To anyone Islamic, or of any other religion...

Originally posted by KSoze
To any muslim, I only have one question....When was the bible corrupted?

When you mean the Bible....do you mean the NT? I will assume that you are referring to the NT. Most Muslims that I know seem to say that the Bible was corrupted during the Nicean Council. This, however, I believe is lacking some evidence, though there might still be some truth to it. Justin Martyr's pupil, Tatian, made the first attempt to construct an orthodox canon, by combining the four gospels into one Diatesseron and adding some of Paul's letters. But Tatian's work is lost. So we have evidence that the Gospels we have today do not reflect completely...the earlier compilatiions. Most modern scholars believe that the 4 gospels were derived from a much larger document called " Q". Recently some rebuttals were made to this argument, though for the most part , scholars accept the " Q" to be the original source for the NT. Also , very early in the development of Christianity ....the Gnostics challenged the early Christians stating that there was only one " Gospel". Interestingly the Qur'an also describes a singular "Book" or "Gospel" of Jesus Christ (pbuh) called the Injeel. Many of the Eastern sects of Chrisitianity and the Gnostics, Essene Nazarene, Jewish-Christians and Nestorians were displaced and were heavily persecuted. There was huge persecution against the The Unitarian followers of Christianity by Emperor Theodosius who established the " Athanasian " creed as the only representative of "Christianity". Many of the believers of Holy Unity and the Eastern sects of Christianity accepted Islam en masse during the advent of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Thus, today Christian believers in Holy Unity are few and rare. This is an illlusion for most of them merged into the Islamic world.

Peace
---River

P.S: Have you read my earlier posts. I hope you find my posts informative. If you have any questions please do not hesitate.



[edit on 1-7-2004 by River Euphrates]

[edit on 1-7-2004 by River Euphrates]

You are correct, I think the bible is corrupt. I need to be more specific. When was the Tanack (aka Old Testament) corrupted? AND then also state when was gospel corrupted? We are talking about two seperate documents so they'll be two dates

Originally posted by mithras
The question is how did he lead his life. Is a non-violent life (in a violent world) something that is perfection in Christianity?

Jesus lived in a violent world. Yet these were still his teachings.

If your son told you one plus one equals three, you would perhaps want to correct him for you know it is not and you care for him. It's a matter of a truth which you are certain of. You want him to understand, but not out of arrogance and the true way to do that is by reasoning - not demanding he believe. It is not arrogant to start off by saying the other is wrong, provided you can back it up all the way with reasoning. If you can't then you should humbly accept the other belief. If you don't even do that, that could be offending.

If one of my sons said "one plus one equals three", I would say "let me show you son." I would hold up one finger on one hand and say "one". Then I would hold up one finger on the other hand and say "plus one". Then I would say "Equals...", bring my fingers together, and whisper "count them".

There is no need to say "You are wrong" when you know you are right and can support your answer.

When I said a Christian loses his humility because he knows he is saved, this wouldn't apply to one who draws another to salvation but only by good reason. Honestly, if a Christian can reason with me all the way against Islam or atheism, I would accept Christianity on the spot;

I cannot reason with you against Islam or atheism. I can only hold one finger up on one hand and one finger up on the other hand. Then bring them both together and let you decide the answer for yourself.

but I'm not going to risk my salvation on the acceptance of someone just saying this is true, no matter how easy it makes life.

I would not expect you to blindly accept what anyone says. Nor would God.

Psalms 32:7-11
7 Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance. Selah. 8 I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye. 9 Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee. 10 Many sorrows shall be to the wicked: but he that trusteth in the LORD, mercy shall compass him about. 11 Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, ye righteous: and shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart.



[edit on 1-7-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Hello again, Raphael_UO.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Jesus lived in a violent world. Yet these were still his teachings.

You may already know this but Muslims differ there, we don't know exactly what his teachings were, other than it was the same basic message as Islam. He led a totally sinless life (and may have been violent). When he returns he will lead a war in which he will kill.

If one of my sons said "one plus one equals three", ... and whisper "count them".

There is no need to say "You are wrong" when you know you are right and can support your answer.

That's certainly admirable to refrain from saying others are wrong, I'm not saying you should go say that always.

But, when you teach a child you tell them what is wrong and right. You can't expect them to work it out, first time especially. You don't want them to work out if (the curiosity of) fire will burn them, you tell them. Saying "you are wrong" isn't arrogance (maybe looks that way or seems rude and cause annoyance), it is just an expression of disagreement.

What matters is that you can patiently reason your argument to the end. If you end up essentially saying, "just believe me because I said so dammit," that is real arrogance, superiority - in my opinion.

I cannot reason with you against Islam or atheism. I can only hold one finger up on one hand and one finger up on the other hand. Then bring them both together and let you decide the answer for yourself.

I would not expect you to blindly accept what anyone says. Nor would God.

If you can't reason with people about religion, how can you expect anyone to accept Christianity without resorting to arrogance? Why can't you reason?

For Muslims, in the Qur'an, Allah says that Truth stands clear from error so He gives a reason, a proof. You just need to understand it fully, before making a decision; all that's asked.

Originally posted by mithras
Where is your reliable source of information that most people were illiterate back then? Suppose it is true, it doesn't affect the thousands of literate peoples' ability to read and write.

Check up on literacy rates throughout history.

www.alnokhba.com...

Even modern day standards are poor.

As for your statement that there would be thousands of copies of the Koran? Not necessarily. In fact highly improbable. Not only does the literacy rate mean that only a select few could have put the Koran on paper but it also means that it would be easier to control "unauthorised" versions.
Add to this the factor of major religions supressing different interpretations and you end up with only one version. We see that this happened with the Christian Bible.

I also don't believe for one moment that Allah would give a damn if a woman wore a veil or not. The "modesty" interpretation was made to stop inter-tribal strife caused by men fighting over each other's women. Cover up the woman and you cover up the temptation. It's a weakness of man - not a law from God.

Originally posted by mithras
Hello again, Raphael_UO.

You may already know this but Muslims differ there, we don't know exactly what his teachings were, other than it was the same basic message as Islam. He led a totally sinless life (and may have been violent). When he returns he will lead a war in which he will kill.

The "sword" Jesus uses when He returns will proceed out of His mouth. This is a reference to Him simply speaking a word and physical life will leave the bodies of those who have turned and are ready to make war against Him.

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by mithras
Where is your reliable source of information that most people were illiterate back then? Suppose it is true, it doesn't affect the thousands of literate peoples' ability to read and write.

I also don't believe for one moment that Allah would give a damn if a woman wore a veil or not. The "modesty" interpretation was made to stop inter-tribal strife caused by men fighting over each other's women. Cover up the woman and you cover up the temptation. It's a weakness of man - not a law from God.

Well as for wearing veils.....there is some debate between Islamic scholars. Some say that it is mandatory while others say that it is Sunnah ( recommended) after the great women of Islam ( Mary, Khadija, Asiya) . Most hijabi Muslim women that I have spoken to say that they wear the veil after "Mother Mary". The Qur'an calls Mary " Mother of All Nations" and she is clearly depicted donning the Hijab. Such a symbol of perfection and purity is worth emulating. In early times the Jewish women wore the veil and this custom was later accepted amongst the Islamic community. Also in some cultures, women of royalty wore the veil .


--River

[edit on 1-7-2004 by River Euphrates]

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by mithras


I seek only understanding of humility as taught by Islam.

-Raphael_UO

I want you to take a look at the following link . It is a very short read but it contains the heart of Islam and has many examples of forgiveness , mercy, humility and salvation in Islam.

www.usc.edu...

It contains the Hadith Qudsi . The Hadith Qudsi are a class on its own. They are extremely strong/accurate selection of Hadiths that are accepted as " Inspired Words of G-d"

The Hadiths are " Sayings of the Prophet Muhammad"
The Hadiths Qudsi are " Inspired Words of G-d"
The Qur'an is " Literal speech of G-d".

I believe the information presented in the link will answer many of your questions if not all. I hope you find it informative.

---River

Originally posted by Leveller
Check up on literacy rates throughout history.
www.alnokhba.com...

Doesn't mean that the standards were so low that long ago. As implied, I was happy enough to assume they were, so didn't bother checking up anything.

As for your statement that there would be thousands of copies of the Koran?

I didn't say that, I said:
"Where is your reliable source of information that most people were illiterate back then? Suppose it is true, it doesn't affect the thousands of literate peoples' ability to read and write. "

Not everyone wrote down the whole Qur'an.

Not necessarily. In fact highly improbable. Not only does the literacy rate mean that only a select few could have put the Koran on paper but it also means that it would be easier to control "unauthorised" versions.

Plenty of illiterate people may have memorised verses or the whole Qur'an, passing them down the generations.

Much of what you say is just assuming this and that. You have possible theories (I accept them being possible), but no real evidence.

Add to this the factor of major religions supressing different interpretations and you end up with only one version. We see that this happened with the Christian Bible.

The Bible is only one version? This is an understatement surely?

I also don't believe for one moment that Allah would give a damn if a woman wore a veil or not. The "modesty" interpretation was made to stop inter-tribal strife caused by men fighting over each other's women. Cover up the woman and you cover up the temptation. It's a weakness of man - not a law from God.

Okay, you believe that and you said it before. I won't answer, again, why it is done because you essentially gave the answer. If you're not prepared to understand Islam that is your choice, but don't expect anyone to believe you just because you say so.

Originally posted by dlbrandt

You may already know this but Muslims differ there, we don't know exactly what his teachings were, other than it was the same basic message as Islam. He led a totally sinless life (and may have been violent). When he returns he will lead a war in which he will kill.

The "sword" Jesus uses when He returns will proceed out of His mouth. This is a reference to Him simply speaking a word and physical life will leave the bodies of those who have turned and are ready to make war against Him.

I appreciate you follow the Bible and I understand your idea of the "sword," but we Muslims follow the Qur'an and Sunnah, not the Bible so that doesn't change my belief.

Originally posted by KSoze
You are correct, I think the bible is corrupt. I need to be more specific. When was the Tanack (aka Old Testament) corrupted? AND then also state when was gospel corrupted? We are talking about two seperate documents so they'll be two dates

That's hard for me to answer, so I can only find out elsewhere. Perhaps you could find it out yourself from any decent website. I'd imagine history gets too vague to know much about that period and you could never say exactly when. As for the Gospels written by men (Mark et al.) it's not necessarily all at one time, but probably mostly at Nicea (4th century) is my guess.

I don't know exactly what detail you want. How can we know through unreliable history documents?

One thing from a Islamic view is: Because the Qur'an essentially says successive Prophets are sent after a previous message is corrupt and thus sin takes over, we could say the Torah and Psalms were corrupted before Jesus.

Originally posted by mithras

If you're not prepared to understand Islam that is your choice, but don't expect anyone to believe you just because you say so.

And this is the crux of the matter. You ask me for evidence when the burden of proof is on you.

I concede that there are cosmetic changes in the Bible but these weren't what I was referring to. Essentially the Bible that the Christians are given today contains the same story all the way down the line. The Church supressed all major deviations.
It's only the recent unearthing of the Nag Hammadi texts that show that there could have been major differences of interpretation back in history.

The literacy rate is a major point. Look it up and you will find it was normally only those in postions of power who could read and write. The money was what dictated the way in which a religion interpreted.
Mohammed originally studied his idea because he saw that money was what was tearing the tribes of Arabia apart. I find it hard to believe that once the religion hit the very people it was aimed at (and just about the only literate class of people back then) that they didn't adapt a few things for their needs. We even see that interpretation at work today with the Saudi royal family and their "divine" right to rule.

I don't dispute that Islam in it's pure form is a good religion. Just as I believe Christianity and Judaism are OK if practiced properly. But the problem is that there is politics within all of their scriptures. They were words placed in the mouth of Allah/God and shouldn't be there.

(Im Christian). I'll anwser this anyway...
1) Jesus was a savior
2) I'm sure you know...

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by mithras
If you're not prepared to understand Islam that is your choice, but don't expect anyone to believe you just because you say so.

And this is the crux of the matter. You ask me for evidence when the burden of proof is on you.

I don't believe in a burden of proof on the teller. If someone gives you a statement and it interests you, you will investigate. You need to thoroughly look at the claim with an open mind, weighing the evidence as to whether it is true.

If I said there was an iron anvil falling onto your head. The burden of proof is not on me. It is on you, if you care, to look up. Perhaps you want more proof that it is not an illusion, or perhaps you'll figure its not likely to be an illusion, hologram or foam anvil; but a real anvil about to kill you.

So I'm saying the burden is not on the teller. He has no way of making you believe by force. If you aren't interested due to prejudice or whatever else the teller cannot help.

You want proof of Islam, all you need to do is learn it, with an open mind (they certainly needed that to understand relativity), weigh the evidence, the likelihoods and come to a decision. I can explain this further.

The literacy rate is a major point. Look it up and you will find it was normally only those in postions of power who could read and write. The money was what dictated the way in which a religion interpreted. Mohammed originally studied his idea because he saw that money was what was tearing the tribes of Arabia apart.

Where did you read this. I asked for this evidence before. I simply mean a source (url, book) - that is evidence to me. If you can't give me a source I have disproved your evidence, but if you can then I can check up on the source etc.

Originally posted by mithras
You may already know this but Muslims differ there, we don't know exactly what his teachings were, other than it was the same basic message as Islam. He led a totally sinless life (and may have been violent). When he returns he will lead a war in which he will kill.

I seek to understand Islamic humility. You ask questions concerning non-violence in a violent time. I responded that Jesus lived in violent times and delivered a message of non-violence. You say you don't know exactly what his teachings were. I have already said that through humility you will know the Truth when you see it.

That's certainly admirable to refrain from saying others are wrong, I'm not saying you should go say that always.

I have yet to be shown a need to say it at all.

But, when you teach a child you tell them what is wrong and right. You can't expect them to work it out, first time especially. You don't want them to work out if (the curiosity of) fire will burn them, you tell them. Saying "you are wrong" isn't arrogance (maybe looks that way or seems rude and cause annoyance), it is just an expression of disagreement.

You do indeed teach a child right and wrong. They have no preconceived ideas of such things. Because they do not have preconceived ideas they are not wrong. They are simply in need of knowledge. Regardless of the number of times you tell a child something is the way it is, they inevitably discover the truth on their own. If they do not discover it when they are young, they discover it when they are older and become complacent of the danger.

What matters is that you can patiently reason your argument to the end. If you end up essentially saying, "just believe me because I said so dammit," that is real arrogance, superiority - in my opinion.

It is also possible to simply agree that you disagree, and end the debate.

If you can't reason with people about religion, how can you expect anyone to accept Christianity without resorting to arrogance? Why can't you reason?

If I understood Islam, I could reason against it. I do not, so can not. I am not prepared. All I can do is show and explain my beliefs one piece at a time, and let you decide the truth.

Originally posted by River Euphrates
I believe the information presented in the link will answer many of your questions if not all. I hope you find it informative.

Thank you.
Concerning humility, I saw nothing there that differed to my own beliefs. But, I am tired so I may have. I'll read it again after I rest just to make sure.


.

Originally posted by mithras
If you aren't interested due to prejudice or whatever else the teller cannot help.

The Koran took Mohammed 26 years to create. There are some scholars who state that when it started out, there were no more than 10 literate people in the whole of Mecca. Some scholars even state that Mohammed himself could not read and write. Personally I dispute this, but there is no doubt that pre-Islamic Arabia was a society of oral tradition. Everything was conducted by word of mouth.

www.dlshq.org...

www.fact-index.com...

The first few verses in the Koran are all about learning to read and write as well.


As for your comment above: Heh. If I wasn't interested in religion I wouldn't be here would I? I find Islam exteremly interesting as it is so young and it is well documented compared to early Christianity or Judaism.

The story of Mohammed is not unlike that of Buddha. Here we have a wealthy man who leaves his home to study another religion. Whilst in contemplation he receives enlightenment and founds a new faith. Though the disturbing difference is that Buddha found enlightenment joyous whereas Mohammed found it terrifying.

We then have the similarity of the Christian Trinity. For Father, Son and Holy Ghost, read Allah, Mohammed and Gabriel. Allah could not be know without Mohammed and Mohammed could not have known of Allah without Gabriel. The same goes true for Christianity. God could not have been known without his son and the son would not have known of the father without the divine nature.

The way that the connection to Abraham came about smacks of paganism. We even have the interesting point that if Mohammed worshipped Abraham's god he was in fact worshipping the high Canaanite god El. It was at Medina that Mohammed learnt of Abraham from Arab Jews. Until then, Mohammed knew nothing of the connection to Judaism by the birth of Ishmael. He took the story and adapted it to his new religion. The Koran was already well formed by then and there were many things that Mohammed took from Jewish law. Muslims were allowed to marry Jewesses, dietry laws were followed, Saturday was a day of rest, prayers were said thricely instead of twice to follow the Jewish tradition and worship was made in the direction of Jerusalem instead of Mecca.

It's not that I don't want to see the divinity of Islam - I truly do believe that Mohammed talked with his god. But the development of the religion itself is no different to that of Judaism or Christianity. I don't dispute that the pure religion is divine but the roots of the created religion are pagan.



[edit on 2-7-2004 by Leveller]

Leveller,

Ask yourself why do "wise" atheists today criticise the past for having a system where the few, learned and literate, scholars were able to make the illiterate believe some "made-up" religion; while these same athiests are having the same thing done to them by happily believing the few learned scientists presenting evolution theories (with no evidence) in the media and at school as though it were fact. There's a new religion being forced on us.

Originally posted by Leveller
...There are some scholars who state that when it started out, there were no more than 10 literate people in the whole of Mecca. Some scholars even state that Mohammed himself could not read and write. Personally I dispute this, but there is no doubt that pre-Islamic Arabia was a society of oral tradition. Everything was conducted by word of mouth.

I don't know how many literates there were. So I'm asking where you got that information from? Neither link you gave say so (skim-read and used find to check) but maybe you can point it out. Maybe you're right but I want to see a valid source, before I believe. I understood that his tribe were the most literate in the region, but don't know of any figure.

I agree that much was conducted by word of mouth, what would be the point to going up to someone and writing a conversation? I expect "mail" was only something for the very, very rich. It does not mean people were actually illiterate.

Not just some, but most scholars agree that he was "illiterate," (see below) we can't quickly toss that aside because it doesn't fit your belief. There are different degrees of literacy, but the agreement is that the Qur'an was way, way beyond him. The ahadith say that he had to get others to write down the revelations.

I don't understand why if you believe that only, at most, ten people were literate, that you are so keen on believing Muhammad would have been one of those ten. He grew up as an orphan in poverty, this makes the chances of him being able to read and write much less, surely? At age 25 he married a rich woman, but beyond this age people are generally not forced, nor keen, to learn if they don't have to. Of course, this is my theory just as you had yours.

There's no doubt that, as anyone with patience can, he could copy words on paper. This isn't literacy though.

Originally posted by Leveller
www.dlshq.org...

Nothing in this source points to what you said above, though. A good source (biased or not) is one that mentions where it gets its information from; all scientific papers do this. Sri Swami Sivananda (who, by his photo, appears to be a deeply religious Hindu) seems to have made a decent summary from what I've read; but, with all due respect to him, maybe he has just made stuff up for all we know because he has not given references (okay we could e-mail him and ask). Example: He didn't get what Gabriel said to Muhammad correct according to valid historical documents (based on ahadith).

www.fact-index.com...

A better source, at least one can check up where they got information from, they seem to have got a lot of it from www.usc.edu...

Above, you said, "Some scholars even state that Mohammed himself could not read and write," yet your own quoted source says the opposite, "Islamic history records that Muhammad was illiterate, though some scholars argue that Muhammad is likely to have received some form of education." Instead of "some," you should have said "most?"

The first few verses in the Koran are all about learning to read and write as well.

What is the reasoning behind your statement? The first revealed are as difficult as anywhere in the whole Qur'an. In your opinion, what are the first few revealed verses (in English)?

As for your comment above: Heh. If I wasn't interested in religion I wouldn't be here would I? I find Islam exteremly interesting as it is so young and it is well documented compared to early Christianity or Judaism.

I wasn't saying whether or not you were interested, I was saying:if one is not interested; for common ground as an observation that I hope you agree with. Surely to research properly you pick out sources of information that have sources themselves. While you may make up theories (and I'm not doing against that) based on "weak evidence" like "must be very few literate people back then, because of 1970 stats," it's not very scientific to accept them with the weakest of evidence; especially if other, possibly stronger, evidence says different.

The story of Mohammed is not unlike that of Buddha. Here we have a wealthy man who leaves his home to study another religion. Whilst in contemplation he receives enlightenment and founds a new faith. Though the disturbing difference is that Buddha found enlightenment joyous whereas Mohammed found it terrifying.

Certainly the first revelation terrified him, this is understandable. He also felt he wasn't strong enough to carry out the task, but are you saying that means it cannot be a divine revelation?

Go on to my next post, please.



[edit on 2-7-2004 by mithras]

We then have the similarity of the Christian Trinity. For Father, Son and Holy Ghost, read Allah, Mohammed and Gabriel. Allah could not be know without Mohammed and Mohammed could not have known of Allah without Gabriel. The same goes true for Christianity. God could not have been known without his son and the son would not have known of the father without the divine nature.

Allah spoke directly to Moses, there is never a need for an intermediary. How it's handled is entirely up to Allah.

There is no similarity of concepts because in the Trinity the three are believed to be one. Since you brought that pair of three names up, and with due respect to Christians, my belief is that the idea of the Holy Ghost in Christianity is because of (perhaps deliberate) misinterpretation of Jesus' prophecy of Muhammad recorded in John's (distorted) Gospel. Hopefully these aren't out of context as they stand so try reading these fully, with an open mind (to accomodate distortion):-

(KJV)John 14:16"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" Read Comforter as Muhammad, and that his message (not his person) will abide forever.

(KJV)John 14:26"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Read as: Muhammad shall teach you things and remind you (what Islam is). The definition as Holy Ghost was most probably added to fit the Trinity concept. Or read as: the Spirit Gabriel will be sent from Allah and teach (Muhammad) things etc. In this version someone added Comforter here, again to fit Trinity.

(KJV)John 15:26"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:"

(KJV)John 16:7"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: " Reprove meaning to convince the world against sin.

(KJV)John 16:13-4"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." Read as: When Muhammad come he will guide you to Truth. He won't speak of his own accord, but only what he hears (merely recited from Gabriel). He will speak of the future (which Muhammad did in ahadith). He shall glorify Jesus (he did that) because he shows to the world what Jesus received (Islam).

There is another famous Gospel (disputed of course, but everything is) that supports this version better, but I have yet to look into it properly: www.sacred-texts.com... Maybe you say that the current Bible fits in better with the Trinity, it still requires some made up interpretation, and the Trinity itself is not a logical concept. Often people say it is using the Bible as proof, while claiming the Bible is false. I would disagree that it means using it as proof or that I am doing that. As I keep saying the Bible is "corrupt," not all lies, not all truth. All historical texts are evidence of something, the more reliable the text the more it weighs as evidence and the Qur'an already weighs heavily. These verses in the "unreliable" Bible only support the Qur'an when interpreted this way (remember that the Trinity required interpretation, just in the other direction). Two pieces of evidence that agree with each other strengthen the evidence.

You might find some Muslims claim paraclete (translated as Comforter) means praised one (which is what Muhammad means), but there's no evidence for this as far as I can see.

The Koran was already well formed by then and there were many things that Mohammed took from Jewish law. Muslims were allowed to marry Jewesses, dietry laws were followed, Saturday was a day of rest, prayers were said thricely instead of twice to follow the Jewish tradition and worship was made in the direction of Jerusalem instead of Mecca.

Why is it so easy to look at it that way; isn't it possible those Jewish laws were a small corruption of the original Islamic laws of Moses etc; Muhammad recieved the Reminder to stop the corruption, so it only looks as though he derived them from Jewish (the then current remnants of Islamic) Law.

It's not that I don't want to see the divinity of Islam - I truly do believe that Mohammed talked with his god. But the development of the religion itself is no different to that of Judaism or Christianity. I don't dispute that the pure religion is divine but the roots of the created religion are pagan.

But you do want to see polytheism in Islam. You have reason for this bias to believe in polytheism? I notice that you were very keen to suggest Allah had human physical attributes: definitely a theme in polytheism. Judaism and Islam are pure monotheistic religions. Christianity (at least some versions) isn't seen that way by most of us. So if anything, the polytheistic Trinity aspect is the odd one out here and also the purely monotheistic (Jewish) version is older.

I'm sorry to pick on nearly everything you say, but that's the way I see it - that you're being a bit harsh on Islam.

Originally posted by mithras

But you do want to see polytheism in Islam. You have reason for this bias to believe in polytheism? So if anything, the polytheistic Trinity aspect is the odd one out here and also the purely monotheistic (Jewish) version is older.

Hehe. Now I could go on the offensive.

I don't believe that the Trinity is polytheistic - it is all an aspect of the One. I don't believe that by pointing to a Trinity within Islam, that I am implying it to be polytheistic either.
If I were to get technical and make accusations, I would point to the 10th Century writings regarding the Satanic Verses, which show how polytheism sat well with Islam. I would also point out that although Mohammed was monotheistic, it wasn't until just before his death (whilst at Medina) that he condemned the worship of other gods.
But that is moot. My argument is not that Islam is polytheistic. My argument is that it takes it's roots from pagan religions that were polytheistic.

I find it ironic that I am arguing for pagan origins with a poster calling himself Mithras and that he is refuting the idea.

I scoured around for a link that you would find hard to disagree with regarding the literacy rates -

www.islamhour.net...

"Any person who had the unfortunate lot of becoming a prisoner of war was immediately offered his freedom by the Prophet if he was literate on condition that he taught some Muslims how to read and write."

You must agree that this is hardly the action of a literate society. A society that is looking to become literate - yes. But that is not the argument here.

I find it hard to believe, that when it is historically pretty clear how the Islam was created by child-rapists that didn't even take the time to make a "holy book" with original content, still so many people follow this religion.

Or is that statement politically incorrect?