The problem with Islam

[Riz]

Hey Guys,

I wouldn't say there is no proof that Mecca didn't exist. Look at this linkhttp//religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/construction.htm
If the Arabs really wanted to confuse people, they would have named the city Becca instead of Mecca or atleast renamed it. Either way, Abraham was never in Mecca and I won't argue that.

Going back to Abraham. If the bayt of Allah is not a physical place, but rather a system of God, then why did Abraham build the first bayt of Allah at Becca? Wouldn't this mental or spiritual place have been established when he first discovered God?

396 says "The first bayt established for the people is the one in Bakk?a, "
So your saying the first house made for people was in Bakka? Clearly the first house was not in Bakka. There were many other people living in houses before Abraham. So then do you say the bayt is a spiritual way of life in which we submit only to God? This way of life was nothing Abraham established, its been there since Adam. So what is the bayt?

You speak of Jesus' family and disciples as though they betrayed him. They didn't, it was Paul who never even knew Jesus that invented the tales which then grew out of control.

Regarding the non-muslim evidence. I was speaking of the writings of Jacob of Edessa, Sebeos, John bar Penkaye, Anastasious of Sinai, Germanus, Thomas the Presbyter, and John Moschos. All of whom wrote during the first centure AH. The earliest being 660, 28 years after Muhammad was supposed to have died.

The Sunnah as practiced today has existed way before the coming of the Abbasid empire. As I stated above, much of the core Sunnah practices have been witnessed even by non-muslims starting in 660.

Its true that we don't know when exactly Muhammad lived. But would you agree that it was because of his efforts that the Quran spread? Would you agree that somehow, through someone or some people God preserved the Quran? If so then lets look at what the picture is starting to look like.

-Muhammad was the messenger of God through whom the Quran was revealed.
-He wrote down the Quran.
-There were enough Muslims in Muhammads time that they were able to fight battles. Battles involve a lot of people on both sides.
-Arabia went from being a pagan region, to a Monothiestic region.
-Eventually pagan ideas and rituals came into the religion. Nevertheless, people never went back to full blown polythiesm.

Its very hard to imagine that everyone Muhammad knew betrayed him and included pagan rituals in the religion as traditional history would lead us to believe. Traditional history records that some of the closest disciples became the leaders of Islam. It is recorded by Muslims as well as non-Muslim sources that it was under these early leaders under whom Islam expanded. It is also recorded by both that there were civil wars that took place under some of these disciples.

My conclusion I draw from this. Muhammad lived before these people and these people were NOT his disciples and probably never even knew him. They shed the blood of many Muslims which is prohibitted in the Quran. These people did not have the traits of rightous people. They were not people whose hearts were united as the Quran records. Mecca did have the Kaba and pilgrimages being made to it by the Muslims under these leaders(last 3 anyways) and this is recorded by both mus/non-mus sources. So how did these people come to know the Quran? How was the Quran perserved even through all the corruption which happened under them? The only scenerio which makes sense to me in this case would be that Muhammad lived 2, 3 or perhaps more generations before these people. Their community, their parents already had the Quran well preserved and practiced it well. Slowly, like with all other major religions, pagan influences crept in. Muhammad became more of a legend and many mythical stories were attached to him such as his breast being torn open and all impurities being removed when he was a child. His geneology linked with one of the great peoples of the Qurans, and Bible Abraham. Muhammads story was now located in Arabia, namely Mecca. Nevertheless, the legend of Muhammad and his Quran had become major parts of the region because when the Arabs started to conquer other lands, they spread this corrupted faith of theirs.

Islam could not have been corrupted after these people. Islam was practiced the same way in the outer regions the same way it was practiced in the inner Arab regions. Meaning it grew from inside out, not the other way around.

This is the most sensible situation to me. As Lote-tree mentioned earlier, Islam did not come into being in a vacuum. It was not created overnight. What I am trying to discuss here is the birth and expansion of Islam. What I have stated are my theories based on the Quran, historical documents both Muslim and non-Muslim, and reality as it is today. Feel free to point out flaws in my logic.

[unknownuser]

Muhammad became more of a legend and many mythical stories were attached to him such as his breast being torn open and all impurities being removed when he was a child. His geneology linked with one of the great peoples of the Qurans, and Bible Abraham. Muhammads story was now located in Arabia, namely Mecca. Nevertheless, the legend of Muhammad and his Quran had become major parts of the region because when the Arabs started to conquer other lands, they spread this corrupted faith of theirs.

This is more plausible Riz, Muhammad must have "Islamised" many of the Pagan rituals such as going round that Kaba seven times and sacrificing animals, as these rituals were dear to the Arabs at that time. But clearly all Sunnah that relates to vernerating Muhammad must be clear invention because it is unlikely that Muhammad would pray to himself! -) and as the stories go, further Pagan rituals enevitably crept in as Islam progressed.

Regards,

[Riz]

Lote, what do you think about Muhammad having lived before the time he is recorded to have lived and the 4 "rightly guided" caliphs actually living much later?

[unknownuser]

Lote, what do you think about Muhammad having lived before the time he is recorded to have lived and the 4 "rightly guided" caliphs actually living much later?

Is this hinted by any non-muslim sources Riz?

Regards,

[Riz]

It is what I conclude from the evidence presented. I talk about it in my 2nd post above this one.

From non-muslim sources it is quite clear that the Islamic cult did exist during the time of these people. I argue that these people could not have been Muhammads discipes because all they seemed to care about was power and they did not fight the Islamic heresy.

[unknownuser]

From non-muslim sources it is quite clear that the Islamic cult did exist during the time of these people. I argue that these people could not have been Muhammads discipes because all they seemed to care about was power and they did not fight the Islamic heresy.

I think we should start giving more credibility to these non-muslim sources, sources that back up traditional accounts. I think this is a better approach since many scholars have concluded that muslim sources by itself is not very reliable.

I need to look at this again Riz, you have raised very interesting points -)

Regards,

[ichephren]

About this enrire matter, I have several comments

1. We cannot use the Bible as evidence if we refuse to do the same with the Quran
2. Concerning Layth's article on Hajj, does 928 not suppose that the belivers had control of access to the "sacred masjid"? If this masjid was the temple mount as Layth advises, then wouldn't Muhammad have had control of it, such as to restrict others from going near it? Please correct me if this is a wrong interpretation on my part.
3. It is my understanding that the bayt is physical considering that rites are supposed to be performed there. It would not make sense were it a mental bayt.
4. Maybe Muhammad did not destroy the ka'ba b/c he knew that it would not fall to idol worshipping again and is therefore neturalised as a house of polytheism.
5. Hadith concerning Muhammad's worship of the black stone, etc. can be rejected as make believe by later liars.
6. There is no history of the ka'ba before the 4th century...Why is there no mention of this structure anywhere in the Bible or any semetic work before Islam? At least someone would have mentioned it even if he/she did not think of it as God's house.
7. Had Muhammad gone to Jersualem to pilgrimage, would he not have preached there as well? If he had, we would have documentation of his visit, and the visit of earlier muslims as well.
8. Does the Quran not say that it was revealed in Arabic for those who received it? Wouldn't this point to Muhammad living in Mecca/Medina?
9. It doesn't make sense to me that Muhammad would want to Islamize polytheism as Lotetree has theorized. If he is following the way of previous prophets, thsi would not make sense. No prophet has conceded to polytheism and adapted it to Islam! Whart makes most sense is that after Muhammad's death, muslims moved the qibla from Jerusalem(or the real qibla) to mecca as a result of growing conflicts betweeb muslims and jews. It is part of hadith that muslims were commanded not to do certain things b/c it resembled the mannerisms of other religions. This would follow the idea that muslims later took polytheistic elements into the religion.
10. Riz, the nonmuslims writings that you point to were written in the late 7th century and ealr 8th century, which is more than enough time for muslims to change a lot of their deen in favor of a more polytheistc bent.
11. We should also keep in mind that no prophet has made pilgrimage to the ka'ba as far as I know, though the pilgrimage was also enjoined on them.
12. Some poeple keep citing a verse that mentions that the ruins of Lot's city can be seen in the morning and at night by those who received the message. However, I do not think that this means that they lived near the Red Sea. If Mu's people were traders, etc. then they would have gone up and down the Red Sea all the time, when they could in fact see Lot's ruins when it is morning and at night.
    -My take on the situation thus far is that Muhammad was actually born and raised in Mecca. He preached in Mecca and Medina and mosty of traditional history is true. However, I think that the pilgrimage was to another place entirely different that had been known to Jews and others who had received the Message. I think that after his death, his lesser followers added many polytheistic elements to the deen. I do not think that M's family and disciples were in the wrong, but there is little that a few poeople could do against a large number of ignorant people( same went for Isa's disciples versus the large number of early ignorant christians). I think that a lot was made up abotu Muhammad and his family/disciples later to add legitimacy to their later concoctions. Much later on some scholars came along to legitimize the concoctions, and there you have sunnism. That is my reasoning thus far, but I am a bit rushed(excuse the typos) and I have much to read on early Islam. This is a great thread!

[unknownuser]

9. It doesn't make sense to me that Muhammad would want to Islamize polytheism as Lotetree has theorized. If he is following the way of previous prophets, thsi would not make sense. No prophet has conceded to polytheism and adapted it to Islam! Whart makes most sense is that after Muhammad's death, muslims moved the qibla from Jerusalem(or the real qibla) to mecca as a result of growing conflicts betweeb muslims and jews. It is part of hadith that muslims were commanded not to do certain things b/c it resembled the mannerisms of other religions. This would follow the idea that muslims later took polytheistic elements into the religion.

But if you look at history you will find that Judaic Temples built by King David and later kings were almost a replica of the temple of Baal and other deities worshipped by the Pagans in Biblical times. They even had a sacrificial altar just like the Pagans! So too are many of the Pagan rituals of animal sacrifices and mode of worship incorporated into the "Monotheism" preached by Biblical prophets. So it is not hard to imagine that Muhammad would have "Islamised" some of the Pagan rituals of his times like going around the Kaba seven times etc. since it does not undermine monotheism in anyway. The adoption of the crescent moon into Islam is also a Pagan symbol that has been Islamised.

If you look back in history you will also realise that Abraham, Jacob and Moses were not monotheist in the terms we understand it. They took the existence of other deities for granted. It just that they promised to worship only Yahweh and not any other Gods. There is not a single monotheistic element in the Old Testament.

As for the Qibla, it is plausible that Muhammad did indeed faced towards Jerusalem at the start of his mission as the Jews did when he was exiled to Medina. Perhaps he believed that by doing so the Jews would accept him as their Prophet since he was preaching the same message as the Patriach Abraham. There are many verses in the Quran which extols the Jews as the people of the book in the early Medinan Verses. But things go sour perhaps due to Jews refusal to accept Muhammad as a Prophet. So as an act of creative genius (as many scholars have noted) Muhammad changed the direction of the Qibla to Mecca to separate himself from the religion of Judaism and proclaim as independent of both Judaism and Christianity.

Regards,

[ichephren]

If you look back in history you will also realise that Abraham, Jacob and Moses were not monotheist in the terms we understand it. They took the existence of other deities for granted. It just that they promised to worship only Yahweh and not any other Gods. There is not a single monotheistic element in the Old Testament.

• That may be true, however, the Quran clearly states that they were all purely monotheistic. Furthermore, I doubt that the OT is an accurate depiction of the previous prophets' religious sentiments considering that we do not even know for sure who wrote the books. It may have the historical facts right(or for the most part), but religious data is usually confused. I have heard others say this and I always ask why anyone would believe that Abraham just chose one idol above other idols. That is nothing special. There have always been polytheists who choose to follow only one idol, so what made Abraham different if that was the case?

But if you look at history you will find that Judaic Temples built by King David and later kings were almost a replica of the temple of Baal and other deities worshipped by the Pagans in Biblical times. They even had a sacrificial altar just like the Pagans! So too are many of the Pagan rituals of animal sacrifices and mode of worship incorporated into the "Monotheism" preached by Biblical prophets. So it is not hard to imagine that Muhammad would have "Islamised" some of the Pagan rituals of his times like going around the Kaba seven times etc. since it does not undermine monotheism in anyway. The adoption of the crescent moon into Islam is also a Pagan symbol that has been Islamised.

• I do think that Islamising the Ka'ba is disruptive to monotheism. If God never authorizes the kissing of a black stone, then doing it for the sake of God would still be haram. If He never authorizes you to walk around the ka'ba 7 times, then doing so is also haram. So Islamising something does not make it okay. Also the incorporation of the cresent moon into Islam was most likely done after Muhammad, which does not count as him introducing pagan traditions into Islam. We do not say that the celebration of Christmas by Christians is a pagan element that can be attributed to a relenting Isa, so why do we say the same for Muhammad?
  -Could you describe in what ways the temple of Baal resembled the temples built by King David or Solomon? Having a sacrificial altar does not make a temple pagan since muslims do perform a sacrificial rite during hajj.

[Riz]

Hey people,

Ichepren you bring up interesting points. If the masjidal haram is infact a physical place, then I don't think the temple mount is it. If Muhammad was from that region then the Quran would have been in Aramaic. And if Muhammad had so much control of the area that he could restrict non-believers from entering it, then Muhammad would have rebuilt the temple mount to a certain degree, but as we know the temple mount has been ruins ever since it was destroyed by Rome. For more info on the temple mounts history refer to http//askelm.com/temple/t000601.htm

Had Muhammad gone to Jersualem to pilgrimage, would he not have preached there as well? If he had, we would have documentation of his visit, and the visit of earlier muslims as well.

This is a good observation. Jerusalem was under the control of the Byzantines before it was conquered under the Arab leader Umar. Prior to this point there was no mention of Muhammad or Islam here. It was Christians and Jews.

Your 8th point was that the Quran was revealed in Arabic and therefore Muhammad was in Mecca and Yathrib. Muhammad was in Yathrib and this is recorded even in the Quran(3313). He wasn't necessarily in Mecca. He could have been from anywhere else. I argue that if he conquered Mecca at any point, he either destroyed all the idols there including the Kaba, or didn't destroy any of them. There would be no reason to leave the Kaba standing when it was the biggest idol of them all.

In your 10th point you say that the writings are late enough for there to have been a corruption within Islam. Let me restate, the earliest document from a non-Muslim source verifying that the Kaba was indeed associated with Abraham and the Arabs were making pilgrimages there comes 28 years after Muhammads supposed death. At this time Muhammads disciples, parts of his family, and many Muslims who would have known Muhammad would still have been alive. This implies that the pilgrimage existed even during the lives of these so called disciples who took over and they had no problem with it nor did they try to fight it. Not only did they not try to stop this spread of corruption, but they were also divided amongst each other and spilled the blood of many other Muslims. These are not the qualities of rightous disciples and believers who the Quran says God was happy with and their hearts were united. What he have here are different people. These were not the disciples of Muhammad and I doubt they ever knew Muhammad much like Paul never knew Jesus.

Some poeple keep citing a verse that mentions that the ruins of Lot's city can be seen in the morning and at night by those who received the message. However, I do not think that this means that they lived near the Red Sea. If Mu's people were traders, etc. then they would have gone up and down the Red Sea all the time, when they could in fact see Lot's ruins when it is morning and at night.

I agree with this. This is a possibility.

Regarding the aftermath of Muhammads death. I don't think a comparison between the situation of Jesus and Muhammad is fair or equal. Jesus preached to a small group of people and was only there for a short period of time. His message did not reach the masses under his supervision. It spread under Paul who never knew Jesus and he never preached the message of Jesus. Muhammad on the other hand was a very public figure. His message did reach the masses, so much infact that he and his followers had to fight battles. The message he spread was under his supervision and the Quran records that God was happy with the believers meaning they were on the right path. How many believers were there during Muhammads time? Well as I stated there were enough that they fought battles. Surah 110 can shed some more light on the matter

"When God?s victory and conquest comes.
And you see mankind entering into God?s system in flocks.
You shall glorify your Lord?s grace, and seek His forgiveness. /He is the Redeemer."

As it records, there were a lot of people. So if there was a corruption after Muhammad, the believers would have outnumbered the small growing corruption and 28 years would not have been sufficient time for such a big change to have happened. Especially not if Muhammads own disciples were leaders of the Muslims and powerful enough to conquer other lands. And as I said earlier, the Sunnah as practiced today was there when these early Leaders conquered other lands. The spread these practices with them because we don't find the Sunnah spreading randomly across the region or growing from outside in. It grew from the inside out.
As I mentioned above, I don't believe these conquerers were Muhammads actual disciples for a number of reasons. That is why after closely examining the situation, I think Muhammad lived earlier that what has been recorded in tradition. His disciples, family members, as well as the early Muslims were no longer around the time the Islamic cult started to expand. The conquerers who expanded Islam must have been a much later generation of Muslims. Maybe 3rd, 4th or later generation.

Was masjidal-haram, qibla, bayt of Allah physical places? I'm sure. Maybe, maybe not. Whatever they were I would like to find out. Ayman and Tanveer have both stated some good points, but they aren't completly convincing because there are still problems with those interpretations. Personally when I read the Quran and read verses speaking of masj-haram, qibla, bayt of Allah, the verses don't make much sense if the places were physics, but there are other verses which don't make sense to me if the places were not physical.

Also I would like to make an analogy of something here. People suggested that some of these words should be looked at as the literal meanings, like masjidal haram meaning sacred submissions and the kaba meaning ankles. While that way of looking at is fine, one must remember that some of these words and phrases might have had more of meaning than just the literal one. In an earlier post I quoted from the book "Arabia and the Arabs from the bronze age to the coming of Islam" which had a detailed description of what majidal harams were. The fact that there were many masjidal harams cannot be overlooked. Here is my analogy, not a great one, but I think it will demonstrate my point.
"Riz used to often pass by Red Robins." As some of you may know, Red Robins is a restaurant. There is a Red Robins where I live and I do often pass by it. Now the Red Robins chain might go out of buisiness in a few years and no longer be remembered except by my 'followers.' So then someone living much later might argue that the tale of Red Robins existing is fabricated. Riz didn't used to pass by some place called Red Robins, rather he used to pass by birds called Red Robins. Both are valid, but the latter theory is wrong. It disregards history and assumes all tradition is fabricated. Do you see my point? It is true that the tradition of Riz passing by a place called Red Robins was fabricated, but its not necessarily fabricated.

[unknownuser]

If you look back in history you will also realise that Abraham, Jacob and Moses were not monotheist in the terms we understand it. They took the existence of other deities for granted. It just that they promised to worship only Yahweh and not any other Gods. There is not a single monotheistic element in the Old Testament.

• That may be true, however, the Quran clearly states that they were all purely monotheistic.

But it is easy for Quran to claim that they were monotheist isn't it, because Quran needs to root itself in the supposed "monotheism" of Abraham to give its legitamacy and a sense of history and continuity?

But Abraham's God Elohim/Yahweh are names of Pagan Gods that have been recorded in non-biblical sources. Elohim is clearly the Pagan God El, the "El of the Mountains". Even today place names such as "Isra-El" and "Beth-El" echoes this pagan origins. And Yahweh is clearly seems to be a Tribal Midinite Pagan God, since he is known as "Yahweh Saboeth", the God of the Armies. But Abraham, Jacob and Moses choose to worship only Yahweh and make Yahweh their "Elohim", the only God that mattered.

Furthermore, I doubt that the OT is an accurate depiction of the previous prophets' religious sentiments considering that we do not even know for sure who wrote the books.

If you doubt the authenticiy of the Old Testament records (and indeed you should because they were written by human beings) then you should also doubt the authencity of Islamic records including the Quran because Quran too came through a human being. And if you believe that all hadiths and sunnah are fabricated then you must also consider the possibility that Quran too may have undergone additions, deletions and revisions.

I have heard others say this and I always ask why anyone would believe that Abraham just chose one idol above other idols. That is nothing special. There have always been polytheists who choose to follow only one idol, so what made Abraham different if that was the case?

In ancient times God's were teritorial, for example "El of the Mountain". When people went abroad they would normally worship the local God as this God would have jusrisdiction over that area. Even today in primitive society this is the case. But Abraham and Jacob's God promised that he would look after them even when they went abroad. So when Abraham left Ur, the ancient Sumerian city, he took his God with him. He trusted in his God. And as he travelled, he indeed found that his trust in this God worked for him so he decided to make Yahweh the only God that mattered. But the Isralite would in time transform this Pagan God into a figure of Transcendence.

But if you look at history you will find that Judaic Temples built by King David and later kings were almost a replica of the temple of Baal and other deities worshipped by the Pagans in Biblical times. They even had a sacrificial altar just like the Pagans! So too are many of the Pagan rituals of animal sacrifices and mode of worship incorporated into the "Monotheism" preached by Biblical prophets. So it is not hard to imagine that Muhammad would have "Islamised" some of the Pagan rituals of his times like going around the Kaba seven times etc. since it does not undermine monotheism in anyway. The adoption of the crescent moon into Islam is also a Pagan symbol that has been Islamised.

• I do think that Islamising the Ka'ba is disruptive to monotheism. If God never authorizes the kissing of a black stone, then doing it for the sake of God would still be haram. If He never authorizes you to walk around the ka'ba 7 times, then doing so is also haram. So Islamising something does not make it okay.

Also the incorporation of the cresent moon into Islam was most likely done after Muhammad, which does not count as him introducing pagan traditions into Islam. We do not say that the celebration of Christmas by Christians is a pagan element that can be attributed to a relenting Isa, so why do we say the same for Muhammad?

But these rituals must have existed before Islam as Riz claims? And this claim is supported by non-Muslim sources so Muhammad must have performed these rites?

-Could you describe in what ways the temple of Baal resembled the temples built by King David or Solomon? Having a sacrificial altar does not make a temple pagan since muslims do perform a sacrificial rite during hajj.

The prototype for the Temple of Solomon was the Canaanite temple of Baal-Hadad in the Lower City of Hazor (c.1500-1200 BC). "The Hazor temple was build of three elements - a porch, a main hall and a Holy of Holies - situated one behind the other, on a north-south axis. The Holy of Holies lay to the north; it was a large room, measuring about thirteen by nine meters, with a deep niche in its northern wall. In the porch, or vestibule, were found two basalt pillar bases just in front of the entrance to the main hall.

• Magnus Magnusson, BC - The Archaeology of the Bible Lands

Is animal Sacrifice not a Pagan Tradition? This tradition continues even today in Islam where all other religions have abandoned this Pagan rite.

Does it have Quranic Support for Animal Sacrifice?

Regards,

[ichephren]

But it is easy for Quran to claim that they were monotheist isn't it, because Quran needs to root itself in the supposed "monotheism" of Abraham to give its legitamacy and a sense of history and continuity?

-So, to you the Quran concocts stories to fit its aim? Obviously I have missed something...I thought that by engaging with muslims on a muslim board one can assume the superceding authority of the quran.

But Abraham's God Elohim/Yahweh are names of Pagan Gods that have been recorded in non-biblical sources. Elohim is clearly the Pagan God El, the "El of the Mountains". Even today place names such as "Isra-El" and "Beth-El" echoes this pagan origins. And Yahweh is clearly seems to be a Tribal Midinite Pagan God, since he is known as "Yahweh Saboeth", the God of the Armies. But Abraham, Jacob and Moses choose to worship only Yahweh and make Yahweh their "Elohim", the only God that mattered.

• Is this not the same claim of people who think that Allah is a pagan god? It is also recorded in pre-Ilsamic times as a deity worshipped by pagans, but it does not mean that Muslims are indeed also pagan, only monotheistic pagans. It is a case of the chicken or the egg. Considering the scanty evidence we have of those times, there is no certainty in what you claim.

If you doubt the authenticiy of the Old Testament records (and indeed you should because they were written by human beings) then you should also doubt the authencity of Islamic records including the Quran because Quran too came through a human being. And if you believe that all hadiths and sunnah are fabricated then you must also consider the possibility that Quran too may have undergone additions, deletions and revisions.

-That is where we differ. I come with the assumtpion that the Quran was not written by humans, it was recorderd by humans. The OT was actually written by humans. Even if I were to agree with you that the OT was inspired as well, there is no evidence of who received this inspiration or what authority that individual wrote on. Considering the immense number of inconsistencies in the OT, it is not going far for me to claim that it was neither inspired nor properly recorded. I think everyone can agree that comparing the sunnah and the quran is not a wise idea on this forum.

In ancient times God's were teritorial, for example "El of the Mountain". When people went abroad they would normally worship the local God as this God would have jusrisdiction over that area. Even today in primitive society this is the case. But Abraham and Jacob's God promised that he would look after them even when they went abroad. So when Abraham left Ur, the ancient Sumerian city, he took his God with him. He trusted in his God. And as he travelled, he indeed found that his trust in this God worked for him so he decided to make Yahweh the only God that mattered. But the Isralite would in time transform this Pagan God into a figure of Transcendence.

-Please provide proof of this claim.

Is animal Sacrifice not a Pagan Tradition? This tradition continues even today in Islam where all other religions have abandoned this Pagan rite.

-Yes, after Hajj the community is to sacrifice some animals to feed the poor. I personally do not see what is pagan about that considering the purpose of the killings. It would be pagan if the sacrifice was intended to appease an angry god or wash away sins with blood, etc. Lastly, who cares if other religions have done away with ritual killing of animals? Christians only did away with it b/c they believe in an even larger sacrifice made by a human being. All in all, I suggest that you make up your mind since it is quite clear that you do not judge by any criteria except scanty logic. It begs the question of why you continue to be on a muslim forum when you do not think that the quran holds any water.

[unknownuser]

But it is easy for Quran to claim that they were monotheist isn't it, because Quran needs to root itself in the supposed "monotheism" of Abraham to give its legitamacy and a sense of history and continuity?

-So, to you the Quran concocts stories to fit its aim? Obviously I have missed something...I thought that by engaging with muslims on a muslim board one can assume the superceding authority of the quran.

I am sorry I don't understand you. I thought we are having a open discussion where we consider all possibilities. Are you telling me it is wrong to question the ligitamacy of the Quranic text? and yet you can do the same with other scriptures - Is this not hypocrisy?

This is an "Open Forum" where people of faiths including atheist are invited to discuss openly about God and religions. What you are implying is that you can only speak your mind as long as it does not question the Quran. How is this Free-Minds? How do you understand truth if you have a closed attitude like this?

But Abraham's God Elohim/Yahweh are names of Pagan Gods that have been recorded in non-biblical sources. Elohim is clearly the Pagan God El, the "El of the Mountains". Even today place names such as "Isra-El" and "Beth-El" echoes this pagan origins. And Yahweh is clearly seems to be a Tribal Midinite Pagan God, since he is known as "Yahweh Saboeth", the God of the Armies. But Abraham, Jacob and Moses choose to worship only Yahweh and make Yahweh their "Elohim", the only God that mattered.

• Is this not the same claim of people who think that Allah is a pagan god? It is also recorded in pre-Ilsamic times as a deity worshipped by pagans, but it does not mean that Muslims are indeed also pagan, only monotheistic pagans. It is a case of the chicken or the egg. Considering the scanty evidence we have of those times, there is no certainty in what you claim.

What difference does it make if Allah was a Pagan God? So was God of Abraham, Jacob and Moses! Though these Gods may have Pagan origins but they have been transformed into a figure of transcendence. This is what history hints at. Should we close our mind to that? Our idea of God has indeed been evolved, the more we question God the more we understand about God. We have come a long way since the pagan understanding of God.

If you doubt the authenticiy of the Old Testament records (and indeed you should because they were written by human beings) then you should also doubt the authencity of Islamic records including the Quran because Quran too came through a human being. And if you believe that all hadiths and sunnah are fabricated then you must also consider the possibility that Quran too may have undergone additions, deletions and revisions.

-That is where we differ. I come with the assumtpion that the Quran was not written by humans, it was recorderd by humans. The OT was actually written by humans. Even if I were to agree with you that the OT was inspired as well, there is no evidence of who received this inspiration or what authority that individual wrote on. Considering the immense number of inconsistencies in the OT, it is not going far for me to claim that it was neither inspired nor properly recorded.

I have no such assumptions. I am here to talk about God and religions.

I think everyone can agree that comparing the sunnah and the quran is not a wise idea on this forum.

Why? Why is this fear of questioning the Quran? Tell me what scares you?

In ancient times God's were teritorial, for example "El of the Mountain". When people went abroad they would normally worship the local God as this God would have jusrisdiction over that area. Even today in primitive society this is the case. But Abraham and Jacob's God promised that he would look after them even when they went abroad. So when Abraham left Ur, the ancient Sumerian city, he took his God with him. He trusted in his God. And as he travelled, he indeed found that his trust in this God worked for him so he decided to make Yahweh the only God that mattered. But the Isralite would in time transform this Pagan God into a figure of Transcendence.

-Please provide proof of this claim.

Read some books on history of religion.

Is animal Sacrifice not a Pagan Tradition? This tradition continues even today in Islam where all other religions have abandoned this Pagan rite.

-Yes, after Hajj the community is to sacrifice some animals to feed the poor. I personally do not see what is pagan about that considering the purpose of the killings. It would be pagan if the sacrifice was intended to appease an angry god or wash away sins with blood, etc.

Animal Sacrifice is Pagan ritual. If it was to do with feeding the poor it would not be called "Sacrifice".

Here is a definition

Sacrifice (from a Middle English verb meaning 'to make sacred', from Old French, from Latin sacrificium sacer, sacred; sacred + facere, to make) is commonly known as the practice of offering food, or the lives of animals or people to the gods, as an act of propitiation or worship.

Lastly, who cares if other religions have done away with ritual killing of animals?

In fact a lot of people do! To give up Animal Sacrifice is to abandon our primitive past.

All in all, I suggest that you make up your mind since it is quite clear that you do not judge by any criteria except scanty logic.

I make up mind after having evaluated all evidence, after having questioned all evidence. I am not frightened to question the very basis of my beliefs and my life.

It begs the question of why you continue to be on a muslim forum when you do not think that the quran holds any water.

Come on chap ( or chapess) how can you say this when you are fearful of questioning the Quran? How do you know Quran is the word of God? What proof do you have it is the word of God?

Is it OK to hold an assumption that it is the word of God and thats it and not question it?

But I tell you as I said many times before. All religions are man made. More you delve into history of religions the more you realise this is the case.

All scriptures are a human reading, a truth but not the WHOLE TRUTH. Scriptures are a guide to finding God, but Scritpure is not GOD. We should not make Idol out of the Quran but see it for what is It is a Guide....

Regards,

[salgan]

We should not make Idol out of the Quran but see it for what is It is a Guide....

AGREE Loto tr

Peace Sally wink

[mquran]

LoteTree All scriptures are a human reading, a truth but not the WHOLE TRUTH. Scriptures are a guide to finding God, but Scritpure is not GOD. We should not make Idol out of the Quran but see it for what is It is a Guide....

False. LoteTree cannot seem to tell the truth about the Quran as he is so full of himself here. Al-Quraan clearly states that is AL-HAQQ, the ultimate truth. Allah Himself is also al-haqq. If Lote Tree rejects the Quran, that's fine.

[ichephren]

1.Actually I am not telling you that it is wrong to question the Quranic text. I also question it myself. However, this thread is supposed to be an attempt to figure out what happened to quranic islam. Your previous comments about Abraham were simply conjecture with no proof behind them, and were simply disruptive to the nature of the conversation. When I read Riz's post, I interpreted her question as "sunnism is practiced now, and seems to have been the only recorded practice of muslims, so where is the evidence that there was ever a quranic islam." So, your statements about Abraham and the truth of the Quranic text seemed contrary to the intent of the thread, which is why I kept bringing the quran back into the picture.
2. I personally do not think that the Quran can be compared to the OT or the NT. Both the OT and NT have hundreds of inconsistent and historically inaccurate data, so I personally do not use it for history(spiritual or factual) unless archaeology can back it up. The Quran, on the other hand, is not filled with such inconsistencies, and usually ends up being right even when it contained facts that had not been discovered before it. So, yes I give the Quran the benefit of the doubt, unless it is clearly wrong.
3. Your contention that the Quran is a guide is contradicted by your theories that certain things were concocted to fit into its general monotheistic theme. I do not call something a guide unless I believe in its honesty and truth. For example, I would not read a biology book by a scientist who wanted to cover up the existence of darwin. That would not be a guide considering that it was written by a dishonest peron with alternate intentions. As I do not call the Bible a guide considering that I do not think that it is of truth. So how can the Quran even be "a " truth if it is untrue in your eyes?
4.
What difference does it make if Allah was a Pagan God? So was God of Abraham, Jacob and Moses! Though these Gods may have Pagan origins but they have been transformed into a figure of transcendence. This is what history hints at.

-You have missed my point. Bring your proof that the concept of Yaweh did not exist before paganism. If it in fact did, then Moses would not be following a pagan god would he?. He would simply be going back to what had previously been there.
5.
Why? Why is this fear of questioning the Quran? Tell me what scares you?

-Actually nothing about it scares me. I have been gone from this forum for a while, and I reacted to the questions posed on the thread with the assumption that the quran would be the foundation of discussion. Considering that the question posed was "what happened to quranic islam" that would be a necessary assumption.
6.
Animal Sacrifice is Pagan ritual. If it was to do with feeding the poor it would not be called "Sacrifice".

• "And the plump animals for offering, We have made them for you as decrees from God, in them is goodness for you. So mention God?s name upon them while being orderly, so once their body becomes still, then eat from them and give food to the poor and the needy. It was thus that We have made them in service to you, that you may be thankful. Neither their meat nor their blood reaches God, but what reaches Him is the righteousness from you. It was thus that He made them in service to you, so that you may glorify God for what He has guided you to, and give news to the good doers. "(2236-37). It has everything to do with the feeding of the poor since the next verse states that the blood will not reach God.

I make up mind after having evaluated all evidence, after having questioned all evidence. I am not frightened to question the very basis of my beliefs and my life.

-Good for you.
8.
Come on chap ( or chapess) how can you say this when you are fearful of questioning the Quran?

-As I have previosuly said, I am not afriad of questioning the quran. You seem to take great pride in your ability to make large sweeping generalizations without any actual proof. In your opinion, which part of the Bible is true, and please do the same from each major world scripture( Vedas, all the Gitas, the Dhammapada, all Buddhist texts( both Tibetan and Chinese), the book of Mormon, the Zohar, the Torah, the apocrypha of the NT, the Upanishads, the Ramayana, and the list goes on). Which part is true and which is false? If they are all "a" truth, then which part is true?

[unknownuser]

1.Actually I am not telling you that it is wrong to question the Quranic text. I also question it myself.

OK lets question it together shall we? Lets open a new thread for just you and me. And you show me how quran is divine word of God?

Lets call this Thread "Criticising the Quran"?
Shall we open in the OFF-TOPIC since this will be between you and me, ok?

Regards,

[ichephren]

OK lets question it together shall we? Lets open a new thread for just you and me. And you show me how quran is divine word of God?
Lets call this Thread "Criticising the Quran"?
Shall we open in the OFF-TOPIC since this will be between you and me, ok?

• That is an extremely immature reply. I have made no positive statements about the quran being the word of God, so in effect, there is no challege to be had of me. What I have said is that I trust it unless I have a solid reason not to. Even if we were to have such a discussion, you have not proven to be one who bases his/her ideas on proof. You have also not answered my question which part of those books are true and which are false? I thought you were going to educate the rest of us who apparently do not question? From the looks of it, this entire thread, bravely posted by Riz, is the biggest question ever posed on Islam.

[unknownuser]

Come on chap ( or chapess) how can you say this when you are fearful of questioning the Quran?

-As I have previosuly said, I am not afriad of questioning the quran. You seem to take great pride in your ability to make large sweeping generalizations without any actual proof. In your opinion, which part of the Bible is true, and please do the same from each major world scripture( Vedas, all the Gitas, the Dhammapada, all Buddhist texts( both Tibetan and Chinese), the book of Mormon, the Zohar, the Torah, the apocrypha of the NT, the Upanishads, the Ramayana, and the list goes on). Which part is true and which is false? If they are all "a" truth, then which part is true?

But what does the Bible, Vedas, Gita, Zohar, Torah say about the nature of "God"?

This is what they say Meeting with the Divine is never a logical encounter because "God" is beyond Language and Reason. Divine is encountered when you go beyond the concept of Language and Reason. This experience of "God" is not out there in a separate divine ontological sphere but happens within us all. That is why Muhammad did not reach out to the highest heavens for the revelations but rather he descended to the very core of his soul in a "meditative-trance" to meet his "maker". This also the insights of the Great Seers, Sages, Meditators, Prophets and Mystics that have come and gone in the bygone ages of this world. Some have called this experience with Divinity "Brahman", "Tao", "Nirvana", "God" but they all point to a reality which is beyond all human categories..

Lets discuss in a separate thread?

Regards,

[unknownuser]

OK lets question it together shall we? Lets open a new thread for just you and me. And you show me how quran is divine word of God?
Lets call this Thread "Criticising the Quran"?
Shall we open in the OFF-TOPIC since this will be between you and me, ok?

• That is an extremely immature reply. I have made no positive statements about the quran being the word of God, so in effect, there is no challege to be had of me. What I have said is that I trust it unless I have a solid reason not to. Even if we were to have such a discussion, you have not proven to be one who bases his/her ideas on proof. You have also not answered my question which part of those books are true and which are false? I thought you were going to educate the rest of us who apparently do not question? From the looks of it, this entire thread, bravely posted by Riz, is the biggest question ever posed on Islam.

Immature? I was serious. I thought we could have an open ended disucssion. But its ok if you dont want to discuss this with me. Please continue with answering Riz's question. I thought I was making some contribution to this thread but I see I was mistaken so I bow out from this thread -)

Regards,