islam is a fraud

Funny, how most people really miss the lack of evidence for pre-islamic islam, why is there no evidence for the worship of a non-pagan allah, before Mohammad cleaned up allah's act?

listen, if allah had taught islam to Abraham, Moses, David, & Jesus, why is there no early manuscripts of the quran, say from 100AD?
if christianity & judaism had all these false off-shoots, like gnosticism, that survived long enough to write down their thoughts, why didn't pre-islamic islam?

muslims say that Abraham was a muslim, so why didn't he know allah? why are there no manuscripts with Abraham praising allah of mecca?
oh, muslims would say, "all those corrupt Christians, they destroyed them".
so, answer this, how were they so efficient against 'true islam', but let the Nag Hammadi library of 'true Christianity' survive?

why are all the pre-cursors to islam all pagan or heretical christians? why are the early sources of islam not islamic?

Mohammad knew Ebonite Christians, Sabatean pagans, Seekers (hanifi), & Meccan pagans
probably Nestorian Christians & Jews too
see below:

archeology will be the new enemy of islam, it will tear it to shreds, islam can not survive a close examination of the source materials, for it will be found out as a fraud, a mish-mash of ideas, thrown together to make a new, previously unknown religion.

listen, if Judaism or Christianity had come against early islam in say 1000 BC or 100AD, there would be dialogs, discussions, arguments against it. John wrote against the Gnostics, Jews wrote against the worship of baal, yet silence against islam until 632AD or so, why would that be? could it be, that islam was not invented until 622AD?

if that were not true, show the evidence of it; where is the 'quran of Father Abraham'? or the 'quran of King David'? or the 'quran of Jesus Messiah'? or their prayers or poems to allah? they are MIA (missing in action)

islam is a fraud
I rest my case

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evidence? Religion needs no evidence or proof. Religion survives on blind faith. All religions are fraud.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You'll never stop, will you. You should be more scholarly than aggressive Randolfo, it might help your case.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lol, ofcourse there was no Islam before Muhammed began it.

 

Funny how they call it a religion of god, but a man began it randomly b ysaying the angel told me to.

 

Aborted_Fetus u ruin religion threads that are not based on debating the existence of god...

 

Good one johnahmed.

Allcare.

 

Look Randolfo, you’ve made a valid point.

And it is very logical.

Once long ago, I also made this very same argument.

However, people will make up what ever it is they need to make up in their head in order to believe what it is they were brainwashed to believe. And I think YOU of all people should be intimately familiar with this concept. As the VERY SAME arguments can be made against Judaism and Christianity.

Until YOU are able to come to terms with the fact that Judaism/Christianity has been archeologically-proven to be fraudulent “mish-mashes of ideas, thrown together to make new, previously unknown religions”, I do not see how you can expect Muslims to do the same for Islam.

 

(Insert Title Here)

It's not particularly odd. The appearance of a gap takes place beyond "most people's" everyday range of consideration. I recommend Muhammad and the Golden Bough, by Jaroslav Stetkevych; I confess I've never actually finished reading the slender but dense volume. There's an old topic (Dec., 2003) waiting for the day I do finish reading the book.

Who says the message was the same each time? Immutability, while important to the theology, is distasteful to many of Christian faith. We might consider, as a general juxtaposition, Christ fulfilling The Law. This is a problematic issue for skeptics, for instance, because the answer from the faithful never quite addresses the problem. However, rather than hanging ourselves on the atheistic inquiry as to the appearance of contradiction, we might ask why this is a question at all. Mark Moore, of the Ozark Christian College, notes, "Ultimately, Jesus did not fulfill the law by what he did but by who he is," and while that ought to be enough to answer the point, what does it mean?

The question of what Jesus means in Matthew 5.17-19 only arises because there is an apparent difference between his teachings and those that came before him. How those teachings are the same, or how those teachings fulfill their precedent, is a metaphysical question.

The law from Moses to Jesus is not consistent; we have no reason to suppose consistency from Moses to Muhammad.

Furthermore, a point that is often lost in modern considerations of Islam is that the revelation was intended for Arabia: the Jews had their revelation; the Christians had theirs; why not Arabs? One whose needs are differently accounted for will see the world according to certain, unique priorities that are not necessarily reflected in the next person. On a sociological scale, this creates different cultural presuppositions.

Those cultural presuppositions can be viewed either rationally or religiously. Rationally, certain religious assertions make sense: sodomy, masturbation, incest, masturbation, recreational sexuality--all these things waste seed when wandering in the desert. The rules make sense for Jews seeking a home: keep the tribe alive. One need not be a medical doctor of modern knowledge and technique to realize that incest is problematic. As Stan explained to Eugene in Neil Simon's Brighton Beach Memoirs, you can't marry your cousin because you get babies with nine heads. Tattoos? High infection rate in a hostile environment? Lacking the necessary scientific background to understand certain biological processes, and lacking the technology to accommodate certain demands, such things are left as observable mysteries: process A leads to result B, but why? It is left to the dominion of gods.

Why did God (re-)establish through Abraham? Or Jesus? Why were the messages not expressed identically? Why should the revelation of Islam be subject to any demand from which we exempt Judaism and Christianity?

There won't be any Quran from 100 CE. Just like there won't be a copy of the Pauline evangelization dating to 300 BCE.

From Eden forward, it is clear that nothing has gone quite as planned according to human expressions of God's intent. God failed to recognize His own creation (mankind), and thus punished it when it broke a covenant. A new covenant was established with Noah, with Abraham, and again through Jesus Christ. Islam asserts a new revelation. As with, say, Mormonism, the lateness of Islam's unique revelation is itself no discredit. As with Mormonism, Protestantism, and Catholicism at least, Islam is better questioned according to its own internal inconsistency.

In The Origins and Development of Classical Hinduism, A. L. Basham describes a dichotomy between formal, institutionalized Hinduism and the traditional, familial Hinduism of home and hearth. It's in the early chapters; I'll see if I can dig up my copy sometime. (My bookshelf is lost behind a wall of crap requiring more of a weather event than a garage sale, but such is life.) The general point is that vulgar faith is generally less-organized, less-consistent even internally, than the institutional versions with all their flaws. "Pre-Islamic Islam" resembled more the disorganized, inconsistent theology of small groups--families, clans, tribes--than the institutional assertions of Islam proper and its offshoots.

Furthermore, we might even look to Muhammad himself. It is said that if Muhammad had been aware of other aspects of the world than merely the Judeo-Christian experience in Arabia, he would have included those revelations as well. God can only demand so much of His prophets: if those revelations are outside Muhammad's experience, discussion of them might be expected to confuse a human mind. It could be that God said nothing about the offshoots, as well, since Muhammad was unaware of them, and would only be confused by their detail.

Maybe.

Historically, though, if we look at the fracture of Islam in the wake of the Prophet, much of the disagreement centered on politics and economy, and was merely phrased in prophetic language for continuity's sake. Religion in Arabian pre-Islamic alliances seemed at least a little henotheistic; it is likely that endeavors containing other assertions of God were more likely political and economic in nature, and would be thus recorded in history.

We think of the American Revolution as political and economic, but there were religious issues motivating some Europeans to emigrate to the Colonies, and certainly even the Deists of the day seemed to think they had God on their side. Yet we don't speak of the militant Deist offshoot of Christianity. Instead, we just make Unitarian jokes.

It appears we'll revisit this point shortly.

He did know Allah. One of the few abstractions about the Judeo-Christian experience is the name Yahweh, both in the metaphysical and the alleged magickal. It is, in fact, a taller philosophical idea than the proprietary kowtowing of Christianity or the representative abstraction of Allah's oneness. Nonetheless, both Jehovah/Yahweh/IHVH and Allah, as well as the unity of Trinity, reach after a condition of wholeness that escapes human understanding. As far as Muhammad was concerned, he was addressing the same God as Abraham, the same God as Jesus. Had Muhammad been literate, perhaps he would have understood the Unmoved Mover, the first cause, the demiurge, or other monotheistic acknowledgments, and attempted to establish a continuity running through those ideas.

Why would Abraham praise a revelation that hasn't yet taken place, that, if we accept certain assertions regarding what happened at Eden (e.g. free will and God's knowledge) God cannot even know will be necessary? After all, he has God right there in front of him striking a deal in the here and now. Why praise a future that might not--and, we must bear in mind, should not--come about?

Did God know he would strike that bargain with Muhammad? Did he know when he called Abraham that he would be giving further revelation? It's an acceptable thesis if we go with someone like Jack Blanco (The Clear Word), but that wouldn't be fair, since even his own church peers stutter and gasp and pitch fits about his theology. In terms of free will, how could God, at the time He called Abraham, know that the human result of His endeavors would require further revelation?

How could Abraham praise Allah of Mecca before God chose to reveal Himself as such?

Isn't that the wrong question? I mean, it has nothing to do with the assertion. Nag Hammadi was hidden.

Sometimes the good guys win. Other times, there are no good guys.

Nonetheless, the Muslim assertion, with which many are familiar, bears some credibility. It only goes so far, though, as Islam's institutions suffer credibility issues of their own.

While I can't promise a full answer to the question, I point again to Stetkevych.

Of course, there is also a question as to what constitutes "Islamic" for the purposes of the question, "Why are the early sources of Islam not Islamic?"

I can only await your clarification.

That seems to be the way of the Abramic cycle. Islam is not unique in this.

Your logic is ... stunning.

One of these days I'll find a way to phrase the mistake you're making. I mean, right now I look at that last question in the paragraph: "Could it be that Islam was not invented until 622AD?"

Um ... ah ... er--now, just wait. Okay, the answer to your question is a question of its own: Why would that be significant?

Could it be that ... you're a sinner? (Insert sinister soundtrack here.) Why would it matter that you are?

Historically, yes, the revelation of Islam came in the seventh century of the common era.

Christians didn't start denouncing certain tribal religions until, say, the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Could it be that they were invented in the 1490s? (Insert sinister soundtrack here.)

Or could it possibly be the obvious?

In the case of the American tribes, Christians didn't encounter them until the fifteenth century. This is a matter of geography, economy, technology, &c. In the case of Muslims, Christians didn't encounter them until the seventh century. This is a matter of God's will.

Why, or how could Judaism or Christianity argue against what God had not yet revealed?

Is that really a serious point?

Presuming that it is, the best I can do with a straight face is to simply say that we call it The Bible.

Fish. Barrel. Shotgun.

How could you possibly miss?

That's what I don't understand here. I mean, it's a poor case to rest on, for the reasons I've noted above. However, as to the general thesis as such, well, there's nothing like making a point of the obvious.

I would ask you to think of it this way: Even if you could rest that particular case confidently in support of that assertion, all you're really establishing is that Islam is a religion.

 

True as this may be, that doesn’t address the fact that there doesn’t appear to be any historical evidence to suggest that a monotheistic Arabic history exited here - as Muslims would suggest (of course this is what got corrupted! Hence the need for another prophet).

Actually, on the contrary, archeological evidence suggest most Arabs were either polytheists and worshipped a pantheon of Gods (much like many of the tribal peoples did that lived around the general area).

That is unless they were Jews or Xian? Is that your point?

True as this may be, it still does not address the lack of archeological evidence to suggest that there exited, other than Jewish and Christian, any monotheistic beliefs here.

I think the point is, if there HAD existed some monotheistic beliefs then perhaps we’d see some evidence for them as we do for the polytheistic beliefs?

Do we agree to this?

No, this is only going to distract from the issue, which is a lack of historical evidence to back up the claims of that Arabs WERE at some distant point far far away a culture of monotheistic Jedi’s that somehow were enticed to the Dark Side of the force (perhaps via a Sith or two

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

to a polytheistic culture

I know you see my point!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

AGAIN!!

perhaps BUT this is not the assertion that is under discussion.

But as you made it, I guess we can agree that Akhenaton knew Allah as well!?! Agreed?

This is fine and fair, but it does not address the issue – which is: A lack of archeological evidence for a monotheistic beleif that was eventually corryupted and hence the need for the Last Prophet.

AGAIN!

Good point, I’ve stated this on any number of topics and have received as many answers.

serious or not, it’s a valid question.

Doesn’t it seem far more likely that Aeneas was borrowed from the Greeks as the Romans had taken the Greek pantheon and changed a few things and so of course stealing a bit of Homer was fine as well, perhaps, because the Greek civilization was much more developed in this sense?

Oh shit . . . wait . . . I’ll start again,

Doesn’t it seem that because
1) Allah was worshipped in pre-Islam and
2) was an important deity in Mecca and
3) Medina and
4) many of the same “pagan” traditions then are “Islamic” tradition today (like praying towards Mecca, walking around a square rock, etc. . . ) and
5) because Allah was associated with the moon and the moon is atop most Mosques and Flags and
6) and . .
7) and
8) and . . most religions just steal a few golden nuggets from earlier religions wrap them up in the local tradition and use them to go to war (Alexander the Great, Constantine, dare I say Mohamed . . ) that this is the more reasonable explanation why there is NO evidence for a monotheistic culture pre-Islam. And ironically enough, there were plenty of Christians and Jews around to bump into this religion and borrow a bit here and there from.

Anyway, I’m sure if Mohammed had said he was the Last Buddha we’d be having a discussion on that instead, do you get my drift?

You know what is REALLY REALLY weird, the Japanese thought their JAPANESE emperor was God! How Ironic, and he was Japanese too, what luck for them (imagine had he been Chinese, what a funny Japanese God he'd had made!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway, as archaeology finds that the Xian and Jewish religions are just beg-borrowed-and stolen as well, it really doesn’t matter! Which is what Randolfo really needs to learn.

 

allah is simply the arabic word for god. that's why christians and jews in the middle east worship 'allah'.

 

if there is no evidence for pre-mammalian mammals would that suggest that humans beings are fake.

there is plenty of info about islam's origins around. muhammed was not born until around 560AD(there abouts) and the arabs where polytheist before he brought islam to them.

 

hey, its an idea, its up to you young scientists to explore the available data, find truths or flaws, think, ponder, pray
weight the evidence, write about both the pros & cons & draw your conclusions from that. now, if you haven't done your homework, you fail.
don't take your cultural baggage, biases as starting points, but dissect statements you hear; like mine (but not just what I say, try this on the quran or the Bible, etc...), then start the research

if you're just popping off at the mouth from old memorized tales
then you are doing what you accuse me of doing, which would make you a hypocrite
at least, I started from agnostic as an adult, researched Judaism, socialism, scientism, Islam, Mormonism, JW, cults, & Christianity, before I was convinced of Christianity's truth & became born-again

Christianity demands truth of its adherents,
says that it will set them free,
Jesus says He is the Truth

the Teacher

 

er! so what was the point of the post if you have done all this research?



you would have got a better response by starting a thread saying:-

try it, i gaurantee you will get what your looking for.
the opportunity to prove your faith.

 

funny, he would not have understood the term, but if he was a muslim in the understanding that he had 'surrendered' to God, well, I guess I'm a muslim too

you mean in the islamic sense, but that's like saying Lenin was a muslim because he submitted to the ideas of communism, neither he nor anyone else that knew him or his history would believe he was a muslim, same for Abraham
all those prophets of God, would not have understood the strange arabic concept, but would see it as foreign
what you are really doing is re-forming people already dead, into whatever you say, after the fact, mormons do this all the time, they baptize the dead (even Jews), hoping that this will make them mormons in eternity

either you are blind or a liar, look around your own beliefs & cultural ideas, what do they stress?
If you are a muslim convert, do you not re-name yourself in arabic?
Which is the direction of prayer for the qiba?
Where do you have to go to pilgrimage?
What are the cultural norms that you must adopt?
What language are the only “true”, “authorized” qurans in?
What language is used in rote memorization in masdras?
What status were (are) non-muslims accorded in muslim countries?
What writing system was imposed on the conquered people?
What happened to all the Aramaic-speaking people in the Middle East?
Islam is a 7th century standard, made by Mohammad for arabs, by arabs,
islam is racist, it is a cultural oppressor, every facet of islam is part of arabic cultural imperialism on societies that are conquered by or accept islam

the distortion comes from islam, trying to understand what islam says about Christianity is delving into the contorted world view of Mohammad, he neither understood Judaism nor Christianity to begin evaluating them, you as modern people have more of a chance, that the founder of islam had, so take it, look into it, research it

then why does it not quote the Old Testament? But make up stuff or use heretical christian & pagan sources? Why isn't the Old Testament part of the quran, included like it is for Christians in the Bible? We Christians affirm what the Old Testament says, knowing that it is the history, prophecies and truth that leads people on the road to salvation.
Jesus quoted from it, used it to lay His claims to what He said, His disciples (all Jews by the way), finally understood after the resurrection what He meant & what the Scriptures say, so they followed Him onto death, so we follow the True Islam, that of Jesus, Mohammad was just a cheap imitation

God told His name to Moses, it was “YHWH “ (“I AM THAT I AM”), had a meaning close to IAM Existant, why would God go from being personal (Jesus said to call Him “Abba” (Daddy))to being aloof by calling himself 'the god' (allah)?
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/yahorjesus.htm

 

to share an idea, start an exploration, look for truth?

UB phunny

 

i would have thought being christian you already know the truth!

maybe you just need someone to preach to,
its sunday tommorrow can you save it till you go to church?
or do you need to curry favour from your lord by condenming someone elses conception of god.

 

you must not understand English well, the emphases is on looking for truth by others, I feel I found it, some may find this true too, you probably don't. Re-read my statement with an eye on that

yeah, that would be you, how ya doing bud? why do you seem to be anti-Christian, what's your story? are you judgmental? intolerant?

I'm not sure how bright you are, but if you look at the title of this forum, its "Religion", so therefor, I'm talking about religion, you're improbably looking for the "irreligion" website, look elsewhere

just trying to do a favor for some, by keeping them out of the curry

 

you mean you want others to look for the truth,
and of course you know where to look.
there are so many holes i could pick in your arguments, but i feel there is no point getting in to it, until you are aware of your own judgemental, intolerant and hypocritical attitude.

not anti-christian, but anti-(your way is wrong, my way is right). i find that hard to tolerate.

another example of your (i'm right, your wrong)(i know what i'm doing, you dont) attitude. i know where i am thanx i dont need your guidance.