• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Tumah

Veteran Member
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.
What I have been apparently unsuccessfully trying to argue is that whatever the source or lieange of the name "Allah", the concept behind it with the advent of Muhammad/the Quran is not pagan.

I never said Christians and Jews worship the same God, in fact I said the exact opposite above.
Maybe I misunderstood. I was reading where you said "I would not say Muslims worship the same God as the Christians and Jews". I thought you were putting Jewish and Christian god-concept into its own category.

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.
Why?

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.
To me you are just describing two ways two different religions came to the same god-concept. I don't see a problem with that.

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.

That's not so simple. As I think I said in an earlier post, I'm not sure exactly what the Jewish requirements are to a god-concept in order for it to be considered acceptable by Jewish standards. I'm certain that it requires a monotheistic concept, incorporeality (and non-incarnate), and creator of the universe. What I'm unsure of, is if it also requires belief that this G-d is the G-d of Abraham and that the Jews received the Torah from Him at Mt. Sinai.

Muslims can check all the boxes. Hindus may be able to check some of the boxes, but I'm unsure if those few are enough. If the former conditions already exist in Hinduism and the latter conditions are not necessary by Jewish standards, then I would be amenable to believing the Hindu god is the one I worship albeit under a different name.

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.
From my perspective, whether you are right or wrong is immaterial. The only thing that matters is what concept are people intending when they say the word "Allah". Whether Muhammad abused or didn't abuse that concept is totally irrelevant to how we judge it. We don't judge the religion as a whole. We break apart all the different parts and analyze each facet on its own merit.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
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.

But how much can you borrow from a god concept to use in your own before your god becomes the one that you have borrowed those things from ? If you assign to your god ( nearly ) the same story and the same attributes that some other god has, then hasn't your god become the one that you have borrowed those things from ?
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
I was just looking at what the Jewish view on what Mohammed was, especially closer to his time. This is what I have found so far:

In the Middle Ages, it was common for Jewish writers to claim that Muhammad was ha-meshuggaʿ ("the madman"), a term of contempt used in the Jewish Bible for those who believe themselves to be prophets.[1][2][3]

Contemporaries[edit]
In the 7th century and during the life of Muhammad himself, many Jewish leaders and individual Jews made public their views on him or those who followed, especially but not limited if it concerned their communities. Among others, the old sage and man of letters Abu 'Afak from the Ubaeda tribe who wrote a poem which would be indicted by Muhammad himself, as warranting the capital sentence by assassination. The extant of it was preserved in Islamic biography and it may have been less severe,

Long have I lived but never have I seen
An assembly or collection of people
More faithful to their undertaking
And their allies when called upon
Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,
Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted.
A rider who came to them split them in two
(saying) "Permitted", "Forbidden", of all sorts of things.
Had you believed in glory or kingship
You would have followed Tubba.

The apostle [Muhammad] said, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?"

Judaism's views on Muhammad - Wikipedia

Interestingly, Medina also had a sizeable Jewish community, which had probably moved there after being expelled from Palestine by the Romans. Muhammad respected the Jews, and his early teachings appeared to borrow from Jewish tradition. The Jews began to distance themselves from Muhammad, however, when he became critical of their not recognizing him as a prophet.

Once it was clear the Jews would not accept him, Muhammad began to minimize or eliminate the Jewish influence on his beliefs. For example, he shifted the direction of prayers from Jerusalem to Mecca, made Friday his special day of prayer, and renounced the Jewish dietary laws (except for the prohibition on eating pork). Originally, he said the Arabs were descendants of Abraham through his son Ishmael, but in the Koran Abraham's connection to the Jews is denied, with Muhammad asserting that Abraham is only the patriarch of Islam, not Judaism as well, because he "surrendered himself to Allah."

One of the immediate consequences of Muhammad's frustration was the expulsion of two Jewish tribes from Medina and the murder of all the members of a third Jewish tribe (except for the women and children, who were sold into slavery). But even worse for the long-term treatment of the Jews were a number of inflammatory statements about Jews that Muhammad made that appear in the Koran — which, over the years, stoked Arab/Islamic anti-Semitism.

Muhammad slowly began to build his power base both by the persuasiveness of his faith and the old-fashioned way: by marrying women from important families to gain political advantage. He came to control the oases and markets, which forced other traders and tribesmen to negotiate with him. When he finally returned to Mecca, it was at the head of an imposing army that forced the residents to capitulate.

Muhammad died in 632, and it was left to his followers to carry on the traditions he had begun. His followers developed Islam, just as the followers of Moses and Jesus developed Judaism and Christianity over time.

Muhammad

I think this supports my point that Mohammed was only appealing to the Jews by initially accepting some of the Jewish beliefs and traditions to win them over to his religion with him as its founder(and hence supreme authority) but when it became clear the Jews were not buying it, he began to minimise the Jewish beliefs that he revealed in the earlier parts of the Quran in the later parts of the Quran --- and according to Islamic doctrine the later verses abrogate the earlier verses. It is well know that the early parts of the Quran were composed in Mecca when Mohammed had a small following and no power, he was rejected by the majority. The later parts were composed his Medina when Mecca had multiplied his followers and grown rich and powerful through camel raids on the people of Mecca. As soon as he had enough power, he laid siege on Mecca.
 
Last edited:

J2hapydna

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

Regarding MP, yes Muhammad the Prophet

Regarding the if then,
I was saying that if MP's message didn't require Jews to convert / adopt the Ishmaelites Sharia then it wouldn't have been a problem to Jews.

In my opinion MP actually didn't expect or require Jews and Christians to adopt the Ishmaelite Sharia. In my opinion, the ideas that they had to convert or pay Jizya was invented by the Umayyads who were psychopathic megalomaniacs. I say this because MP didn't require Najashi to change his Sharia to be considered a Muslim.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
But how much can you borrow from a god concept to use in your own before your god becomes the one that you have borrowed those things from ? If you assign to your god ( nearly ) the same story and the same attributes that some other god has, then hasn't your god become the one that you have borrowed those things from ?

I would argue, not so, because of the principle of discernability between identicals. There is a similar argument in philosophy if suppose you perfectly replicate every atom of an original and reproduce exactly in the same way, is the replicated version then completely identical to the original? No, because we can discern which one is the original and which is one is the identical one. They are separated by time and space. So, even if Mohammed did borrow every single Jewish belief and assigned it his Allah(which I have just proven he didn't, he only accepted a few to try and win them over) we can discern which is the original and which is the replication. It is our historical knowledge which allows us to trace the linage of the Jewish God to Abraham and the trace the linage of Mohammad's Allah to the Arab pagan god.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
That's not so simple. As I think I said in an earlier post, I'm not sure exactly what the Jewish requirements are to a god-concept in order for it to be considered acceptable by Jewish standards. I'm certain that it requires a monotheistic concept, incorporeality (and non-incarnate), and creator of the universe. What I'm unsure of, is if it also requires belief that this G-d is the G-d of Abraham and that the Jews received the Torah from Him at Mt. Sinai.

Muslims can check all the boxes. Hindus may be able to check some of the boxes, but I'm unsure if those few are enough. If the former conditions already exist in Hinduism and the latter conditions are not necessary by Jewish standards, then I would be amenable to believing the Hindu god is the one I worship albeit under a different name.

The problem I am having here is you think you can not separate the idea of God from the various concepts of God. In Hinduism we do make a distinction between God itself without attributes and narratives(Nirguna Brahman) and God with attributes and narratives(Saguna Brahman). In making this distinction we can separate the myriad concepts of God and names that people have assigned to God itself --- think of it like ontological God vs ontic God. You cannot separate the attributes and narratives from the the one giving the attributes and narratives. Moses's God is not God, but Moses's understanding of God; Jesus God is not God, but Jesus's understanding of God; A Vaishnavas God is not God, but a Vaishnavas understanding of God. And so on.

We can agree we all have different concepts of God. I can accept that Mohammed's God has a lot a in common in spirit with the Jewish God. I have already admitted this. However, Mohammed's God Allah is a God that sent him as the last and final prophet. Mohammed God is a God that later hates Jews. In contrast, the God's of the Jews YHWH loves the Jews, they are his chosen people.

These are of course two competing narratives of God and they are mutually opposing. Hence, I cannot say they are worshipping the same God at all. Nor did the Jews during Mohammed time accept this narrative either --- because it is a fabricated narrative.
 
Last edited:

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I would argue, not so, because of the principle of discernability between identicals. There is a similar argument in philosophy if suppose you perfectly replicate every atom of an original and reproduce exactly in the same way, is the replicated version then completely identical to the original? No, because we can discern which one is the original and which is one is the identical one. They are separated by time and space. So, even if Mohammed did borrow every single Jewish belief and assigned it his Allah(which I have just proven he didn't, he only accepted a few to try and win them over) we can discern which is the original and which is the replication. It is our historical knowledge which allows us to trace the linage of the Jewish God to Abraham and the trace the linage of Mohammad's Allah to the Arab pagan god.

As far as I understood your position, you don't think that 'lineage' is sufficient to establish that two gods are one and the same either, considering you don't view Christians and Jews as believing in the same God. In which case, it seems inevitable that you would conclude that Christians believe in different gods even among themselves. Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians, Protestant Christians, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, and so on, believe in different gods. Likewise the same could be applicable to Jews and Muslims.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
As far as I understood your position, you don't think that 'lineage' is sufficient to establish that two gods are one and the same either, considering you don't view Christians and Jews as
believing in the same God.

No, that is not my position. Muslims only make the claim of belonging to the Abrahamic lineage, but this claim does not stand up to history, we know this claim to lineage is fabricated and the actual lineage of Allah is Arabic Paganism.

On the other hand, Christianity does in fact belong to the Abrahamic lineage and this claim is supported by history, Jesus was born as a Jewish and was a rabbi among the Jews. He continued on the tradition of worship of the Jewish God but only made the claim he was his son and he and him were one. Later Christianity formed the concept of the Trinity with Jesus as the son aspect. This is so significant a departure, that it causes Christianity to split from Judaism as a newly independent religion and since that split it has followed a completely different course. This institutionalised in the creed itself with the OT vs NT distinction.

In which case, it seems inevitable that you would conclude that Christians believe in different gods even among themselves. Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians, Protestant Christians, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, and so on, believe in different gods. Likewise the same could be applicable to Jews and Muslims.

No, as far as I know Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians all accept Jesus as God the son and the bible as the word of God. I don't know too much about JW to comment -- but I know that Mormonism is widely not considered a sect of Christianity, but a new religion --- because it has a different founder and a different scripture, new mythology and new practises(polygamy etc)
 

J2hapydna

Active Member
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.

I don't understand why are you saying generic word but using the upper case letter G?

Secondly, in logic, we don't have to prove something doesn't exist. So we don't have to prove the Quraysh didn't worship another Pagan god by that name. Rather, you have to prove that Quraysh had always worshipped Allah as a pagan god by providing us pre Islamic statues of Allah with inscriptions of how he was the top god in a pantheon of lesser gods. otherwise what you have is an innuendo.

Also, I'm not sure that accounts of pagan Arabs wishing to worship the Christian god Allah with pagan deities as his family members proves Allah had always been a pagan deity.

After all, in contrast you are being provided preIslamic inscriptions that prove Allah in Arabia was the invisible biblical god of the Christians. In addition, Haneefs, Arian / Ebionites and Nazarenes also worshipped Allah as god of the Bible. In addition according to Jewish sources their deity was also worshipped by non Jewish tribes known as Kenites who were descendants of Isau, Jethro and Ishmael etc and performed sacrifices Qurbani as the Quraysh did at Mecca. So there is no reason to think Quraysh wasn't one of them
 
Last edited:

Koldo

Outstanding Member
No, that is not my position. Muslims only make the claim of belonging to the Abrahamic lineage, but this claim does not stand up to history, we know this claim to lineage is fabricated and the actual lineage of Allah is Arabic Paganism.

On the other hand, Christianity does in fact belong to the Abrahamic lineage and this claim is supported by history, Jesus was born as a Jewish and was a rabbi among the Jews. He continued on the tradition of worship of the Jewish God but only made the claim he was his son and he and him were one. Later Christianity formed the concept of the Trinity with Jesus as the son aspect. This is so significant a departure, that it causes Christianity to split from Judaism as a newly independent religion and since that split it has followed a completely different course. This institutionalised in the creed itself with the OT vs NT distinction.

In other words, lineage is not sufficient if there is something that you regard as 'significant' that separates them.

No, as far as I know Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians all accept Jesus as God the son and the bible as the word of God. I don't know too much about JW to comment -- but I know that Mormonism is widely not considered a sect of Christianity, but a new religion --- because it has a different founder and a different scripture, new mythology and new practises(polygamy etc)

JW aren't trinitarian. And Mormons are often considered Christians.
But trinitarianism isn't the only 'significant' difference, is it?
Those groups have different beliefs on regards to Eucharist ( Catholics consider the bread to become the actual body of Christ ), Salvation ( Calvinists believe in predetermination ), and Papal infallibility. Just to cite three 'significant' divergences. This creates a different narrative on what God has done and what he will do. Don't they believe in different gods ?
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
I don't understand why are you saying generic word but using the upper case letter G?

Secondly, in logic, we don't have to prove something doesn't exist. So we don't have to prove the Quraysh didn't worship another Pagan god by that name. Rather, you have to prove that Quraysh had always worshipped Allah as a pagan god by providing us pre Islamic statues of Allah with inscriptions of how he was the top god in a pantheon of lesser gods. otherwise what you have is an innuendo.

Sure, in logic we can't prove a negative, but I am not asking you to prove a negative. We actually have positive evidence of the Allah of of the Quraysh having pagan roots, because Allah had partners and it is admitted in the Satanic verses part that Mohammed originally revealed to make the Arab Pagans happy(as he did the Jews) The very close connections with moon worship also betrays this.

We also have evidence that "Allah" was used as a term for God as the God of the bible.

So when there are two possibilities on who 'Allah' was of the Quraysh tribe:

1. It was the God of the bible/jews
2. It was an Arabic pagan God​

In order for you to assert (1) you need to completely eliminate (2) I just don't see how that is possible when we do have positive evidence of Allah's pagan past.

After all, in contrast you are being provided preIslamic inscriptions that prove Allah in Arabia was the invisible biblical god of the Christians.

Can you link me to these inscriptions. The only inscriptions I know of so far only show that 'Allah' was a word that some Arab Christians and Jews used as a word meaning "God" to refer God of the bible. It does not the mean Quraysh tribe also used in that way. That is your burden of proof.

In addition, Haneefs, Arian / Ebionites and Nazarenes also worshipped Allah as god of the Bible. In addition according to Jewish sources their deity was also worshipped by non Jewish tribes known as Kenites who were descendants of Isau, Jethro and Ishmael etc and performed sacrifices Qurbani as the Quraysh did at Mecca. So there is no reason to think Quraysh wasn't one of them

Which Jewish sources?
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
In other words, lineage is not sufficient if there is something that you regard as 'significant' that separates them.

I will repeat again, my position is that the Muslims only make a claim to lineage, it does not mean it actually true. I can make a claim that I am of the linage of Abrahman too, but that does not make it true. If you understand my argument the Jews in Mohammed's time did not accept this claim, they saw it as a fabrication and considered him a mad man. We can see there is clear attempt at fabrication given how Mohammed originally adopted Jewish beliefs, and then later rejected them etc



JW aren't trinitarian. And Mormons are often considered Christians.

I will reserve comment on JW. Mormons I know are controversially considered Christians and I have already cited Christian sources that reject them.

But trinitarianism isn't the only 'significant' difference, is it?
Those groups have different beliefs on regards to Eucharist ( Catholics consider the bread to become the actual body of Christ ), Salvation ( Calvinists believe in predetermination ), and Papal infallibility. Just to cite three 'significant' divergences. This creates a different narrative on what God has done and what he will do. Don't they believe in different gods ?

The differences you mention are all minor differences and they are doctrines that later Christians have invented and not what Jesus taught. The difference of opinion on whether the bread actually becomes the body of Christ and the wine actually becomes the blood of Christ is among later followers interpreting what Jesus meant by it. I would say it is a symbolism and the later theory of transubstantiation is a literal interpretation. In like manner the papacy was not founded by Jesus either, it is a far later development. Hence it rejected by Protestants as not binding on them. In like manner, predetermination, is again difference in opinion on who is saved.

However, major differences would be rejecting Jesus Christ as son of God and God incarnated and rejecting the gospels of Jesus etc Which Christian sect does that?
 

J2hapydna

Active Member
No, that is not my position. Muslims only make the claim of belonging to the Abrahamic lineage, but this claim does not stand up to history, we know this claim to lineage is fabricated and the actual lineage of Allah is Arabic Paganism.

What is this Abrahamic lineage that the Arabs claim, but don't have that they have fabricated and doesn't stand up to history in your opinion?
 
Last edited:

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I will repeat again, my position is that the Muslims only make a claim to lineage, it does not mean it actually true. I can make a claim that I am of the linage of Abrahman too, but that does not make it true. If you understand my argument the Jews in Mohammed's time did not accept this claim, they saw it as a fabrication and considered him a mad man. We can see there is clear attempt at fabrication given how Mohammed originally adopted Jewish beliefs, and then later rejected them etc

I wasn't talking about Muslims, but since you mentioned it...
It is only a clear attempt at fabrication if you don't believe in the divine origin of the Quran.
To Muslims, Muhammad was setting straight the teachings that got corrupted.

I will reserve comment on JW. Mormons I know are controversially considered Christians and I have already cited Christian sources that reject them.

There are indeed Christians that reject them. They are still, however, often considered Christians.

The differences you mention are all minor differences and they are doctrines that later Christians have invented and not what Jesus taught. The difference of opinion on whether the bread actually becomes the body of Christ and the wine actually becomes the blood of Christ is among later followers interpreting what Jesus meant by it. I would say it is a symbolism and the later theory of transubstantiation is a literal interpretation. In like manner the papacy was not founded by Jesus either, it is a far later development. Hence it rejected by Protestants as not binding on them. In like manner, predetermination, is again difference in opinion on who is saved.

However, major differences would be rejecting Jesus Christ as son of God and God incarnated and rejecting the gospels of Jesus etc Which Christian sect does that?

Do you mean that is a major difference because that is what Jesus taught, rather than a later interpretation by Christians ?
Here you are making an assumption over what Jesus actually taught. Whether he really did teach that he was God is not undisputed. It is still a matter of opinion.
 

J2hapydna

Active Member
Sure, in logic we can't prove a negative, but I am not asking you to prove a negative. We actually have positive evidence of the Allah of of the Quraysh having pagan roots, because Allah had partners and it is admitted in the Satanic verses part that Mohammed originally revealed to make the Arab Pagans happy(as he did the Jews) The very close connections with moon worship also betrays this.


As I said we have Jews claiming there were non Jewish Kenites worshipping the Jewish deity with them, by performing hajj and animal sacrifices, in the same way as the Quraysh was performing at Kaba. so it's not just that the name of their gods match and he happens to be invisible.

Now you say, ignore this evidence and look at the fact that most of the pagan Quraysh associated a family of daughters and a bride with Allah etc. This according to you proves that the Quraysh must have always been pagan and worshipping Allah as a pagan god. I'm sorry, I disagree with your logic. As far as associating a pagan family is concerned, we know from the Bible that even Jews occasionally descended into idolatry in moments of weakness and associated partners with YHWH. The northern kingdom of Israel descended into it with molech and got wiped out. It doesn't mean the Israelites of the northern kingdom worshipped a different god. The Jewish belief is that prophets constantly railed against this behavior and kept bringing Judah back. So there is no reason to think that Quraysh may not have been worshipping Allah as the god of Abraham until they began to want partners too. Then a civil war broke out, and MP reverted them. You haven't given us a good reason to not believe this.

Now I'm not saying that what you are suggesting is impossible. I'm saying it isn't the most likely scenario considering the evidence. For if the pagans had been worshipping Allah for hundreds of years in a pantheon as you suggest, then we should have discovered lots of Arabic inscriptions and statutes for these beliefs all over Arabia. So my friend what you need to do is provide some real proof such as inscriptions and statutes of Allah etc
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
No, as far as I know Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians all accept Jesus as God the son and the bible as the word of God.
Well, I'll be damned! So do Mormons. :)

I don't know too much about JW to comment -- but I know that Mormonism is widely not considered a sect of Christianity, but a new religion --- because it has a different founder and a different scripture, new mythology and new practises(polygamy etc)
Mormonism is most definitely not "traditional, mainstream Christianity," but it is absolutely a Christian faith.

A different founder? So does this mean Lutherans, whose church was founded by Martin Luther, are not Christians? What about the Anglicans, whose church was founded by Henry VIII, or Methodists, whose church was founded by John Wesley? What about Presbyterians, whose church was founded by John Calvin? Or Baptists, whose church was founded by Thomas Helwys? Are all of these churches Christian churches, but Mormonism is not -- because it was founded by Joseph Smith?

The Bible as the Word of God? Which Bible? The one used by the Catholics or the one without the Apocrypha, used by the Protestants? And where in the Bible can we find any statement saying, "This is all there is folks. I, God, am through talking."?

New mythology? If it's all just myth (which I'm not saying is the case), why not? What part of Mormonism is any more difficult to believe than the Virgin Birth? God can apparently talk through a burning bush. Why couldn't he send an angel to the earth instead? We trust in His word as it was inscribed on stone tablets (which have since disappeared) but if more of His word can be found on metal plates (which have also disappeared), it's quite laughable.

New practices? Why not? Christian beliefs and practices have changed over the years, and polygamy is never actually forbidden in the Bible. Several of God's most highly revered prophets had more than one wife. (And just for the record, Mormons haven't practices polygamy for roughly 125 years now.) Anyway, if Mormonism is (as it claims to be) the re-establishment of ancient (apostolic) Christianity, perhaps some of these "new practices" are merely the original ones being restored after centuries of not being used.

The bottom line here is that no one except God is in the position to be able to say with any authority whatsoever which of all professing Christian denominations is "truly Christian." All the rest of us can really do is voice our own opinions.

As for the answer to the OP... In my opinion, the answer is yes. Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship the same God.
 

J2hapydna

Active Member
Some background reading -- it provides a little clarification and context. Just FYI

is this guy really an orthodox rabbi? in Responding to Islam Forum

I tend to agree with Rambam that Orthodox Islam appears to be the creation of a madman or madmen. I consider its creators to be psychopathic megalomaniacs as I've said in a previous post. I think Abrahamson alludes to this too

The only difference is that I don't think MP was the one who created the Orthodox Sharia. I think it was created by mad ex-pagan leaders of the Quraysh who unrelentingly fought against MP and repeatedly attempted to assassinate him for most of his life, until they were defeated in battle. However, after being defeated they took advantage of the clemency shown to them, rose back into power and exacted revenge on the Muslims who had defeated them or their children if they were dead, including the grandchildren of MP and Abu Bake etc. Then they instituted the Orthodox Sharia which is a combination of extremist old pagan Shariah of Mecca and the Justinian code. In it they portrayed MP in their own light to sanction their barbaric cruelty by extorting Jizya taxes to fuel the expansion of their empire and rape plunder and conquer.

I think Abrahamson would agree that these types of reforms are required before Islam can be considered a Noachide faith.

There is no way for Rambam to have known this, so made his opinion of MP based on what he saw in the Sharia
 
Last edited:
Top