It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I didn`t realise the story of iblis from the Koran was similar to the story of satan`s damnation in the bible.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Ideas in the Koran are similar to Christian and Jewish ideas because Christian and Jewish traditions were their source.
Muslims used to pray towards Jerusalem, but Muhammad changed this direction, the Qibla, to instead direct Muslims to face towards the Kaaba in Mecca on the basis of having received divine intervention.
Isra and Mi'raj
Iblis is an Arabic corruption of the Greek word diabolos, meaning devil.
the story of Jesus's birth in the Koran has all the marks of a folk-tale, in contrast with the mainly down-to-earth (though by no means entirely factual) accounts offered in the New Testament.
Ideas in the Koran are similar to Christian and Jewish ideas because Christian and Jewish traditions were their source. This has been well established by Western scholars.
Much of the Koran is a modification of Christian and Jewish tradition.
they also suggest that if some of the messages that Muhammad thought were from Allah were actually from the devil, how many more verses in the Koran could be the work of the devil rather than Allah?
Islam acknowledges that Mohammad made a mistake by mentioning those names.
Its also known that the angel Gabriel chastised Mohammad for uttering those names, under the influence of Satan. Mohammad took back his words, following which, the Meccans resumed their persecution of Muslims.
Wrong.
Iblis is derived from the Arabic balasa, meaning "he despaired".
The English word "devil", however, is derived from the Greek "diabolos".
Well, western scholars aren't exactly the experts on Islam.
That is pretty far-fetched—though
popular with Muslim scholars for
obvious sectarian reasons. The Arabic
Bible translates diabolos as iblis.
On the contrary, they are the only
reliable experts. Muslim scholars are
far too biased; they lack the necessary
detachment to be able to say anything
trustworthy about their sources.
Originally posted by logical7
All the claims put by you can be found only on anti-islamic sites and can be proven baseless by a little research by anyone who seeks to verify rather than believe anything by you blindly.
Originally posted by logical7
Linking salman rushidie to Qur'an would be like linking 'da vinci code' to Bible!
Originally posted by logical7
Its interesting how you both chose to comment on Islam in general than the OP in specific.
Are you referring to the Satanic Verses or the fact that early Muslims prayed toward Jerusalem?
Salman Rushdie was linked to the
Satanic Verses when the Ayatollah of
Iran issued a death fatwa against him
in 1989 in response to him writing
about the Satanic verses in his book.
The title of the thread is" The story of
Satan in Islamic tradition". What could be more relevant than the
Satanic Verses?
IMO, this gives a background to the Biblical story of Satan misleading Adam / Eve into eating the fruit.
In case you were referring to the part where Jesus spoke as a baby...
Its interesting how you both chose to comment on Islam in general than the OP in specific.
When you say "Biblical," you need to be more specific. Genesis 3 has no Satan in it.
That's from non-canonical Christian sources (but not "heretical" authors, just intentionally apocryphal - fan fiction, in modern terms). This particular silliness appears to be lifted from the so-called Syriac Infancy Gospel, which itself derives from earlier sources. These were entertaining stories, not religious doctrines.
"Western" has nothing to do with the quality of scholarhip. I believe the poster meant "people who speak without fear of being branded on the nose for identifying antecedents of Koranic stories,"
That is pretty far-fetched—though popular with Muslim scholars for obvious sectarian reasons.
The Arabic Bible translates diabolos as iblis.
On the contrary, they are the only reliable experts. Muslim scholars are far too biased; they lack the necessary detachment to be able to say anything trustworthy about their sources.
Given that the character of Iblis is central to Islam, it is impossible to discuss either topic divorced from the other.
Surah 114 Al-Naas(The Mankind)
Say, I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind,
The King of mankind,
The God of mankind
from the evil of the prompter,
who prompts and then hides away,
who whispers in the hearts of mankind,
whether from amongst jinns or men.
Is it non muslims who will teach muslims about what Islam is or what the central theme of Islam is?
That Satan deceived Adam and Eve through a talking snake is what I've been taught by Christians.
If it wasn't Satan who deceived Adam and Eve, then who was it, according to you? Some snake in the garden?
then the idea of a virgin giving birth to it should appear silly as well.
Some people seem to be picking and choosing the accounts that sit well with them.
A "western" scholar can merely give an opinion on something that is alien to his own culture. His scholarship does not turn opinion into fact, as some posters here seem to think so.
As for antecedents of Koranic stories, there are plenty of those in the Bible.
Muslims understand that most of the Koran repeats Biblical tales.
according to what/which source/scholar is character of iblis central to Islam?? 'Sheikh eightbits'?
Islam is based on a simple and stupid to disagree idea of One God.
Originally posted by ollncasino
The problem with the Satanic verses, for Muslims, is that if Muhammad was fooled by verses from the devil pretending to be messages from Allah, how many verses in the Koran could perhaps not be from Allah but rather from the devil?