On Islam's strength's and weaknesses.

[Common Soldier]

Islam strength = is not a religion, but a way of life. Islam is not just about prayers and rituals but how one conduct one's life better, both for this world amd the next. Islam is like the string of a high flying kite, keeping the kite to the ground no matter how people (kite) fly high and far.

Islam weakness = often misunderstood due to actions by some (who calls or were called by others) muslims are considered as what Islam is and what's not.

Being a way of life can be good or bad thing. It can positively influence and shape people and society, but if the way of life it promotes is based on a medieval say of life that is increasingly obsolete in modern times,nthen it can be a negative thing. It is those out of date views held by many Muslims that are what most people object to.

The main problem with Islam today is that for many Muslims, the way of life it promotes is based on one from medieval times, and however enlighten and forward thinking its views were in the 7th century, they are very out-of-date in the 21st century. But religions can change and adapt, and many Muslims.havs rejected.the outdated views of women and non Muslims Islam s, such as their legal testimony fundamentally being inferior to Muslims.

The Muslims.emphasis on a way of life has a both strengths and weaknesses. It makes it easier for a believer to follow, they don't have to struggle with the dilemma of having to figure out for themselves how to apply answer of moral principles to their particular situation, but it also means blindly following a.way of life no longer suited to your place and time. And tends to stifle questions about the way of life it promotes.

Even in this day, most Muslim countries in the Midwest do not treat non Muslims as full equals. Only 2 Muslim countries in the Mideast allow non Muslims to marry Muslim women, Turkey and Tunsia, yet most moderate Muslims are ok with that, and in fact genuinely believe Muslims

[Diocle]

Islam real strength? The rebellion against modern world, rebellion against materialism, rebellion against relativism, rebellion against the cultural cemetery in which the West has turned itself and claims to impose on the whole world, rebellion against socialist equality, gender equality, ethical and moral equality, rebellion against western idiocracy & globalization, rebellion against science's idolatry, rebellion against machines in place of men and women, rebellion against a heartless world, without a center, without values and without morality and principles, all in all, rebellion against the horror our bankers, usurers and merchants are trying to impose all over the world! This is their strength, because this is our weakness.

Islam's weakness? Too few engineering degrees.

[Axalon]

Personally, I would say that Islam draw strength from or by...

Ignorance - Islam seem to thrive in any place where ignorance (of Islam) dominates - even amongst the supposed Muslims themselves. It allows the movement to operate more freely, unopposed and unquestioned - while knowledge, insight and scrutiny of the same does not. The "authority-scholars" - the virtual priest-class - seem to reinforce and nurture this general ignorance - as without it, they will be clearly redundant, essentially powerless and Islam itself will be more exposed and threatened. As I understand it, these authority-scholars can essentially claim anything they want back and forth - as long as it presents Islam favourably (somehow). For instance, the late Ayatollah Khomeini produced lots of bizarre statements of this sort (see his "The green little book").

Deception - even the God itself engages in various deceptions of mankind. A good example is the crucifixion of Jesus (Islamic tradition), for instance. The Islamic God is generally presented as cunning (see the Koran). If God can readily deceive (despite being all-powerful), so can clearly his/its agents and servants. Youtube have plenty of clips on this, check it out.

Suppression/oppression - of females, obviously... And also, the fact that Islam have repeatedly and systematically suppressed any kind of deviation, alternative or opposition once it has secured a position of supremacy. World history is rather clear on this. God is to remain unchallenged, unquestioned and obeyed - by the sword, if need be.

Fear - the frequent promise of death and hellfire in the Koran to anyone who don't play ball essentially (see the Koran, all over the place). God is clearly supposed to be feared, enough to force us into submission (as if the message of this God was not good enough to stand on its own...). But, why does an all-powerful eternal God need to be feared and obeyed in the first place? This by insignificant mortal servants like humans? And does not that very circumstance leave a extremely dubious aftertaste? After all, such an entity could just by a snap of its fingers "uncreate" mankind and the problem of constantly keeping tabs of us is solved. But nah, lets go for the paltry junk we got instead...

As for weaknesses in Islam - there are probably too many to list... However some general examples would be...

Inconsistency - see the Koran (all over the place).

Intrusiveness - see your average public manifestation, demonstration, practices and actions of Islamic activists. Everyone must (or is expected to) play ball with Islam - regardless if they like it or not. Its annoying, arrogant and intrusive. Whether it is in India, France, Sweden, Lebanon, Egypt or Ethiopia, makes little difference.

Dishonesty - the Islamic traditions and claims about the Koran are clearly false. The Koran is neither "one and eternal" or contains/displays the "verbatim words of God" - there are ironclad evidence for that (there are multiple Korans, for instance). Yet we are expected to still pretend it is true anyways. That is neither honest, rational or truthful...

Bigotry/intolerance - while this is in no way a unique trait for Islam, it is an obvious one these days. Islamic supremacy will always rely on bigotry sooner or later, much like any other authoritarian movement in history. Mohammed have both (repeatedly) killed and oppressed lots people that did not agree with him, so that is the example he set (this according to the traditional Islamic sources, mind you) - and that has obviously been taken to heart by many of his willing followers.

- A

[basics]

The biggest fault in Islam is that it offers no surety of passage into its paradise. It appeals to the baser instincts with which man has been endowed with without the surety that any will ever see what is said. That man is a sinner whose sin must be erazed before entry to God's Kingdom is not guaranteed unlike the surety that the One it rejects offers. Jesus Christ offers eternal life whilst Mohammed offers only maybe's.

[Axalon]

The biggest fault in Islam is that it offers no surety of passage into its paradise. It appeals to the baser instincts with which man has been endowed with without the surety that any will ever see what is said. That man is a sinner whose sin must be erazed before entry to God's Kingdom is not guaranteed unlike the surety that the One it rejects offers. Jesus Christ offers eternal life whilst Mohammed offers only maybe's.

Don't this kind of talk, presume that there is a paradise - for certain - in the first place? And don't you have too be a "believer" first, in order to also accept the idea of an actual paradise? If so, then that argument is only good if you already believe somehow - otherwise its no good...

If I remember this correctly, neither Jesus or Mohammed managed make that case (that there is a paradise) properly or credibly enough. They merely claimed its there, and that it is wonderful there somehow - and that we should strive to get there, at all costs. Its not like they (Jesus and Mohammed) offered much evidence that there actually is a paradise anywhere - other then that they say and claim there is one... Or did I miss something there?

I may very well be oversimplify things here, but both prophets are basically selling us a package (on this note) that assumes that we are perfectly willing (and content) to take their personal world for it and not much else (especially so, in the case of Mohammed). In my book, that certainly qualifies as a weakness. Furthermore, don't both promise hellfire for you - if you don't believe in their claims? Or is it just Mohammed? I don't remember... Regardless, hellfire never was any good evidence for anything, other then perhaps that the case (whatever it may be) was rather weak in the first place, if it has too rely on hellfire (or fear) to become "believable" or "credible" somehow.

Just saying...

- A

[Prodromos]

If I remember this correctly, neither Jesus or Mohammed managed make that case (that there is a paradise) properly or credibly enough. They merely claimed its there, and that it is wonderful there somehow - and that we should strive to get there, at all costs. Its not like they (Jesus and Mohammed) offered much evidence that there actually is a paradise anywhere - other then that they say and claim there is one... Or did I miss something there?

Really, I would think the whole 'coming back from the dead' thing is plenty evidence. It's kind of the central message of Christianity.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

Furthermore, don't both promise hellfire for you - if you don't believe in their claims? Or is it just Mohammed? I don't remember... Regardless, hellfire never was any good evidence for anything, other then perhaps that the case (whatever it may be) was rather weak in the first place, if it has too rely on hellfire (or fear) to become "believable" or "credible" somehow.

Just saying...

I don't think there's any fire involved. Hell is a state of mind, and the gates of Hell are locked from the inside.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[basics]

Axalon,

The difference between Jesus and Mohammed couldn't be clearer as six thousand years of prophetic witness continue to be fulfilled in the case of Jesus Christ against the false claims of Mohammed or any other deceivers. Paradise is an Islamic concept where baser men might achieve what they probably couldn't here on earth, that being a life of sex to whet their appetite. On the contrary the Christian won't be having sex in heaven as there is no giving and taking in marriage there so the emphasis is in being with God as part of His family, the desire being accomplished by just being with Him. Oh hell is real enough as it's a perpetual state of mind that never changes and is described in both the story of the rich man and the poor man in the arms of Abraham whilst the rich man beggs in vain to be released from that in which he finds himself as well as the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

[Common Soldier]

Another drawback of Islam is.the Koran and Muslims beliefs toward:

1. Thre overwhelming majority of Mulsims believe the Koran is uncreated and existed for all time, and that it is perfect.. Problem with that view is that you can't challenge anything the Koran says, that you can't even suggest any mistakes or changes. Since it was uncreated, the Koranic versus are valid for.all time, not just medieval Arabia when it was written down. Problem is that the Koran is a medieval text, and reflects the problems, concerns and character of the time it was written down. It can encourage enforcing outdated modes of thoughts and behaviour that are noonger applicable to modern times.

Note, the Bible share a little of the problem thd Koran in this regarded, but not as much and is more flexible in its approach. The Bible says it was written as men were inspired and move by the Holy Spirit to write it down, it does not say it is the verbatim wodd of Allah like thr Koran. This gives Christians more room and flexibility in interpret ing the Bible, and more potential to admit errors. After all, humans are imperfect and make mistakes, so it can be possible to admit a mistake in the Bible. This Islam finds it difficult to do with the Koran, since thr Koran is supposed to be perfect. This leads.to intolerance and an unwillingness to accept criticism, and makes change a lot harder.

2. And the other aspect of this is that the Koran has a lot of issues just by itself, let alone havi g to live up to being "perfect". The Koran is most imperfect:

a. The Koran is noot logically organized, by topic or chronologically, but by aranging surahs merely by length, from longest to shortest surah (except Surah 1, which is like a prolog)

b. The Koran has verses that contradicts each other. Muslims explain this away by saying one verse replace another, but since the Koran has no chronological structure, you can't say from the Koran itself which verse replace the others d felt for relying on the opinion of scholars and sources like the hadithz outside the Koran. Since the opinion of scholars and these outside sources are not binding on Muslims, a fundamentalist Muslim is free to reject the verses that preech tolerance in favor oc fhr verses that the Muslims.fight against non Muslims.

c. Only one woman is mentioned by name in the Koran, which implies a rather low status.

e. A lot of the Koran is confusing and difficult to figure out what itnis trying to say. Most Muslims don't have a problem with it, because they are relying on what teachers and outside sources tell them what the verses.. it is a difficult book just to pick up and read for yourself without help, except for some retelling of OT Testament Biblical stories, Christian stories from rejected gospels, and Jewish folk tales. The.Koran sometime assumes the reader will know things that are not in the Koran. It lacks the helpful explanations that you sometimes in the Bible about customs and manners. (For example both Like and Mark explain Jewish customs to their readers who might not be familiar with them.)

I suppose if most Muslims are like most Christians, and their Koran sits on a honored position on a shelf, there issues won't be a problem. And if they take the Koran to be merely a book, and something that came from eternal tablets (85:22) sitting in heaven, then these are just nickpicking complaints..

[basics]

Paul, not appreciated by Islam, wrote to the Galatian church that he was amazed at how quickly some in that church were being led astray by false teachers and so he announced that, even if anyone including an angel changed what he had taught them about the Gospel, they were accursed. John wrote of them as being antichrists which means in place of Christ and therefore against Him and that is where mohammed placed himself as regards to Jesus Christ. Not only does he supplant Jesus as being a prophet of God but he refuses to accept that Jesus Christ is God. The strangest thing of all is that he tells that it is Jesus Who is coming back to judge the world, not himself nor Allah, Jesus Christ. When Jesus Christ comes back it is not with mercy, rather the wrath of God for it is the final judgement He brings on all that Paul refers to, and so to make such a judgement Jesus Christ must be God. The good news is that even in the most Islamic of countries and despite the persecutions God is still drawing Muslims to Jesus to be their Lord and Saviour.

[Common Soldier]

Paul, not appreciated by Islam, wrote to the Galatian church that he was amazed at how quickly some in that church were being led astray by false teachers and so he announced that, even if anyone including an angel changed what he had taught them about the Gospel, they were accursed. John wrote of them as being antichrists which means in place of Christ and therefore against Him and that is where mohammed placed himself as regards to Jesus Christ. Not only does he supplant Jesus as being a prophet of God but he refuses to accept that Jesus Christ is God. The strangest thing of all is that he tells that it is Jesus Who is coming back to judge the world, not himself nor Allah, Jesus Christ. When Jesus Christ comes back it is not with mercy, rather the wrath of God for it is the final judgement He brings on all that Paul refers to, and so to make such a judgement Jesus Christ must be God. The good news is that even in the most Islamic of countries and despite the persecutions God is still drawing Muslims to Jesus to be their Lord and Saviour.

It is worse than that. The Koran teaches that Christians believed Mary was God, that the trinity consist of God, Jesus and Mary, which is simply not true. Because they can't admit the Koran could be in error as it is, because they insist the Koran is perfect, it forces Muslims to be intolerant.

Muhammad, or rather the writers of the Koran, clearly did not understand Christian doctrine and belief today. The Koran is full of stories that were from rejected gospels. These gospels were rejected by Christians because they were inauthentic, and scholars universally agree that apocryphal gospels like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, that the Koran got much of its material about Jesus from, were written well after the official canonical gospels

“And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden? (Koran 5:116)

Because of traditional Muslim belief that the Koran was uncreated, eternal, and perfect , many (most?) Muslims can't admit the truth that the Muhammad and t he Koran were in error.

Given the way that Catholics and Orthodox adored Mary, it is was easy to see how Muhammad became mistaken about what Christians believed about Mary, that the Churches dedicated to Mary did not mean that Catholics or other Christians thought Mary was part of the Trinity.

[basics]

Common Soldier,

If one reads Hislop's Two Babylons one will find where that notion came from as the Mary tradition stemmed from Semiramis as being part of the Trinity in which there was a mother, child and dove as being God. What that meant was that Semiramis was the mother of the deified Ninus or Nimrod, the "seed" figure from Genesis and the dove as being the Holy Spirit. This was called the Chaldean Mysteries upon which all false religion evolved spreading quickly across the planet. But the "seed" of the woman who was Eve, not Mary, had His lineage all the way back to that prophecy made by God in the garden proved by a people chosen of God to carry that message through all time. Mary was the chosen vessel to bring Him into the world as a human being 100% God and 100% human, yet she for all that confessed that she too needed a Saviour acknowledging that she too was a sinner. That knocks on the head any suggestion that she was divine. Mohammed's problem was that in making a case for himself he had to rely on what he could glean from the Jews around his environment some of whom may have been Christian yet many others still devout Jews who were not.

[Common Soldier]

Common Soldier,

If one reads Hislop's Two Babylons one will find where that notion came from as the Mary tradition stemmed from Semiramis as being part of the Trinity in which there was a mother, child and dove as being God. What that meant was that Semiramis was the mother of the deified Ninus or Nimrod, the "seed" figure from Genesis and the dove as being the Holy Spirit. This was called the Chaldean Mysteries upon which all false religion evolved spreading quickly across the planet. But the "seed" of the woman who was Eve, not Mary, had His lineage all the way back to that prophecy made by God in the garden proved by a people chosen of God to carry that message through all time. Mary was the chosen vessel to bring Him into the world as a human being 100% God and 100% human, yet she for all that confessed that she too needed a Saviour acknowledging that she too was a sinner. That knocks on the head any suggestion that she was divine. Mohammed's problem was that in making a case for himself he had to rely on what he could glean from the Jews around his environment some of whom may have been Christian yet many others still devout Jews who were not.

I don't think there is any evidence to support the claim that Muhammad's and the Koran idea of the Christianity Trinity came from the Semiramis. I think it was simply the case that when Muhammad saw the devotion Christians gave to Mary, and the fact that Christians did say Mary was the mother of Jesus, and Jesus was the Son of God, it seemed to him the Christian Trinity was God the Father, Mary the Mother, and Jesus the Son, which is totally wrong of course, showing Muhammad probably didn't have direct contact with Christians, who would have corrected him on his false idea. And because Muhammad's false ideas are enshrined in the Koran, many Muslims might hold those false ideas today.

The lack of any material directly from the New Testament also shows Muhammad didn't really have direct contact with Christians. The 4 canonical gospels had gained their supreme position very early in Christianity. Iranaeus in the 2nd century was already asserting there were only 4 gospels, and we don't see any of the Church Father"s like Iranaeus quoting from the non canonical gospels. Had Muhammad directly known some Christians, he would have included material from them in the Koran. Things like the uplifting story of the Good Samaritan, rather than the silly apocryphal story of turning lay birds into real ones.

[conon394]

If one reads Hislop's Two Babylons

You really should not its nearly incoherent babble.

[Common Soldier]

You really should not its nearly incoherent babble.

Reading a synopsis of Hislop's Two Babylons (1853), I can see your point. While it seems to make some valid observations, I get the impression it has the Anti-Catholic rhetoric typical of Protestant work back then. I personally don't have a problem that the Catholics may have incorporated pagan elements and adapted them to Christian use.

I like the Pope Gregory's charge to the first Christian mission the pagan Anglo-Saxoms that when possible they should adapt rhr pagan customs, as long as Christian belief wasn't compromised. I wish more Christian and Muslim missionaries would try to adapt rather than replace the customs of the people they are converting

[Abdülmecid I]

I'm not sure how inaccurate the Quran is in its description of local Christian beliefs. Official doctrine often differs rather impressively from popular practices, not to mention the fact that in Oriental Christianity the Holy Spirit has played a traditionally marginal role. As the Filioque controversy demonstrates, even the dogmatic principles of the Church portray the Holy Spirit in an implicitly secondary position, in comparison with God or Jesus Christ. The obscurity of the Holy Spirit in popular Christianity is presumably explained by its bizarre, incomprehensible nature and its few appearances in the Bible and the New Testament specifically, with prominent actions essentially occurring only during the Pentecost and the baptism in river Jordan.

On the contrary, Mary is a much more familiar figure, who basically invites popular worship as an icon of womanhood and motherhood. As the local communities gradually moved from polytheism to a superficially monotheistic religion, I think it is safe to assume that Mary's prominence could give the impression to outside observers that she deserved a place in the Holy Trinity much more than a supernatural concept, pretty much impossible to define. After all, generally speaking, Prophet Muhammad was biased in favour of Christians and Romans, at the expense of Persians and Jews, which probably reveals the remarkable influence Christianity exercised upon his teachings and Islam.

[Common Soldier]

I'm not sure how inaccurate the Quran is in its description of local Christian beliefs. Official doctrine often differs rather impressively from popular practices, not to mention the fact that in Oriental Christianity the Holy Spirit has played a traditionally marginal role. As the Filioque controversy demonstrates, even the dogmatic principles of the Church portray the Holy Spirit in an implicitly secondary position, in comparison with God or Jesus Christ. The obscurity of the Holy Spirit in popular Christianity is presumably explained by its bizarre, incomprehensible nature and its few appearances in the Bible and the New Testament specifically, with prominent actions essentially occurring only during the Pentecost and the baptism in river Jordan.

Regardless, the Christian Trinity is God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, not Mary. While there have been some Muslims that have tried to explain away the mistake of the Koran that there was some obscure local Christian group that believed that, there is in fact no real evidence for such groups. The Koran made a mistake, that is all. But because traditional Muslim thought doesn't allow for Koran to make mistakes, this causes problems.

I am curious, though, as to exactly what the process was that made the Holy Spirit part of the Trinity. It is easy to see how Jesus became God, and Christianity could havs had a bi-une God instead of its triune God. The elevation the Holy Spirit to divinity occurred early in the Christian community, as Mathew's shows when Jesus commands his disciples to "baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19), so by the first century AD the ground work was being laid for incorporating the Holy Spirit into the Trinity with Father and Son

On the contrary, Mary is a much more familiar figure, who basically invites popular worship as an icon of womanhood and motherhood. As the local communities gradually moved from polytheism to a superficially monotheistic religion, I think it is safe to assume that Mary's prominence could give the impression to outside observers that she deserved a place in the Holy Trinity much more than a supernatural concept, pretty much impossible to define. After all, generally speaking, Prophet Muhammad was biased in favour of Christians and Romans, at the expense of Persians and Jews, which probably reveals the remarkable influence Christianity exercised upon his teachings and Islam.

Whether it makes sense or not, the Trinity is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, not God, Jesus, and Mary, but I agree to an outside observer it could look like the Trinity was God, Jesus, and Mary. Muhammad's bias toward Christianity over the Persians is explained that the Byzantine Empire was more populous, and larger thannthe Persian empire, and it had emerged the victor over Persia in long exhausting war that occurred right before Muhammad was alleged to have had his Revelations. Naturally, Muhammad.gearsd hisnmessags toward the winners, not losers.

And I challenge the claim Muhammad favored Christians over Jews. When you look at Muhammad's actions, favoring Jewish dietary laws over the Christian approach, and the rejection of the divinity of Jesus, practice of physical circumcision, its strict ban on imagery, Islam is much more Jewish in nature than it is Christian. Given that Christians were far more numerous than Jews, naturally the Koran tried to tailer its message to appeal to them, the Christians were by far the largest group in the Mediterranean world the Arabs conquered.

But all the appearances of of Jesus and Mary in the Koran don't have any real theological significance. Jesus has no more authority than other prophet in the Koran, even if there are more stories about him. Mary likewise doesn't have any higher role than any other Allah fearing woman, for all of talks about here. Those stories were put in the Koran to appeal to Christians, who for.long after the conquest outnumbered Muslims.

[Abdülmecid I]

Quran includes passages clearly hostile to Jews, while its inspiration from Christianity is evident. In the same time, rabbinic tradition is almost nonexistent, with very few exceptions. This article provides a nice summary of the issue. Your explanation about the reasons for its partiality do not seem very convincing. Firstly, the Persian-Roman war can hardly be described as a decisive victory for the Byzantines, given the fact produced a military stalemate, which was the result of the Turkic intervention and the palace coup against the legitimate Sassanid Emperor, while the Persians continued to control Egypt and Syria unopposed. During the subsequent Arab invasion, the rapid disintegration of Rome's oriental provinces, as compared with the determined resistance of the Sassanids, points towards a radically different conclusion, regarding the alleged balance of power. Secondly, time does not corroborate your claims. The notoriously pro-Roman 30th Surah was composed, when the war was still raging and the Byzantines had been effectively expelled from Asia.

Meanwhile, the Letters to the Kings supposedly written by Muhammad, which portray Heraclius as a sincere friend of Islam and Chosroes II as an aggressive tyrant were written well after the collapse of both empires. Not to mention the fact that Zoroastrianism was initially not even viewed as a respectable religion of the Book. As for your claim that Muhammad needed to appease his Christian subjects living in the eastern and southern Mediterranean coast, when the Prophet died, the Caliphate only controlled, in a rather fragile manner, the Arabian Peninsula. The relative ''infatuation'' of Islam with Christianity is much more accurately explained by the determining influence this religion exercised upon the mind and doctrines of Muhammad. Islam is neither a Christian heresy nor an Aramaic lectionary of the New Testament, as some ''extremists'' have suggested, but the fact remains that its position vis-à-vis Christianity, Judaism, Persia and Byzantium is far from neutral.

[Common Soldier]

Quran includes passages clearly hostile to Jews,

The Koran attacks core Christian beliefs, which is definitely hostile. The only Christians the Koran is positive to would not be regarded as Christians by most Chrisrians and never represented the vast majority of Christians. In short, the Koran is hostile to what what represents almost all of Christianzls, 99% of them believe. If you are only not hostile to only a small fraction of a group that represents only a fringe section of the group, you can that person and thing is hostile tongue group, in this case Christianity.

while its inspiration from Christianity is evident. In the same time, rabbinic tradition is almost nonexistent, with very few exceptions. This article provides a nice summary of the issue.

The rabbinic influence on Islam is self evident while in realiry it is the Christian inspiration is lacking

1. Like Judaism, Islam is a religion in which performing the right actions, rather than having the right beliefs are important. The 5 pillars of Islam are all actions. This is in contrast to Christianity, where the right belief, no specific actions makes you a Christian. Fundamentally different outlook.

2. Many of the.rabbinc stories wound up in the Koran, like the story of Abraham coming out of a great fire, or how the Queen of Sheba lifted her skirt when she came to Solomon's throne, where the glass paving on the floor she thought was water.

3. Many of the Jewish practices, from not eating pigs to circumcision, came from Jewish, not Christian sources.

4. Early Christian sources talk about Muhammad working with the Jews during the conquest od Jerusalem. Muhammad was perceived to be a political leader (king) by these early Christian sources

5. The idea of a safer language. Just like the rabbinic Jews regarded Hebrew of the OT as a sacred language, so the Muslims regard the Arabic of the Koran and have long resisted to translate rhe Koran.

6. The opposition of using imagery

Yes I know about what Luxenberf's claim, but I find his argument unconvincing. When putting together the Koran, I do not doubt that Muslims.found it convenient to adapt available Christian literature, but when you look at the details of Islam, it is much more Jewish than Christian in nature. Christian population being larger, and writing in everyday language (Aramaic) instead of a specialized language like the Jews ((Hebrew) made Christian literacy more accessible.to be borrowed and used.

Your explanation about the reasons for its partiality do not seem very convincing. Firstly, the Persian-Roman war can hardly be described as a decisive victory for the Byzantines, given the fact produced a military stalemate.

Flat wrong. The war ended in a decissive Byzantine victory in the Battle of Ninevah that led to a regime change in Persia and restoration of all captured Byzantine territory. The fact that Byzantine long survived for centuries thd Muslim onslaught while Persia fell.completely within the first generation proves my point

which was the result of the Turkic intervention and the palace coup against the legitimate Sassanid Emperor, while the Persians continued to control Egypt and Syria unopposed. During the subsequent Arab invasion, the rapid disintegration of Rome's oriental provinces, as compared with the determined resistance of the Sassanids, points towards a radically different conclusion, regarding the alleged balance of power. Secondly, time does not corroborate your claims. The notoriously pro-Roman 30th Surah was composed, when the war was still raging and the Byzantines had been effectively expelled from Asia.

Your history is wrong. The Byzantines recovered all their territory when they decissively defeated the Persians in the Battle of Ninevah, and invaded the hearland of Persia, which led to the regime change and Persia restoring a Byzantine territory. But the war was exhausting to both sides, and the Arabs invaded before the Byzantines had a chance to recover. The fact it was the Byzantinezls, not the Persians , who survived for centuries longer proves my point. The Byzantine didn't invade Egypt and their other lost provinces but instead went for the Persian throat by invading the heartland od Persian empire. The Byzanine were going for.rhe Persia capital, but the Persians surrendered first.

As for Surah 30, there Byzantines and Persians suffered a number of initial defeats and then ultimate victory during their centuries long existence, and the surah could have applied to any one of them. The Surah, like all of the Koran, is generic and not specific.

Also, I don't think the Turks were invovled at this stage.

In any case, not only were the Christians the vast majority of the Byzantine Empire, but large areas outside the empire, like in the West in the former area of the Roman empire were Christian, as was Armenia, and there was even a large number of Christians in the Persia empire. Then, as now, Christianity was Islams main rival, and so naturally rhe Koran would address verses to appeal to them.

Meanwhile, the Letters to the Kings supposedly written by Muhammad, which portray Heraclius as a sincere friend of Islam and Chosroes II as an aggressive tyrant were written well after the collapse of both empires. Not to mention the fact that Zoroastrianism was initially not even viewed as a respectable religion of the Book. As for your claim that Muhammad needed to appease his Christian subjects living in the eastern and southern Mediterranean coast, when the Prophet died, the Caliphate only controlled, in a rather fragile manner, the Arabian Peninsula. The relative ''infatuation'' of Islam with Christianity is much more accurately expelled by the determining influence this religion exercised upon the mind and doctrines of Muhammad. Islam is neither a Christian heresy nor an Aramaic lectionary of New Testament, as some extremists have suggested, but the fact remains that its position vis-à-vis Christianity, Judaism, Persia and Byzantium is far from neutral.

There is no evidence the letters were genuine, or if genuine, the letters ever reached the Byzantine Emperor. The first headquarters.of the Caliphate was in Damascus, a former Byzantine and Christian city, Your objection is valid only if Muhammad CtuLly wrote the Koran. Despite claims otherwise, the copies ofnrhd Korann date to the late 7th and early 8th century. I agree that Islam is not a Christian heresy, but it's own relifion. A number of scholars (Neck) think that what we know of Islam arose not in Arabia, but in the early years of the of the Arab conquest. Nevo ("Crossroads to Islam" ).and others have presented what I feel is a convincing case base on coinage and other very early written accounts and documents that Islam seems to have arisen during the Caliphate of Abdal-Malik. It was during his reign that we see rhe first coins referring to Muhammad, it was then that we see the first official documents with Muhammad's name, and if is then that we see the Domes of the Rock built.

The location of the Dome of the Rock is highly suggestive, standing on top of the site ofnrhd old Jewish Temple, and across the way but higher than the Church of the Holy Sepluchre. The oldest inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock make no referrences to Muhammad's Night Journey, but contain among the rest Koranic verses anywhere that clearly directed the core Christian doctine of the Trinity. Dome od rhe Rock was making a strong political statement, both in its location and what it said. If al-Malik created Islam as we know it, he would have to create a a sacred book of its own for Islam, just like the Jews and Christians had their own sacred book. Since al-Malik was based in Syria, where much of the Syro-Aramaic literature Luxenberg (whom you referenced earlier) mentioned was written, which could explain the Koran's similarity to such literature that Luxenberg pointed out. He borrowed what was handy.


PS - I agree that the above is speculative , but then so are your claims for Muhammad's motivations of what he put in the Koran.

The Koran is suppose to be a book for a time, not just for a group of people that occupy a remote, backwater of part the world. Christianity is the world's largest religion and likely was at that time as well.. Buddhism.did not dominate it's region the way Christianity did in the areas of occupied. Except for Sri Lanka, and few other areas, Buddhist did not make up a vast majority of the population. This doesn't compare to the Bzynatines empire and former regions of the Roman empire where almost everyone was Christian . It would be natural to appeal to the largest religion in the area.

[basics]

I don't think there is any evidence to support the claim that Muhammad's and the Koran idea of the Christianity Trinity came from the Semiramis. I think it was simply the case that when Muhammad saw the devotion Christians gave to Mary, and the fact that Christians did say Mary was the mother of Jesus, and Jesus was the Son of God, it seemed to him the Christian Trinity was God the Father, Mary the Mother, and Jesus the Son, which is totally wrong of course, showing Muhammad probably didn't have direct contact with Christians, who would have corrected him on his false idea. And because Muhammad's false ideas are enshrined in the Koran, many Muslims might hold those false ideas today.

The lack of any material directly from the New Testament also shows Muhammad didn't really have direct contact with Christians. The 4 canonical gospels had gained their supreme position very early in Christianity. Iranaeus in the 2nd century was already asserting there were only 4 gospels, and we don't see any of the Church Father"s like Iranaeus quoting from the non canonical gospels. Had Muhammad directly known some Christians, he would have included material from them in the Koran. Things like the uplifting story of the Good Samaritan, rather than the silly apocryphal story of turning lay birds into real ones.

Common Soldier,

" In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and the darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And god said let there be light : and there was light. " So, we find Elohim and the Spirit of God in those first verses. The light we can be assured is Jesus as John tells us in 1 John and The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ where Christ Himself lights up the new heaven and earth and the New Jerusalem. The Hebrew word Elohim is a plural word yet we know that God is One so when we speak of Father, Son and Holy Ghost we speak of One God with three characteristics Who work for the same purpose in an individual context. In other words where God dwells there is no darkness as He lights that place and so " In the beginning " God also created darkness as part and parcel of our story as yet to unfold. This happened when the New Testament writers opened up the Old Covenant after the Holy Spirit fell on them at Pentecost things which Jesus Christ had been telling them but at that time they couldn't understand fully. John begins his first letter by explicitly telling us that Jesus Christ was that Light and our Creator. So from the beginning we have father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Triune Godhead. Just a final thought in where it says the Spirit of God moved over the deep or waters, the Hebrew which is translated as moved can also be translated as fluttered which gives a better idea of how the Holy Spirit moves and works just as Jesus tried to explain to the Sanhedrin guy who came to Him in the night.

[sumskilz]

The rabbinic influence on Islam is self evident while in realiry it is the Christian inspiration is lacking

1. Like Judaism, Islam is a religion in which performing the right actions, rather than having the right beliefs are important. The 5 pillars of Islam are all actions. This is in contrast to Christianity, where the right belief, no specific actions makes you a Christian. Fundamentally different outlook.

2. Many of the.rabbinc stories wound up in the Koran, like the story of Abraham coming out of a great fire, or how the Queen of Sheba lifted her skirt when she came to Solomon's throne, where the glass paving on the floor she thought was water.

3. Many of the Jewish practices, from not eating pigs to circumcision, came from Jewish, not Christian sources.

4. Early Christian sources talk about Muhammad working with the Jews during the conquest od Jerusalem. Muhammad was perceived to be a political leader (king) by these early Christian sources

5. The idea of a safer language. Just like the rabbinic Jews regarded Hebrew of the OT as a sacred language, so the Muslims regard the Arabic of the Koran and have long resisted to translate rhe Koran.

6. The opposition of using imagery

As you note, Christianity is more concerned with orthodoxy, whereas Judaism is more concerned with orthopraxy. I would argue that Islam is intermediate between the two. The five pillars are orthopraxic, but the Shahada, the sincere profession of which is what makes one a Muslim, is a profession of belief. There are many essential beliefs in Islam, deviation from which is largely seen as heresy, in Judaism there is arguably only one, and even that is subject to a wide range of abstract and mutually exclusive interpretations.

Practices such as circumcision, opposition to iconography, and the prohibition on eating pork aren’t necessarily evidence of Rabbinic influence since they are derived from texts venerated by both Christians and other Jewish movements. There were also Christians who followed Mosaic law. One common theme in early Islamic texts, is polemics against Jews and Christians for not following their own texts. Though not universally the case throughout history, Islam, and particularly early Islam, preferred more straightforward readings. An example is the story about Muhammad having two Jewish adulterers stoned to death in accordance with a straightforward reading of biblical law, despite the local Jewish community claiming this was not their custom. The closest Rabbinic parallels are those stories you mentioned, although those stories may well have had an independent life circulating as folktales in addition to ending up in the Talmud.

Something not touched on in your post, is the concepts in Islam of Heaven, Hell, Satan, and the nature of good and evil as a dichotomy, all of which appear to derive from Christian influence, as they are somewhat foreign to Rabbinic Judaism, especially the Rabbinic Judaism of the time. In contrast, the Muslim approach to law is quite similar to Rabbinic Judaism, though such an approach has its roots largely in pre-Christian, pre-Rabbinic Hellenistic Period Judah.

I think it’s safe to say, that a great deal of what differs in Islam from Christianity or Rabbinic Judaism, is a product of cultural filters, and the predilections and needs of the early Muslim leadership. Islam in the days of its expansion seems to have sold itself as a return to the true monotheism that Jews and Christians had each deviated from in different ways. That said, I’ll throw something else on the table. Check out the Wikipedia article on Ebionite Christianity. Whether one wants to characterize their religion as more Christian or more Jewish is of no interest to me, but with regard to potential influence on Islam, it’s notable that the latest evidence of their existence is communities in the Hejaz.