When/How/What Made Islam Materialized Into a Backward, Dogmatic Cult?
-
There's a huge differences between islam and Islam.
Islam is a religion, a cult invented somewhere in middle east around 1300-1400 years ago
While islam is an attitude / character.It's similar to the differences between democratic (the character of political system) and Democratic (the political party).
Thus for this thread I'm assuming Islam here is Islam the religion or cult.
Religionistic / Occultism is a common place in 6th-7th century middle east.
The religion of Islam bears many similar characteristic with the religion / cult of Judaism and Christianity.
All has their own set of dogma to be followed and not to be questioned.
Each claimed to be the "Only True Religion" as approved by God.
And war or killing among member of different religion / cult / faction is also a common thing to be found in 6th - 7h century middle east.
The Quran contains some information regarding the occultic/religious behavior of Jews and Christians, and cited them as "bad example to be followed". This is supported from the other books written by people who lived in th 6th century middle east. From it we can also learn how Jews and Christians massacred each others as they struggled for power in the middle east region.So that answered the WHEN question..
The religion of Islam materialized Into a Backward, Dogmatic Cult from the day of it's inception.As for HOW..
Basically the inventor of Islam religion follow the same path as the religion of Christianity and Judaism.
Such as Write a book -> declare it as holy -> Write a set of dogma -> Enforce the dogma to the society through fear and punishment -> Spread the religion through war and conquest.
The same old story...As for WHAT.. or more precisely WHY..
It's the lust for power and control.. a religion is required to put some cohesiveness to the society.
And some belief need to be instilled within the society to make the people "eager to make war" and / or "Die in the war".
The results is a society which follow every order of it's leader/king/sultan/priest without questioning and willing to die and sacrifice their lives for them.Again the same pattern can be found nearly in all religion, including Christianity and Judaism..
The "Schism" between Sunnis vs Shiites is similar in all aspect with the "Schism" between Orthodox and Catholics or Northern Kingdoms Judaism (The Mt. Gerizim gang) and Judea Judaism (The Mt. Zion / Jerusalem Gang). -
To Jafar, are you even a Muslim? This repelling comment of yours is an absolute disgrace to the religion of Islam and its prophet, Muhammad. Peace be upon him.
Factual evidence all will disagree with you.
I will give myself time to debunk your post
Religionistic / Occultism is a common place in 6th-7th century middle east.
The religion of Islam bears many similar characteristic with the religion / cult of Judaism and Christianity.
All has their own set of dogma to be followed and not to be questioned.
Each claimed to be the "Only True Religion" as approved by God.
And war or killing among member of different religion / cult / faction is also a common thing to be found in 6th - 7h century middle east.
The Quran contains some information regarding the occultic/religious behavior of Jews and Christians, and cited them as "bad example to be followed". This is supported from the other books written by people who lived in th 6th century middle east. From it we can also learn how Jews and Christians massacred each others as they struggled for power in the middle east region.
Not true at all, if you look at the early Islam, you will find out that it has zero similarities to Judaism and Christianity; in fact, it was closer to Buddhism and Hinduism, since the early converts besides the Arabs were Indians from trade routes, it grew successfully over there with a monist worldview, the chanting of God's 99 names is similar to the Hindu chanting of Vishnu's 1000 names. The Sufi concept of "Fana" is very similar to the Buddhist "Nirvana."The 7th century Arabia was, in fact, a heathen place with heterodox beliefs, which is where Christians were by the majority Arians, the Jews had little similarity to current known Jews since these Jews believed in "Son of God" Uzair, which is absent from other known sources of Judaic faith. If you read about the traditions of Khidr, you will realize he is almost a personification of God, which would be frowned upon by modern Muslims. The Manichean faith was popular over there back then and the star-worshiping Sabi'un were recognized as the people of the book, as well as the heretical offshoot of Christianity, Mandeaism. The religion of Hermes Trismegistus was also popular at the time and accepted, the founder, Hermes, is even mentioned in the Quran as a prophet known as Idris. Surely, early Islam was not dogmatic, but mystical and heterodox as compared to current Islam. It will be ignorant to say Arabia was dogmatic when they clearly were not and the Arabian faith still managed to live on through Islam.
Abu Hurariah even related "Religion is easy, and no one overburdens himself in his religion but he will be unable to continue in that way. So do not be extremists, but try to be near perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded. Gain strength by worshiping in the mornings and afternoons and during the last hours of the night."
This is something that isn't practiced by modern Muslims, the question is; when did that change? I say in Persia after the execution of Mansur Al-Hallaj, but we also have al-Burini with his liberal views of Islam, where he calls Buddha for "a prophet."
The religion of Islam materialized Into a Backward, Dogmatic Cult from the day of it's inception.
As for HOW..
Basically the inventor of Islam religion follow the same path as the religion of Christianity and Judaism.
Such as Write a book -> declare it as holy -> Write a set of dogma -> Enforce the dogma to the society through fear and punishment -> Spread the religion through war and conquest.
The same old story...
Not only is this repulsively untrue, you have nothing to support it, even after I have proven Islam was not started out as a set of dogma, but originally as a liberal religion. Also, when did the Prophet enforce his religion through fear and punishment? You're confusing the roles of the persecuted.The religion of Islam was materialized, backward, dogmatic cult from a much later date, perhaps centuries, if not millennia after. During the Crusades is also a good suggestion, when Islam tried to compete with Christianity and had to become much more dogmatic and rigid than it previously was, which was a religion founded by an equal to Buddha.
-
I do not really agree with Jafar on his comments on Quran, even if I agree on his stance when it comes to arrogance and pride concerning the best holy book, best religion etc, and not because I idolize Quran but that I affirm it was written by a righteous man. Quran criticizes the factual errors of Christianity and Judaism and not their existence per se. It does oppose religious doctrines, ironically seeing the sect Islam with all their denominations following it as a strictly one-sided doctrine.
Quran does say that Jews and Nasara will make the Transition as long as they are of affinity with ALLAH and the realm (prophets, angels, righteous people etc). It firmly shows disapproval of established religious doctrines and says anyone who is of a sound mind will be equal before The Rabb. It clearly shows that "many roads lead to Rome" despite Quran being used to heavily promote a dogmatic doctrine including ritualistic behavior and zealous methods. That is because people ignorantly translate/interpret Quran without enough reflection and they are biased with traditional influence.
Namaz (used to claim salat is that) is a multiple millennia long religious tradition and which was "fitted" into Quran's innocent nature to give a doctrinal practice despite Quran being open ended.
Actually I respect Jafar's stance towards Quran, but I feel he underestimates its nature and by the language used it shows that he thinks the person who wrote it was an unrighteous man who sought to satisfy his ego and was very jinn-minded (worldly). Such inference could be generated by a person who makes an intelligent and unbiased review of the traditional interpretations, since I can agree unless reinterpreted Quran is actually promoting something along the lines of what he said.
But Quran is very open ended and allows for different methods of approach and says that as long as one has a good way and behavior and thus is of affinity with the realm (Allah) then this is sufficient for the Transition (traditionally Hereafter). In fact, religious doctrines are a distraction from the real purpose. Painting up Allah as a separate object of worship is only detrimental and giving focus off the concept.
So to Jafar I can say that it is its interpreters which are the ones to blame just as the misconception on Christianity is to blame on the clergy and scholars rather than Jesus' disciples who wrote down what they had seen. The Gospels are fundamentally very accurate and they do not advocate any religion at all but rather seem anti-sectarian. Same is true for Quran, they advocate people to become sound (muslim). What you write is very remote to me and a kind of unfounded accusation, which you are obviously entitled to as a matter of opinion, but I think you ought to consider what you criticize and if it is factually correct.
There are also Buddhist texts that also teach the same concept of soundness and even in fragments of Hinduism. They have in common that they try to guide people towards soundness and if people truly followed the guidance, i.e. what they said it would be a muh better world, but people align for a materialistic view and give in to the instinctive nature of the beast (their soul is attached to). Usually the wise men have always taught what makes a man sound and done it well, but there always come distorters.
Salaam
-
If one hears about the early Muslims, they are all philosophic mystics with similarities with Buddhism and Hinduism, in fact, I will say Islam was closer related to those religions than it ever were with Judaism and Christianity. It was around the time of the execution of Mansur Al-Hallaj that Islam became materialized and transformed into a dread religion of the Sunnis.
What about it became into this terrorist-loving, Jihad-loving cult?
Islam is not a new religion at all. It's a reminder of what was already Gods system before Quran. In that sense, I disagree Islam is closer to Buddhism or Hinduism.
Where did it go wrong? Man's weakness. Historically the end of the Mu`tazila announced the age of backwarded evolution in Islam, the Ottoman empire who created a population of illiterate muslims. Maybe even earlier, the appointing of Kaliphs after Muhammeds death and their claim to theological authority is probably where it all started going wrong. The radical, traditional interpretations of Islam today are still remnants of the choice for doctrine over logic and rational thinking.
-
Here is the MAIN problem BUKHARI AND CO
There is a brain in the head for a reason. We could have been without it if Allah wanted us to be bots hypno
Muslims just need to get out of the lie filled mainstream Islam. They need to use head instead of taking mullahs as their gods. Allah tells us to reason and be tolerant. He doesn't tell us to do the following
To Jafar, are you even a Muslim? This repelling comment of yours is an absolute disgrace to the religion of Islam and its prophet, Muhammad. Peace be upon him.
Instead of being judgmental like this refute his comment.
As for HOW..
Basically the inventor of Islam religion follow the same path as the religion of Christianity and Judaism.
Such as Write a book -> declare it as holy -> Write a set of dogma -> Enforce the dogma to the society through fear and punishment -> Spread the religion through war and conquest.
The same old story...As for WHAT.. or more precisely WHY..
It's the lust for power and control.. a religion is required to put some cohesiveness to the society.
And some belief need to be instilled within the society to make the people "eager to make war" and / or "Die in the war".
The results is a society which follow every order of it's leader/king/sultan/priest without questioning and willing to die and sacrifice their lives for them.In this sense, almost half of what we have in the world can be counted as cult. But here is one example
Declare a nation to be democratic> declare the government to be holy> Write a set of laws> enforce the laws to the society through fines and imprisonment>Spread the democracy through war and conquest like my beloved America -*
The same old story...
As for WHAT.. or more precisely WHY..
It's the lust for power and control.. a government is required to put some cohesiveness to the society.
And some propaganda need to be instilled within the society to make the people "eager to make war" and / or "Die in the war". The results is a society which follow every order of it's leader/king/sultan/priest without questioning and willing to die and sacrifice their lives for them.Thus, the idea that religions are made to control people contains embarrassing fallacy. We are always under some kind of control.
peace -
Here is the MAIN problem BUKHARI AND CO
The problem predates Bukhari, it started with the caliphs Uthman, Umar etc. They have no authority in theology. Their power is only political but still they started messing with Islam (predating the birth of Bukhari). Once the people accepted these political figures as religious middle-men to God things went wrong. Ultimately leading to the sectarianism in Islam, who still to this day fight over who is the caliph appointed by God. The answer is simple none. God alone has authority.
-
The problem predates Bukhari, it started with the caliphs Uthman, Umar etc. They have no authority in theology. Their power is only political but still they started messing with Islam (predating the birth of Bukhari). Once the people accepted these political figures as religious middle-men to God things went wrong. Ultimately leading to the sectarianism in Islam, who still to this day fight over who is the caliph appointed by God. The answer is simple none. God alone has authority.
Salam runninglikezebras.
Well said. But I'm not sure if it was the Caliphs themselves who wanted to be the middlemen - or the ignorant followers imagined/wished them to be on post facto basis after their demise. (BTW, Any reason you did not mention Ali?)
I believe you and I had earlier disagreement over whether our intellect and morality is our obligation to God. When you say, "God alone has authority." the immediate question that Mullah's will ask you is whose interpretation of God's words do you accept? Clearly some level of translation and interpretation is needed to follow the verses of Qur'an, right?
For me the answer always has been - we have to uphold our God-gifted intellect and morality and based on that premise we should accept the best translation and interpretation of Qur'an to understand what God wants us to do with respect to our time and society.
Looking back at earlier generations is of minimum help because situations change. What they did was for them and what we did is for us and we will not be asked what they used to do. We will only be asked whether we made the best use of our intellect and our sense of right and wrong in the path shown by the messengers - that's all.
For example, in matters relating to polygamy or legitimate age of marriage - we cannot take what our predecessors did as the benchmark. We have to seek what is the best interpretation of Qur'an on this matters given the realities and necessities of our time. Similalrly when it comes to cutting off "hands" of thiefs - it is of no use to investigate whether our earlier generations cut off real hands or figurative hand (i.e. ability of stealing); rather we should investigate what is the appropriate interpretation FOR US. Once again, what they did was for them, and what we do is for us.
That is why I do not believe the verses of Qur'an have any fixed "interpretation" - I believe they are living "signs" meant to guide us under all changing circumstances.
Well, that 's my answer to "whose interpretation?" - If you have a different answer - I'd like to know.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Peace be with you all
I would like to say that I agree with Bro Jafar that Islam The Religion sets mankind who follow it backward from its incepction/invention. The Qur'an does not teach us that Islam is a religion but rather a system/way of life that is peaceful, fair and just as can be seen from 318 and 6151-153. As for people who keeps comparing The Quran with The Bible after spending so many years on this forum, I feel sorry for them. There never were Twelve Disciples Of Jesus nor was there ever Jesus Christ as real person, Jesus was nothing but a myth. Nor was there ever twelve sons of Jacob and twelve tribes of Israel , what is certain though,there were/are twelve signs of The Zodiac. As for the existence of prophet Muhammad, that is open to debate and in my understanding of the Qur'an Muhammad was not a real figure either. So, if Muhammad wasn't a real person, what is the likelihood of the companions such as Abu Bakar, Umar, Usman and Ali et al as nothing more than mythical figures in a fable?
Islamic religion and Judaism and their early adherents were more like moon-worshippers and with their veneration of the night sky, stars and the heavens. Look no further than their religious symbol of The Crescent Moon. As for Christianity, it is nothing more than a plagiarism of religions that went millennia before its adoption as a state religion by Constantine The Great in the 4th centure A,D.
Peace
P.S. Please read The Suns of God and/or Christ in Egypt by DM Murdock/Acharya S
To find out facts about major religions of this world. Cheers
-
So Quran is a narrative that tells fairy tales albeit moral lessons? The reports of 'said' and such were not real?
Okay. We are all free to think and reach conclusions.
Salaam
-
So Quran is a narrative that tells fairy tales albeit moral lessons? The reports of 'said' and such were not real?
Okay. We are all free to think and reach conclusions.
Salaam
What do you mean? Who says Quran is a narrative of fairy tales?
-
almarh0m said.
Salaam
-
almarh0m said.
Salaam
What did he say? I'm confused.
-
To Jafar, are you even a Muslim? This repelling comment of yours is an absolute disgrace to the religion of Islam and its prophet, Muhammad. Peace be upon him.
I'm not an exclusive member of a cult /religion named Islam (a.k.a Muslim)
Thus no worry I shall not be a disgrace to the religion of Islam..And Muhammad is not a Muslim, in the same manner as Jesus is not a Christian (or a Muslim).. and in the same manner as Moses is not a Judaist (or a Muslim).
Simple reason
In order to be a member of Islam, thus "earn the right" to the title of Muslim one has to proclaimed "The Shahada".
What do you think Muhammad's Shahada will be? "I Testify that I AM the messenger of God"??It just an evidence that "The Shahada" dogma was created / invented after Muhammad's death..
In the similar manner as Christian's "Apostle's Creed" or Symbolum Apostolorum (in Latin) was created / invented after Jesus's death..The inventor of Islam religion was "Inspired" by the Christian's Symbolum Apostolorum and also Judaism's Shema. He/They decided to create their own "Creed" for their new religion named Islam... thus "The Shahada" was born.
I will give myself time to debunk your post Not true at all, if you look at the early Islam, you will find out that it has zero similarities to Judaism and Christianity; in fact, it was closer to Buddhism and Hinduism, since the early converts besides the Arabs were Indians from trade routes, it grew successfully over there with a monist worldview, the chanting of God's 99 names is similar to the Hindu chanting of Vishnu's 1000 names. The Sufi concept of "Fana" is very similar to the Buddhist "Nirvana."
The religion of Islam has so many similarities to Arab Paganism, Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrian combined.
Your main question was how the religion / cult of Islam Materialized Into a Backward, Dogmatic Cult..
Thus the answer is by the time it was invented...
And certainly, Mr Muhammad is not the inventor of religion of Islam..A religion / cult without any dogma is not a religion / cult..
And you can also see that "Backwardness" is a common characteristic shared by all religion who claimed that "My religion is the truest religion, My holy book is the last revelation, My prophet/ teacher is the last bearer of revelation".
Why?
Because by thinking that there isn't any "new things to be known" or "all things has been explained in our glorious religion", they will shun all "new things", "new knowledge" and "new invention" because it will violate their own dogma.
Thus "Backward" and "Looking into the past" become their main focus and point of view. -
You're wrong.
-
Islamo,
He said the actors in Quran are merely fictitious, that they did not reallt exist. While he is entitled to this opinion I tend to disagree. The literary style would make it veey farfetched that everything was just made up stories albeit moral high class ones.
Salaam
-
Instead of being judgmental like this refute his comment.
In this sense, almost half of what we have in the world can be counted as cult. But here is one example
Declare a nation to be democratic> declare the government to be holy> Write a set of laws> enforce the laws to the society through fines and imprisonment>Spread the democracy through war and conquest like my beloved America -*The same old story...
As for WHAT.. or more precisely WHY..
It's the lust for power and control.. a government is required to put some cohesiveness to the society.
And some propaganda need to be instilled within the society to make the people "eager to make war" and / or "Die in the war". The results is a society which follow every order of it's leader/king/sultan/priest without questioning and willing to die and sacrifice their lives for them.Thus, the idea that religions are made to control people contains embarrassing fallacy. We are always under some kind of control.
peaceIs not a fallacy at all... who said that "The Pattern" has ended???
It's infact a RECURRING pattern..You can observe similar pattern in the Soviet Union, North Korea, (for example)...
Interesting to note
Declare a nation to be democratic/ Religious/Islam/Christian/Socialist/Facist/Communist << put any label here >> > declare the government to be holy>The true objective is to declare the "Ruler" (and his family / mates / cronies / fellow tribe / gang member) as holy..
And for that they require an ideology / religion / belief system to be enforced within the society..I haven't seen that in today's USA though... there are still great portion of people who still opted to maintained their sanity and not considering their own ruler / government / religion / ideology to be holy and/or unquestionable..
Although things might change in the very near future.. -
Islamo,
He said the actors in Quran are merely fictitious, that they did not reallt exist. While he is entitled to this opinion I tend to disagree. The literary style would make it veey farfetched that everything was just made up stories albeit moral high class ones.
Salaam
almarh0m said.
Salaam
Peace
Man of Faith, just where did I say that The Qur'anic characters are all fictitious? I did say that Muhammad's existence is debatable and that my current understanding of The Qur'an is that Muhammad is not a real person. So, please do not put words into my mouth.
What is full of fairy tales is The Bible and this is indisputable, you don't find no such things in the Qur'an, it was the reason why I stopped comparing The Qur'an with the Old or New Testament. The proper comparison for the Bible is The Ahadiths. Muslims mistakenly believe that Injil is equal to The Gospel and Taurat is equal The Old Testaments. Here are examples of some of the fantastic fairy tales from The Bible....Matthew 2751-53 " Dead saints rose from their graves after Jesus' resurrection.........Revelation 118 " I am the living one, I was dead and now look, I am alive for ever and ever. How can you compare The Qur'an with Nonsense book like that?
As truth-seeker I take truth from anywhere, from any source for truth is from God, however we should make the effort to find out for ourselves what information or knowledge we take in and to ensure that they are logical and verifiable. I reiterate my belief that Islam is a way of life that is peaceful, fair and just and that Islam is not a religion if you follow the Qur'an.
Peace
-
Hi Armanaziz,
My answers in-line
Salam runninglikezebras.
Well said. But I'm not sure if it was the Caliphs themselves who wanted to be the middlemen - or the ignorant followers imagined/wished them to be on post facto basis after their demise. (BTW, Any reason you did not mention Ali?)
I don't know what was the case. I dont blame anyone in what happened historically. Both the explanations can be valid. I did not leave out Ali on purpose. He just slipped my mind. The two mentioned Qaliphs are responsible for the current codex of Quran we still know today and the other one for establishing the islamic calendar. They popped up during my study on different Quranic topics. I don't know much about Ali. The caliphs don't interest me very much.
I believe you and I had earlier disagreement over whether our intellect and morality is our obligation to God. When you say, "God alone has authority." the immediate question that Mullah's will ask you is whose interpretation of God's words do you accept? Clearly some level of translation and interpretation is needed to follow the verses of Qur'an, right?
For me the answer always has been - we have to uphold our God-gifted intellect and morality and based on that premise we should accept the best translation and interpretation of Qur'an to understand what God wants us to do with respect to our time and society.
Looking back at earlier generations is of minimum help because situations change. What they did was for them and what we did is for us and we will not be asked what they used to do. We will only be asked whether we made the best use of our intellect and our sense of right and wrong in the path shown by the messengers - that's all.
For example, in matters relating to polygamy or legitimate age of marriage - we cannot take what our predecessors did as the benchmark. We have to seek what is the best interpretation of Qur'an on this matters given the realities and necessities of our time. Similalrly when it comes to cutting off "hands" of thiefs - it is of no use to investigate whether our earlier generations cut off real hands or figurative hand (i.e. ability of stealing); rather we should investigate what is the appropriate interpretation FOR US. Once again, what they did was for them, and what we do is for us.
That is why I do not believe the verses of Qur'an have any fixed "interpretation" - I believe they are living "signs" meant to guide us under all changing circumstances.
Well, that 's my answer to "whose interpretation?" - If you have a different answer - I'd like to know.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
ArmanI don't necessarily disagree with what you say. Yes, use your reason and common sense when trying to understand Quran. I don't need to repeat what Quran says about this. Where we differ is, I think there is no just form of morality outside the moral rules set out by God. As humans we can establish our own moral code, maybe entirely based on rational thought. That doesnt mean that human moral code cant be unrightful and unjust. Human systems are open to corruption, error, mistake, ignorance etc. Only Gods system is perfect.
The correct interpretation is not in our control. Not even by being totally rational (which leaves out emotional intelligence). The only way interpretation is guaranteed is by guidance of God. In a 1-1 relationship with God, your interpretation of Quran is a barometer. Like a thermometer will rise when you have fever, falling without Gods guidance will lead to misinterpreting Quran. No outsider can help you in this. I strongly believe this is the case.
Peace
-
The correct interpretation is not in our control. Not even by being totally rational (which leaves out emotional intelligence). The only way interpretation is guaranteed is by guidance of God. In a 1-1 relationship with God, your interpretation of Quran is a barometer. Like a thermometer will rise when you have fever, falling without Gods guidance will lead to misinterpreting Quran. No outsider can help you in this. I strongly believe this is the case.
Salam runninglikezebras.
This thermometer - barometer stuff is a bit over my head. "God's guidance" is fine... but how do you recognize which guidance is God's?
Let us take a very specific example - say, legal age of marriage. The best clue that Qur'an gives is probably in 46 - test the orphans till they mature for marriage and then hand them over their wealth. This clearly implies age of marriage is the same age where one is fit to accept his own financial responsibility.
Now the question is exactly which age is this? 9 years, 11 years, 13 yeras, 18 years, 21 years? Qur'an does not say that. So, we do not have a hard-coded rule on this topic.
Now different people can claim different ways they see God's guidance
- A traditionalist may say my forefather assumed that the age is 9 years - so that is what God guides me to do. His anchor is the "traditions" of scholars / caliphs / salafs etc.
- Some hardcore "Quranist" may say we must source all answers from Qur'an. God hints ""Forty (40)" years as the age of maturity in 4615 so it must be the age, although there is no direct logical connection between 4615 and age of marriage. His anchor point is - the answer must be sourced from Qur'an.
- I believe my intellect and conscience tells me it is upto every society to determine what is the mandated "minimum age" and whatever age my society (i.e. state) dictates, I need to accept that as God's guidance as the minimum age. If my state sets the bar too low (per my intellect), I'll still apply my best judgement to decide whether my children are able to independently handle financial affairs before I consider them fit for marriage.
So, you can see, I am anchoring upon my intelligence and my conscience to differentiate God's guidance vs. false guidance.
From your response I could not understand what your anchor point is. If you are suggesting we don't need to have an anchor point, if we have faith in Allah, Allah will guide us - then again I'd say Allah will guide us by making us "feel" which is the right path. and this "feeling" of what is right is nothing but our intellect and conscience.
And following our intellect and conscience as God's guidance with utmost faith is the straight route to seek Allah.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Salaam,
Yes. Islam is not a religion but a spiritual concept. If you perceive it that way you need to go all the way though and ditch superstitious rituals.
As for the Bible, you are right that it is hadith all the way basically because it is reports of events from real people. However, the writings you find to be Gospels in it are actually related to the truth even though they are not always understood properly and with the risk of bias and insertions. Also several instances in the so-called 'Old Testament' contains true narrations instead of sectarian conjecture and may help a person understand the whole picture. I agree that it is often mere nonsense though, but you cannot compare it with utter nonsense like Bukhari and company.
And you gave a reference to a part called 'Revelation'. Does that relate to the events of Jesus? No.
As for Matthew and the raised saints. Well it seems to me a literal exaggeration or a misinterpretation. Those Gospel testimonies are written by ordinary people who followed Jesus and their original material was likely written in Hebrew/Aramaic.
You have to turn Quran right in interpretation before you can turn down other sources. It does not always make sense. How about praying birds or that GOD will come in waves with the angels at the end of days. One should not throw a stone in a house of glass (a saying).
I find overall that the Gospel testimonies in the Bible to be valid source of information. However I agree they are not the best available. I prefer "The Gospel according to the Hebrews" and Gospel of Marcion. The latter was deemed heretical by the Greco-Roman clergy, possibly for a reason. "Marcion's" testimony is loosely based on Matthew but lacks many nonsensical parts.
As for the wider picture of the sayings of Jesus, they are true. Jesus did talk about no separation between the Rabb and a man but rather a symbiotic relationship. Quran confirms it, if you interpret it as intended by the author. This is the reason Jesus became heavily persecuted and finally executed by the clergy, i.e. because he made heretical and blasphemous utterances in their opinion.
Also the utterances and parables given by the person in the Gospels are very sophisticated and show they come from an intelligent and witted person. You see they tried to find a way against him, but because he spoke in parables instead they both had problems to understand what he said and the parable made it difficult for them to use it as evidence.
However, the majority of what he says makes perfect sense, if you can understand his parables and the philosophical message.
I do not compare Quran, on equal level, with the Bible either because it is a grand prophecy and has been a very reliable source so far. However there are scenes in Quran that are very similar to that of the Gospel testimonies in the Bible and in 5116 Jesus clarifies what he said and that he did not any separation between his soul and that of The Rabb (although the traditional interpretation is completely off).
And as for that I said they were fictitious in your view was because of what you yourself wrote. If they did not exist then they are obviously fictitious characters. Otherwise what kind of logic should we apply? This means I did not put words in your mouth but just clarified what you meant. If you did mean something else you may elaborate, because to me it seemed like Moses, Jesus etc never existed.
Salaam