy of your revelations (from God)."

I never claimed that bold part(with only) above even though that would be sufficient for Muslims. You can easily verify that just by going to wikipedia or any other authentic sources that deals with that subject. I'll just quote one example from OT and one from NT here :

"Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, but the books are in fact anonymous and look back on Moses as a figure from the distant past;[4] some traditions contained in Genesis are as old as the United Monarchy, but modern scholars increasingly see it as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC"
Book of Genesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Gospel According to Mark does not name its author.[2] A 2nd century tradition ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), the companion of Peter,[7] on whose memories it is supposedly based.[1][8][9][10] but the author's use of varied sources tells against the traditional account and according to the majority view the author is unknown."
Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You see they don't even know who wrote it and when ? And I don't even want to get into the details of what existed where and the difference in the 'acceptability' of the books among different groups and so on here. If you are interested, you can read further :

Books of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peace.

 

[Caladan]

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).

Unlike you I don't expect members who argue with me to accept divine revelations or miracles. Not when it comes to Judaism and not when it comes to Islam. It may be your personal belief as a Muslim, but not in a modern university or even in debates in this forum. Yes even if its called 'religious forums'. More precisely its called religious Education forum, if you want a forum where everyone accepts the religious claims of Islam you should argue in a pure Islamic forum, it doesn't work like this here.

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

Again. It doesnt work like this. If you claim for a divine revelation the burden of proof is on you. And you cannot prove something like that. It is a subjective belief.

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)?

You are the broken record here, because you refuse to debate history without solving it with miracles and divine revelations. Most people in this forum do not use such tactics. We have to prove and support our claims through historical arguments wich do not demand from other people to accept our religious beliefs.
By the same tokken, would you accept that Jesus was God because it is the belief of a Christian? the answer is an obvious no. Likewise none of us here can accept the claims of divine revelations instead of gradual religious development.

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).

Only historians do know and do have indications for plenty of the sources which inspired the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sharia.

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).

Back to circular reasoning I see. I have NEVER argued for God's revelation to Moses. Not once! this doesn't stand in a historical debate, and even if I do believe it I can't expect other people to accept this argument on good faith!

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 ...

It's not the first time I tell you this, so try to listen carefully. I never claimed that Muhammad did not bring a new perspective to Arab tribes of the Hejaz. The major difference here is that we recognize where the stories are from, so whether if you believe they are divine inspired or not, we STILL know where these stories are from!

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).

Regarding the Qur'an it was only unified and codified in one version by Uthman the third Caliph. Also you are mixing two different issues here. One the Qur'an is preaching on narratives with a Biblical basis, and secondly other major aspects of Islam such as the Hadith are clearly influenced by local culture.

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

It still remains that people cannot expect other members to accept claims of miracles, divine intervention, infallibility. This is not an Islamic forum and only a few members adhere to such beliefs.

 

[loverOfTruth]

I think your post can be summarized into the following two statements ...

Unlike you I don't expect members who argue with me to accept divine revelations or miracles. Not when it comes to Judaism and not when it comes to Islam.

If you do not believe in 'divine revelation', you have no business comparing 3 of the Abrahamic faiths all of which involves divine revelation. Because we are not discussing whether God exists or even whether/how God can communicate to humans here, we are just discussing about the origin of 3 of the religions all of which already believe that God communicated to humans via messengers of God.

The major difference here is that we recognize where the stories are from, so whether if you believe they are divine inspired or not, we STILL know where these stories are from!

Could you please show me the original source (with historical evidence and references) of the stories of Adam, Noah, Abraham and also some of the Islamic laws/rituals (praying, fasting, holy place etc.) that you claim were taken from Judaism ? And please remember not to use any Scriptures as your source cause you would not accept my quote from the Qur'an either (of course because that would be like God doing it).

And if you are telling me that you do not believe in the authenticity of the Torah or the fundamental belief of Judaism that God gave those laws to Moses(pbuh), it is more absurd to state that people should still take those unauthentic books as historical evidence (since you are denying all of the following) :

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. -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

You can't just say some parts of the Torah is good information and others are not and then expect people to take that same book as an authentic reference for historic evidence. And then your whole premise of 'we STILL know where these stories are from!' is nonsense because even historians disagree on who wrote those books and when, not to mention the contradictions/inconsistencies within the texts.

 

[gnostic]

Could you please show me the original source (with historical evidence and references) of the stories of Adam, Noah, Abraham and also some of the Islamic laws/rituals (praying, fasting, holy place etc.) that you claim were taken from Judaism ?

Regardless of whether the original source exist from "Adam to Abraham", you do realise that the Qur'an is not considered to be the original source?

And beside this, the Bible (Hebrew or Christian) WAS NOT JUST ONE BOOK, but whole collection of works.

The Qur'an was not even written down in Muhammad's lifetime. Supposedly, Muhammad's disciples have written down pieces of the so-called Qur'an or handed down orally (oral traditions), but it was not until the the third Caliph, Uthman, had people compiled to all these pieces together.

And considering there is a long of history of the development, and the presences of Christians and Jews in the Arabian peninsula, before and during Muhammad's time, the Judaeo-Christian stories were known to the Arabs.

As much as you like to rant on about the Qur'an being a divine revelation from Allah, it is hardly what I call "believable" historical event. Gabriel telling Muhammad the "Qur'an" is no more believable than Joseph Smith Jr, receiving gold tablets and translating it into the Book of Mormon. It is fairytale, and only as gullible as you could swallow this whole. How Muhammad receive the Qur'an is no more believable than the Qur'an version of Solomon's ability, being able to control the winds, and command army of ants, birds and jinns; fable. You might as well as accept the Gabriel visiting Muhammad as any one of those tales from the Arabian Nights.

Like Caladan said, there are historical evidences of the development of Judaic and Christian writings. And the writings were not all written down at the same times.

I don't think you have any understand the long process, or if you do, you simply scoff it off. But historical development of these scriptural literature are more likely to be true, then the ridiculous claim of Gabriel meeting Muhammad, Gabriel passing down the Qur'an, Muhammad not being able to write, Muhammad didn't know the biblical stories. All baseless as the Qur'an being the original source of all scriptures.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Regardless of whether the original source exist from "Adam to Abraham", you do realise that the Qur'an is not considered to be the original source?

And beside this, the Bible (Hebrew or Christian) WAS NOT JUST ONE BOOK, but whole collection of works.

The Qur'an was not even written down in Muhammad's lifetime. Supposedly, Muhammad's disciples have written down pieces of the so-called Qur'an or handed down orally (oral traditions), but it was not until the the third Caliph, Uthman, had people compiled to all these pieces together.

And considering there is a long of history of the development, and the presences of Christians and Jews in the Arabian peninsula, before and during Muhammad's time, the Judaeo-Christian stories were known to the Arabs.

As much as you like to rant on about the Qur'an being a divine revelation from Allah, it is hardly what I call "believable" historical event. Gabriel telling Muhammad the "Qur'an" is no more believable than Joseph Smith Jr, receiving gold tablets and translating it into the Book of Mormon. It is fairytale, and only as gullible as you could swallow this whole. How Muhammad receive the Qur'an is no more believable than the Qur'an version officer Solomon's ability, being able to control the winds, and command army of ants, birds and jinns; fable. You might as well as accept the Gabriel visiting Muhammad as any one of those tales from the Arabian Nights.

Like Caladan said, there are historical evidences of the development of Judaic and Christian writings. And the writings were not all written down at the same times.

I don't think you have any understand the long process, or if you do, you simply scoff it off. But historical development of these scriptural literature are more likely to be true, then the ridiculous claim of Gabriel meeting Muhammad, Gabriel passing down the Qur'an, Muhammad not being able to write, Muhammad didn't know the biblical stories. All baseless as the Qur'an being the original source of all scriptures.

Lots of vain talk without any evidence or any answer to the questions I posed. Nice try

 

[beerisit]

loveroftruth why do you claim that people have no right to an opinion?

 

[gnostic]

Lots of vain talk without any evidence or any answer to the questions I posed. Nice try

And you have evidences?

You do realize evidence is something that you can be observed or tested, therefore verified. Because if you're basing it on mere (alleged) revelation, then how it is not really evidence.

Evidence that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel?

Do you have evidence that Muhammad knew absolutely nothing about Judaeo-Christian stories?

Do you have evidence that in few Qur'anic verses, that Solomon could speak to ants and birds? Command army of jinns? Control winds?

I'd to see these evidences of yours?

 

[loverOfTruth]

And you have evidences?

You do realize evidence is something that you can be observed or tested, therefore verified. Because if you're basing it on mere (alleged) revelation, then how it is not really evidence.

Evidence that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel?

Do you have evidence that Muhammad knew absolutely nothing about Judaeo-Christian stories?

Do you have evidence that in few Qur'anic verses, that Solomon could speak to ants and birds? Command army of jinns? Control winds?

I'd to see these evidences of yours?

I'm not the one claiming Islam got it from Judaism ... so the onus is upon you to give evidences for your claim.

 

[gnostic]

I'm not the one claiming Islam got it from Judaism ... so the onus is upon you to give evidences for your claim.

So you're going to dodge the questions? Why? Because you can't answer them?

Typical.

 

[loverOfTruth]

So you're going to dodge the questions? Why? Because you can't answer them?

Typical.

I think you should first count how many questions you didn't answer before acting so condescending.

 

[Omario]

Read the past few pages so apologies, TLDR but i'll catch up later.

The Islamic concept is that Moses and Jesus's guidance and teachings WERE Islam. Islam means total submission to the will of God. Moses's guidancce was from God, the followers of that guidance were submitting to God's Will - and so they were Muslims. God didn't give us his complete guidance straight away for various reasons which we could speculate (That has to be something both Muslims & Christians can agree on).

Regarding Muhammad bringing us the Quran, by reciting from the Angel Gabriel... The Quran certainly WAS written during Muhammad's lifetime, but versions differed greatly in verse and tribal dialect. Whilst Muhammad recited, it's believed the Sahabas wrote on anything they cuold, and the writings found their way onto personal scriptures. Uthamn simply took all the varying scritures and forced a Universal one - he didn't order people to write down verses from memory, which didn't previously exist on paper.

Muhammad may very well have known a great deal about Christian and Jewish doctrines, It doesn't change a thing though. There are certain discrepencies in previous scriptures, which have been found using the science of today. Muhammad's "copied verses" don't contain inaccuracies/errors of previous revelations. And there is a decet amount of scientific knowledge to be found in the Quran which couldn't have been known in the 7th century.

The idea of the Angel Gabriel speaking to Muhammad, and ordering him to recite may seem unbelievable to some. So what of it? If there's any doubt, it's the recitation and such that should be looked at. Jesus was born from a Miraculous birth, Moses parted a sea, Adam may not have a belly button, Muhammad met Gabriel.

It may seem ridiculous to you, but ridiculing the meeting won't work with Muslims. We believe the Angel Gabriel played a part in Moses's and Jesus's revelations also.

 

[Godobeyer]

Evidence that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel?

Evidence it's the Quran its self , because we believe that the Quran could not made by human .

Do you have evidence that Muhammad knew absolutely nothing about Judaeo-Christian stories?

Even he knows a little , where is the problem ?
it's a certification of not guilty to copy/paste from the Torah and Gospel ?

Muhammad (pbuh) was illiturate , which mean he could not read or write .

Do you have evidence that in few Qur'anic verses, that Solomon could speak to ants and birds? Command army of jinns? Control winds?

I'd to see these evidences of yours?

look do you have evidences that you came from sprem combined by egg in your mother abdomen ?
for me i don't had evidences about that, i was not there in that moment

i told many pesonal evidences in this forum , and no body care .