Do the Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God....?

[Spirit_Warrior]

Then you should go back and change what you actually said, and instead of telling Jews (who are familiar with what we believe) what we say, just ask.

This is the fundamental problem I have with Sayak's way of thinking. He has a severe case of it know-it-allia. Rather than having the humility to ask people who are learned in their religion what their religion teaches to remove his own ignorance in the matter, he feels he is entitled to based on half-knowledge, selective reading and misinterpretation to assert his own conclusions and think that this is equal and valid to the views of those who are learned in their religion.

He called my view "mind mindbogglingly arrogant" when I insisted we cannot ascertain what a religion teaches and practices from the views of all its adherents, because it is subjective. Not every Christian, or every Jew or every Muslim is going to interpret, believe and practice the religion in the same way. Not every Christian, Jew or Muslim is a good faithful members of their religion even if they self-identify as such. There are good Christians, Jews and Muslims and there are bad Christians, Jews and Muslims. A Muslim who eats pork is not considered a good member of their religion. Therefore, we must make a distinction between the laity of a religion and its learned members who are knowledgeable about its scriptures, core beliefs and practices. And there has to be a clear demarcation criteria between a member and non-member of that religion. However, according to Sayak, every member of that religion's view is equally valid.

It is clear from reading your discussion that you're not buying Sayak's postmodern view(which is actually based on a misreading to boot) that just become some modern Jewish scholars now accept that Jesus as a prophet, that this view is equal and equivalent to the view of traditional Jews. Yet, anybody with even a basic amount of knowledge about the history of Christianity would know that Christianity was born on the basis of rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. He was crucified because the Jews did not believe he was a Messiah. Just, because some postmodern Jews accept Jesus now, does not change this fundamental doctrinal difference. Unfortunately, while here there is a greater number of traditional Jews who are disageeeing with Sayak's imposing postmodern views on Jews, in Hinduism related debates, traditional Hindus are lesser in number and are forced to accept postmodern views. If we do not accept the dogmas they perpetuate, which include "Hinduism is not a religion, Hindus have no core beliefs and practices, Hinduism has no founders, Hinduism has no scriptures, Hindus can believe and practice whatever they want " and if we do not tow this line , we get called Nazis, zealots, intolerant etc

Sayak needs to realise postmodern views of religion are not shared by everybody and it is definitely not kosher to impose it on people. This is the arrogance behind the postmodern view, all truths are relative, except that one.

 

[Tumah]

Theologically speaking, however, the Muslims and Jews do seem to be worshipping the same God and their God matches as well in personality as a 'jealous God' or the tyrant God as non-Muslims know him. Yet, if that is the case, why did the Jewish tribes in pre-Islamic Arabia reject Allah as God? If Allah is just the generic name meaning "God" then why do the Muslim scriptures explicitly talk about how the Jews rejected Mohammed's "Allah" and were beheaded enmasse for this insolence. This does not suggest kinship with the Jews at all. The question is resolved by history. Although Allah may have been a generic term for God or may have even been the greatest of Gods of pre-Islamic Arabia, at that time in history Allah had partners, sons and daughters. Its records are still retained in Islamic memory of Manaat, Al-Uzza, Al-Lat. Mohammed's Qureshi tribe worshipped this God. This prior to Mohammed was a Pagan God to the Jews. All Mohammed did was get rid of Allah's partners, and he thought this would make the Jews accept Allah as their God and hence submit to the supremacy of Mohammed's tribe, but this did not fly with the Jews, as they still retained the memory of Allah's pagan past. To them, it was no more valid, than declaring Zeus to be the one true God by removing the rest of the Gods in the Greek pantheon, and then declaring it is the same God as the Jews.

There's a few things:
Your description of the "Jewish" G-d, is not consistent with Judaism's view of G-d. However you understand the Torah's portrayal of G-d, the Jews of the time would have had access to the Talmud and other Judaic literature. So basing the similarity between us on that is wrong. Additionally, in Judaism, understanding of G-d's nature is not the basis for determining heresy (barring a few key points). There are always deeper understandings about G-d, But that doesn't make you an heretic until you hit the end of the road.

I don't think Jews rejected Muhammad's All-h on the basis of it being a name previously used in idol worship. Many of the names that we use to refer to G-d were used by the ancient Canaanites in idol worship.That didn't preclude our using them. Its also slightly different than your Zeus analogy because All-h is a contraction of al-illah. So the name itself means G-d even if previously it was used for idolatry. I don't think there is another way to say G-d in Arabic. Zeus on the other hand, means "sky" and relates to Greek worship of the sky much the same as the Canaanite pantheon has Shamayim - a name we would also not use.

In Jewish literature Islam is praised for its belief in G-d. To the extent that some arbitrators of Jewish Law permit praying in mosques. And even the one's who prohibit it, do so on grounds other than their belief in G-d.

So no, I don't think the problem was Jews not accepting Muhammad's All-h. What you've done is re-frame Judaism as "belief in the G-d of the Jews". But that's wrong and I think that's why you missed the mark. Judaism is also about the Torah and the commandments. If Elijah or Ezekiel or any other Jewish prophet were to come and tell us that we are no longer required to lay phylacteries, we'd kick him out (and in a time where we were permitted to judge capital offenses - kill him). Certainly Muhammad who is not an established Jewish prophet, would not be believed. So essentially its everything about Muhammad's message - except for belief in G-d - that is the problem.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

There's a few things:
Your description of the "Jewish" G-d, is not consistent with Judaism's view of G-d. However you understand the Torah's portrayal of G-d, the Jews of the time would have had access to the Talmud and other Judaic literature. So basing the similarity between us on that is wrong. Additionally, in Judaism, understanding of G-d's nature is not the basis for determining heresy (barring a few key points). There are always deeper understandings about G-d, But that doesn't make you an heretic until you hit the end of the road.

I am definitely very open to corrections in my understanding of Judaism, as I know next to nothing about Judaism, outside of what I have read of the OT in the bible.

I don't think Jews rejected Muhammad's All-h on the basis of it being a name previously used in idol worship. Many of the names that we use to refer to G-d were used by the ancient Canaanites in idol worship.That didn't preclude our using them. Its also slightly different than your Zeus analogy because All-h is a contraction of al-illah. So the name itself means G-d even if previously it was used for idolatry. I don't think there is another way to say G-d in Arabic. Zeus on the other hand, means "sky" and relates to Greek worship of the sky much the same as the Canaanite pantheon has Shamayim - a name we would also not use.

I did not say the name 'Allah' was used for idolatry, I said that Allah was a pre-Islamic deity that they use to worship. Who had sons, daughters and partners in the past. Mohammad belonged to the tribe that worshipped Allah, which from what I understand from some of my reading on pre-Islamic Arabic religion was the greatest God in the Arabic pantheon and other gods like Manaat etc were lesser gods. Hence, the Pagans already know the deity Allah before Mohammed and they did not oppose Mohammed on the supremacy of Allah, they only opposed him on not having any other gods other than Allah. Hence, I used the Zeus analogy. In the Greek Pantheon Zeus is the greatest gods, but they also other have lesser gods in their pantheon. Similarly, Allah was like Zeus in the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon and all Mohammed did was purge the lesser gods to leave only Allah as the one true God to create an Arabic monotheistic religion to the rival the existing monotheistic religions of Judaism and Christianity, from which he borrowed mythology

In Jewish literature Islam is praised for its belief in G-d. To the extent that some arbitrators of Jewish Law permit praying in mosques. And even the one's who prohibit it, do so on grounds other than their belief in G-d.

So no, I don't think the problem was Jews not accepting Muhammad's All-h. What you've done is re-frame Judaism as "belief in the G-d of the Jews". But that's wrong and I think that's why you missed the mark. Judaism is also about the Torah and the commandments. If Elijah or Ezekiel or any other Jewish prophet were to come and tell us that we are no longer required to lay phylacteries, we'd kick him out (and in a time where we were permitted to judge capital offenses - kill him). Certainly Muhammad who is not an established Jewish prophet, would not be believed. So essentially its everything about Muhammad's message - except for belief in G-d - that is the problem.

I would question this. Can you reference any sources, especially scriptures like Hadiths that which state what the objection of the Arab Jews were against Mohammed's 'Allah' If Allah was just a generic name for God, then it means the worshippers of Allah were already a monotheistic creed and then would have been no need for Mohammed to declare by revelation that there was only one God and that is Allah. However, this is not the case, as it is clear that Allah was a part of pantheon of other gods too. As I cited earlier, Allah had sons and daughter gods. Hence, Allah was not just a generic name for God in pre-Islamic Arabia, but a deity that they use to worship and Mohammed belonging to the tribe that worshipped Allah was thus part of the most influential and powerful tribe. He inherited the mythology of other monotheistic religions like Judaism and Christianity to give Islam legitimacy, and we know one place where this is clearest: the reimagining of the Kaba which we all know was an original pre-Islamic Pagan temple as the founded by Abraham.

Now, it makes sense why the Arabic Jews refused to accept 'Allah' of Mohammed, because they know that it was a pagan God of the the Arabs and not their God "El" They also recognised Mohammed was borrowing from their mythology like the story of "Abraham" and their tradition of prophets, and from what I read, they openly challenged Mohammed on this and thus refused to accept not just him, but his Allah as God. Their refusal was met by beheading them in huge numbers.

 

[J2hapydna]

So essentially its everything about Muhammad's message - except for belief in G-d - that is the problem.

Except, I think you will agree, if MP is seen as someone who did not require Jews and Christians to adopt the sharia or Halacha of the Ishmaelites. For example, the way Islam was practiced by Najashi who continued to practice the Christian Sharia and was accepted as a Muslim by MP

I think there is a view among some enlightened Muslims that the Umayyads were responsible for creating political and social extremism in the Sharia as they misunderstood MPs message of forgiveness and compassion. These Muslims feel that the Umayyads had extremist sociopathic tendencies. For example after continuing to resist MP with extreme violence, they were shown mercy and compassion after they were defeated in war by MP. However, the Umayyads took advantage of this mercy, consolidated power and began to do the same again. For example they attacked the people who had shown them mercy such as the children of Abu Bakr and Muslim residents of Mecca and Medina including many companions of MP in addition to creating laws that permitted them to abuse Jews and Christians. According to some Muslims, the Umayyads essentially found it easier to model the extremism of another sociopath- Heraclius than MP.( These are Sunni Muslims not Shia who detest the Umayyads anyway.)

 

[Sakeenah]

I did not say the name 'Allah' was used for idolatry, I said that Allah was a pre-Islamic deity that they use to worship. Who had sons, daughters and partners in the past. Mohammad belonged to the tribe that worshipped Allah, which from what I understand from some of my reading on pre-Islamic Arabic religion was the greatest God in the Arabic pantheon and other gods like Manaat etc were lesser gods. Hence, the Pagans already know the deity Allah before Mohammed and they did not oppose Mohammed on the supremacy of Allah, they only opposed him on not having any other gods other than Allah. Hence, I used the Zeus analogy. In the Greek Pantheon Zeus is the greatest gods, but they also other have lesser gods in their pantheon. Similarly, Allah was like Zeus in the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon and all Mohammed did was purge the lesser gods to leave only Allah as the one true God to create an Arabic monotheistic religion to the rival the existing monotheistic religions of Judaism and Christianity, from which he borrowed mythology



I would question this. Can you reference any sources, especially scriptures like Hadiths that which state what the objection of the Arab Jews were against Mohammed's 'Allah' If Allah then it means the worshippers of Allah were already a monotheistic creed and then would have been no need for Mohammed to declare by revelation that there was only one God and that is Allah. However, this is not the case, as it is clear that Allah was a part of pantheon of other gods too. As I cited earlier, Allah had sons and daughter gods. Hence, Allah was not just a generic name for God in pre-Islamic Arabia, but a deity that they use to worship and Mohammed belonging to the tribe that worshipped Allah was thus part of the most influential and powerful tribe. He inherited the mythology of other monotheistic religions like Judaism and Christianity to give Islam legitimacy, and we know one place where this is clearest: the reimagining of the Kaba which we all know was an original pre-Islamic Pagan temple as the founded by Abraham.

Now, it makes sense why the Arabic Jews refused to accept 'Allah' of Mohammed, because they know that it was a pagan God of the the Arabs and not their God "El" They also recognised Mohammed was borrowing from their mythology like the story of "Abraham" and their tradition of prophets, and from what I read, they openly challenged Mohammed on this and thus refused to accept not just him, but his Allah as God. Their refusal was met by beheading them in huge numbers.

Allah was just a generic name for God,also used by the pre islamic Arabs.
They did not deny or disbelieve in the existence of Allah. But they worshipped others besides God.

There were many tribes in Arabia, each of whom had their own ultimate deity. For example the tribe of Mudar venerated the idol of Suwa', the tribe of Mithhij venerated the idol Yaghooth,the tribe of Hamdan venerated the idol Ya'ooq,the tribe of Himyar venerated the idol Nasr,the Aws and Khazraj venerated the idol of Manah. The Arabs adopted Al-Lat and Uzza' as goddesses too. The Quraysh also had idols inside and around the Ka'bah,the greatest idol for them was Hubal.

Most Arabs in general (and the Quraysh in particular) recognised Allah, and they did not have an idol representing Allah.

Allah also Mentioned what the pagans of Arabia said
"We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allah." [Az-Zumar, 3]

"And if you were to ask them: "Who has created the heavens and the earth and subjected the sun and the moon?" they will surely reply: "Allah". How then are they deviating (as polytheists and disbelievers)?" [Al-Ankaboot, 61]

"And most of them believe not in Allah except that they associate partners with Him." [Yusuf, 106]

Arabs had some traces of the religion of Abraham and they also had contact with Jews and Christians. The pre Islamic Arab pagans did not worship Allah alone and can't be considered monotheistic.This is why Prophet Muhammad was send, to call them to worship none(no idols,angels,saints etc.) besides God.

 

[sayak83]

Nothing in that text points to anything about his being a prophet. The changing attitudes which have had Jews (scholar and not) acknowledge that if Jesus existed, he was a Jew and can be viewed through that lens only intensifies the truism that he was never a prophetic figure.

I am being more conservative than many modern Jewish scholars...
https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/viewFile/1535/1389
Review of Michael S. Kogan's Opening the Covenant: A Jewish Theology of Christianity

To say that Jesus was an important figure in the prophetic tradition of late second temple Judaism is just a simple assertion of fact.

 

[J2hapydna]

I did not say the name 'Allah' was used for idolatry, I said that Allah was a pre-Islamic deity that they use to worship. Who had sons, daughters and partners in the past. Mohammad belonged to the tribe that worshipped Allah, which from what I understand from some of my reading on pre-Islamic Arabic religion was the greatest God in the Arabic pantheon and other gods like Manaat etc were lesser gods. Hence, the Pagans already know the deity Allah before Mohammed and they did not oppose Mohammed on the supremacy of Allah, they only opposed him on not having any other gods other than Allah. Hence, I used the Zeus analogy. In the Greek Pantheon Zeus is the greatest gods, but they also other have lesser gods in their pantheon. Similarly, Allah was like Zeus in the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon and all Mohammed did was purge the lesser gods to leave only Allah as the one true God to create an Arabic monotheistic religion to the rival the existing monotheistic religions of Judaism and Christianity, from which he borrowed mythology


.

There are some important differences between Allah and Zeus.

For example, there is clear evidence that Arab Christians were already using the term ALLAH to exclusively describe their god of the Bible in the pre Islamic period. In contrast, Zeus was not being used to describe the god of the Bible in the centuries preceding Jesus. So when MP said Allah the Arab people both pagan and Christian clearly understood who was meant.

Also, it is possible, but there is no evidence that Allah had a long history of being a separate pagan god in a pantheon. For example there are no Arabic inscriptions of Allah describing him as such. Nor do we find statutes of Allah. So it is also quite possible that Allah was in the process of being taken from the Christians, Haneefs and Arians in the days of MP but the process was stopped by Islam

You are right that the pagan Quraysh was worshipping Allah. However it is also possible that the Quraysh were originally among the non Jews who worshipped the deity of the Jews as ALLAH in other religions as members of the Noachide DEEN. For example, Kenites usually descendants of Isau, Jethro and Ishmael etc were known as theosabea to Jews. These people practiced the Qurban shalomay (Qurbani salami /animal sacrifice) with the Jews but had other religions. They were also known as Shalomites or Muslimites to the Jews. So although you may think Allah was being peeled away from paganism it is also very possible that the Quraysh were originally theosabeans who worshipped the Jewish god as Allah with animal sacrifices at the Kaba, but were being drawn into paganism until they reverted under Islam. After all in addition to Pagans there were also Christians and Haneef and Arian in Quraysh who used the term ALLAH to describe the god of the Bible as the inscriptions suggest. In contrast, I don't think Zeus had a history linking him to worship as the biblical god

 

[Flankerl]

I am being more conservative than many modern Jewish scholars...
https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/viewFile/1535/1389
Review of Michael S. Kogan's Opening the Covenant: A Jewish Theology of Christianity

To say that Jesus was an important figure in the prophetic tradition of late second temple Judaism is just a simple assertion of fact.

"Michael S. Kogan"

Whoever that is.

 

[leibowde84]

And is theologically speaking Christianity and Islam sects of Judaism?

I hope I am posting this in the correct forum. Recently, during the course of a debate elsewhere these two propositions have been asserted as factual statements:

1. Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God
2. Theologically, Christianity and Islam are sects of Judaism

​

I am interested in the views of others, especially Jews, Christians and Muslims on whether they agree with either one or both of the propositions, and if not why not?

I agree with both propositions. All worship the "God of Abraham". Judaism came before Islam and Christianity as the first religious tradition worshiping the God of Abraham. Thus, it can be said that both Islam and Christianity came out of Judaism.

 

[Tumah]

I am definitely very open to corrections in my understanding of Judaism, as I know next to nothing about Judaism, outside of what I have read of the OT in the bible.



I did not say the name 'Allah' was used for idolatry, I said that Allah was a pre-Islamic deity that they use to worship. Who had sons, daughters and partners in the past. Mohammad belonged to the tribe that worshipped Allah, which from what I understand from some of my reading on pre-Islamic Arabic religion was the greatest God in the Arabic pantheon and other gods like Manaat etc were lesser gods. Hence, the Pagans already know the deity Allah before Mohammed and they did not oppose Mohammed on the supremacy of Allah, they only opposed him on not having any other gods other than Allah. Hence, I used the Zeus analogy. In the Greek Pantheon Zeus is the greatest gods, but they also other have lesser gods in their pantheon. Similarly, Allah was like Zeus in the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon and all Mohammed did was purge the lesser gods to leave only Allah as the one true God to create an Arabic monotheistic religion to the rival the existing monotheistic religions of Judaism and Christianity, from which he borrowed mythology



I would question this. Can you reference any sources, especially scriptures like Hadiths that which state what the objection of the Arab Jews were against Mohammed's 'Allah' If Allah was just a generic name for God, then it means the worshippers of Allah were already a monotheistic creed and then would have been no need for Mohammed to declare by revelation that there was only one God and that is Allah. However, this is not the case, as it is clear that Allah was a part of pantheon of other gods too. As I cited earlier, Allah had sons and daughter gods. Hence, Allah was not just a generic name for God in pre-Islamic Arabia, but a deity that they use to worship and Mohammed belonging to the tribe that worshipped Allah was thus part of the most influential and powerful tribe. He inherited the mythology of other monotheistic religions like Judaism and Christianity to give Islam legitimacy, and we know one place where this is clearest: the reimagining of the Kaba which we all know was an original pre-Islamic Pagan temple as the founded by Abraham.

Now, it makes sense why the Arabic Jews refused to accept 'Allah' of Mohammed, because they know that it was a pagan God of the the Arabs and not their God "El" They also recognised Mohammed was borrowing from their mythology like the story of "Abraham" and their tradition of prophets, and from what I read, they openly challenged Mohammed on this and thus refused to accept not just him, but his Allah as God. Their refusal was met by beheading them in huge numbers.

I'm not sure that I would take a Hadith's explanations of what Jews were thinking in their rejection as valuable if any such Hadiths exist.

But what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter how the pagan Arabs viewed the pagan concept of Allah. However pre-Islamic Arabs viewed it it immaterial. What Muhammad did according to what I understand, was rallied Arab pagans around a new concept of a monotheistic All-h. The same way it doesn't matter that early Canaanites worshiped a pagan El, Yahweh and Shaddai. Under the Jewish religion those names refer to the monotheistic Jewish G-d. The formerly pagan version of Allah would now become the monotheistic version under nascent Islam. That new concept is acceptable and actually praised in some Jewish sources. The history of the name is not terribly relevant so much as what is intended by the one using it. With the advent of Muhammad or the Quran (whichever came first), the intent of the speaker was to the monotheistic version.

In contrast, if someone were to reverse that - use the name of G-d to create a new pagan religion, it wouldn't matter that the name previously referred to the Jewish G-d, we would also not accept it. Which is somewhat what happened with Christianity. The Jewish G-d became part of a trinity of gods and Jews refused to accept Christianity as well.

Borrowing from our religion that All-h is the G-d of Abraham only works in their favor from our perspective as it brings their concept more inline with ours.

 

[Tumah]

Except, I think you will agree, if MP is seen as someone who did not require Jews and Christians to adopt the sharia or Halacha of the Ishmaelites. For example, the way Islam was practiced by Najashi who continued to practice the Christian Sharia and was accepted as a Muslim by MP

I think there is a view among some enlightened Muslims that the Umayyads were responsible for creating political and social extremism in the Sharia as they misunderstood MPs message of forgiveness and compassion. These Muslims feel that the Umayyads had extremist sociopathic tendencies. For example after continuing to resist MP with extreme violence, they were shown mercy and compassion after they were defeated in war by MP. However, the Umayyads took advantage of this mercy, consolidated power and began to do the same again. For example they attacked the people who had shown them mercy such as the children of Abu Bakr and Muslim residents of Mecca and Medina including many companions of MP in addition to creating laws that permitted them to abuse Jews and Christians. According to some Muslims, the Umayyads essentially found it easier to model the extremism of another sociopath- Heraclius than MP.( These are Sunni Muslims not Shia who detest the Umayyads anyway.)

Agree about what? You started the "if" but didn't finish with the "then". And by MP do you mean Muhammad?

 

[1AOA1]

why did the Jewish tribes in pre-Islamic Arabia reject Allah as God?

Only the Life led can "reject and accept." If Judaism according to materialism is one where the life is different, then there is a rejection by those it calls Jews.

he significantly changed Judaism's core beliefs

The fruits aren't changed without changing that which bears them. What was found was always there and nothing was changed. Fulfilled, rather.

He inherited the mythology of other monotheistic religions like Judaism and Christianity to give Islam legitimacy, and we know one place where this is clearest: the reimagining of the Kaba which we all know was an original pre-Islamic Pagan temple as the founded by Abraham.

Theologically speaking, even if the texts, buildings and life are the same, where there is an independent endeavor arriving to things similar, there is a case of an authentic, independent derivation of phenomena similar and theological.

 

[rosends]

I am being more conservative than many modern Jewish scholars...
https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/viewFile/1535/1389
Review of Michael S. Kogan's Opening the Covenant: A Jewish Theology of Christianity

To say that Jesus was an important figure in the prophetic tradition of late second temple Judaism is just a simple assertion of fact.

I'm not sure what you are getting it. The two reviews of Kogan's text talk about his creation of a fictional "Jewish Theology of Christianity" but never mention Jesus and his position in a prophetic tradition. The BC article posits the public, today, more in the prophetic tradition. And to present Kogan as a "Jewish scholar" is disingenuous at best. He might be Jewish but he doesn't in any way, represent any particularly Jewish line of thought in his writings. So the claim that it is an assertion of fact is not accurate -- it is an assertion not borne out by any support.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

There are some important differences between Allah and Zeus.

For example, there is clear evidence that Arab Christians were already using the term ALLAH to exclusively describe their god of the Bible in the pre Islamic period.

I have already acknowledged this argument that "Allah" is the generic Arabic word for God and was being used before Islam by Jews and Christians. There is a doubt here though, was Mohammed's Quraysh tribe using the word 'Allah as a generic word for God that the Jews worshipped, or was it used to describe a Pagan God that the Quraysh tribe had worshipped. The latter possibility needs to be eliminated before I can accept the former.

Also, it is possible, but there is no evidence that Allah had a long history of being a separate pagan god in a pantheon. For example there are no Arabic inscriptions of Allah describing him as such. Nor do we find statutes of Allah. So it is also quite possible that Allah was in the process of being taken from the Christians, Haneefs and Arians in the days of MP but the process was stopped by Islam

However we do have evidence don't we? In the Quranic verses themselves that were abrogated as 'Satanic verses" they acknowledge that Allah had sons and daughters.

You are right that the pagan Quraysh was worshipping Allah. However it is also possible that the Quraysh were originally among the non Jews who worshipped the deity of the Jews as ALLAH in other religions as members of the Noachide DEEN. For example, Kenites usually descendants of Isau, Jethro and Ishmael etc were known as theosabea to Jews.

If the Quraysh tribe were always worshipping the Jewish God, then would be no need for Mohammed's revelation. The nature of the Quraysh God also seems to be tied inseparably with the moon, as the moon symbolism seems to pervade Islam and even their holy month starts with the moon. These are not Jewish beliefs or symbols. Now, given that we know Allah had partner gods, seems to consolidate that Allah that the Quraysh worshipped was a pagan God, possibly a moon God.

These people practiced the Qurban shalomay (Qurbani salami /animal sacrifice) with the Jews but had other religions. They were also known as Shalomites or Muslimites to the Jews. So although you may think Allah was being peeled away from paganism it is also very possible that the Quraysh were originally theosabeans who worshipped the Jewish god as Allah with animal sacrifices at the Kaba, but were being drawn into paganism until they reverted under Islam. After all in addition to Pagans there were also Christians and Haneef and Arian in Quraysh who used the term ALLAH to describe the god of the Bible as the inscriptions suggest. In contrast, I don't think Zeus had a history linking him to worship as the biblical god

I am not familiar with this bit of history, can you link me non-Islamic sources that confirm this?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

What Muhammad did according to what I understand, was rallied Arab pagans around a new concept of a monotheistic All-h. The same way it doesn't matter that early Canaanites worshiped a pagan El, Yahweh and Shaddai. Under the Jewish religion those names refer to the monotheistic Jewish G-d. The formerly pagan version of Allah would now become the monotheistic version under nascent Islam. That new concept is acceptable and actually praised in some Jewish sources. The history of the name is not terribly relevant so much as what is intended by the one using it. With the advent of Muhammad or the Quran (whichever came first), the intent of the speaker was to the monotheistic version.

This is my understanding. Hence my Zeus analogy -- Allah was originally a pre-Islamic Pagan God. Part of a larger Pagan pantheon, but was the greatest of Gods. All Mohammed did was eliminate all the other Gods to create an Arabic monotheistic religion and he borrowed from Abrahamic monotheistic to make it acceptable to Jews and Christians too, so they would accept his new religion and him. I thus would not trace Islam back to the linage of Abraham as I would Christianity, but trace it back to Arab Paganism. Therefore, knowing this, I would not say Muslims worship the same God as the Christians and Jews. They only claim to.

 

[Koldo]

However, is it not true the vast majority of Christians worship Jesus as God and worship God as father/son/holy spirit? If the Jews and Muslims reject Jesus as God, then can they be worshipping the same God?

By this reasoning, Jehovah's Witnesses don't worship the same god as other Christians. Even though they are widely regarded as Christians.
At the end of the day, what matters is how much of a distinction between god concepts you regard as sufficient to call them different gods and not merely different perceptions of God.

 

[Tumah]

W

This is my understanding. Hence my Zeus analogy -- Allah was originally a pre-Islamic Pagan God. Part of a larger Pagan pantheon, but was the greatest of Gods. All Mohammed did was eliminate all the other Gods to create an Arabic monotheistic religion and he borrowed from Abrahamic monotheistic to make it acceptable to Jews and Christians too, so they would accept his new religion and him. I thus would not trace Islam back to the linage of Abraham as I would Christianity, but trace it back to Arab Paganism. Therefore, knowing this, I would not say Muslims worship the same God as the Christians and Jews. They only claim to.

Whatever there reason for doing so, if at the end of the day, we're left with a concept that matches the Jewish model, why wouldn't you call it the same? This makes even less sense to me when you say that Jews and Christians worship the same G-d, when according to Jewish Law, Christians at best barely make the cut by a hair and at worst are considered idol worshipers.

For some reason you seem to be putting more emphasis on the evolution of the belief than on the content of the belief. I don't understand why.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

W

Whatever there reason for doing so, if at the end of the day, we're left with a concept that matches the Jewish model, why wouldn't you call it the same? This makes even less sense to me when you say that Jews and Christians worship the same G-d, when according to Jewish Law, Christians at best barely make the cut by a hair and at worst are considered idol worshipers.

For some reason you seem to be putting more emphasis on the evolution of the belief than on the content of the belief. I don't understand why.

Well the evolution of the belief answers (2) of the proposition definitely then. If Allah really is a Pagan god, then his lineage cannot be traced back to Abraham.

I never said Christians and Jews worship the same God, in fact I said the exact opposite above.

I accept that Mohammed's Allah is far closer in spirit to the Jewish God, I also said that. However, the difference in origin still makes a difference. The Jews's God is YHWH the God of Moses; The Muslims God is Allah the God of Mohammed. YHWH became the only God of the Jews only after all the other Gods were eliminated and this became the official creed of the Jewish religion of YHWH being the only God and having no partners. Allah became the only God after all the other Gods were eliminated and this became the official creed of the Muslim religion of Allah as the only God with no partners. However, one ends up with YHWH and the other with Allah. They are different deities both carrying the claim of being the only God.

If we add to the list of claimants some Vaishnava Hindus who claim Vishnu is the only God or some Shaivas that Shiva is the only God, then we will have four claimants each claiming that their deity is the only God. However, I don't see Muslims and Jews accepting Vishnu and Shiva as God.

I do not just see a theological claim, but a political claim. There was a time when YHWH was just one among many gods that different tribes worshipped, the YHWH tribe wiped out the other tribes to establish the supremacy of their deity as the only God and by that accepting their prophets as messengers of God whose word by virtue of being messengers of God becomes authority hence giving them absolute political power. Similarly, there was a time when Allah was just one god among many that different Arabic tribes worshipped, the Allah tribe wiped out the other tribes to establish the supremacy of Allah and the absolute authority of Mohammed as the final prophet. Mohammed used this power on many occasions for self-benefit, e.g. to get the wife of his son or to get most of the share of booty won in war and raids. Mohammed commanded absolute political power. Hence, I do not see Islam as a religion of Allah, but as a religion of Mohammed. Recall, that I said, that Mohammed position is more central than Allah.

 

[Koldo]

I accept that Mohammed's Allah is far closer in spirit to the Jewish God, I also said that. However, the difference in origin still makes a difference. The Jews's God is YHWH the God of Moses; The Muslims God is Allah the God of Mohammed. YHWH became the only God of the Jews only after all the other Gods were eliminated and this became the official creed of the Jewish religion of YHWH being the only God and having no partners. Allah became the only God after all the other Gods were eliminated and this became the official creed of the Muslim religion of Allah as the only God with no partners. However, one ends up with YHWH and the other with Allah. They are different deities both carrying the claim of being the only God.

I am afraid it is not so simple. It is not just different deities claiming to be the only God.
Just to put things into perspective: Muslims and Jews have a lot of prophets in common.
Not to mention that Muslims recognize the Torah and Psalms as being holy scripture ( although the former as being corrupted in its current form ).

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I am afraid it is not so simple. It is not just different deities claiming to be the only God.
Just to put things into perspective: Muslims and Jews have a lot of prophets in common.
Not to mention that Muslims recognize the Torah and Psalms as being holy scripture ( although the former as being corrupted in its current form ).

Sure Koldo, but if you look above I have already answered this argument. Mohammed borrowed from the mythology of the Jews and their list of prophets to make it acceptable to them. We know a blatant case where he did that, by rebranding the Pagan temple where his own tribes use to worship at as the house of Abraham.

It is not all that different to how the Bahai religion accept the linage of Abrahamic prophets too, in addition to Dharmic prophets/founders like Krishna, Buddha etc, to make it acceptable to a larger group of people.