Is Islam really the sams religion as Judaism ans Christianity?

[basics]

The short answer is no, it is not an Abrahamic religion by any standards.

[PointOfViewGun]

The Koran's account is really just a few verses, not a whole story like the Genesis account. Naturally it won't have as much detail as Genesis.

The Bible doesn't insinuate Eve is to blame, you are projecting your own views onto the passage.
While Adam tried to blame Eve (and God for creating Eve) and Eve blamed the serpent (and indirectly God for creating the serpent), God rejected both excuses and punished both Adam and Eve. Both Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden, not just Eve.
There is no hint that Eve tricked Adam into eating the fruit, or that Adam ate the fruit other than voluntaily. Note, unlike Eve, who specifically said she was deceived, Adam does not say Eve deceived him.

Everyone suffered the consequences of Adam's action. But the same is true in Islam. We no longer live in paradise in the Garden thanks to Adam according to Islam. Insead of living in a wonderful garden, everyone was live in places not as nice, everyone suffered due Adam even in Islam.

Unlike.Eve, Adam did not claim he was deceived, so he voluntarily ate the fruit, knowng what it was. Both Adam and Eve both knew thr commandment of God and both delibsrately broke it, making them both guilty, and both were expelled from the Garden. As the older being , Adam was the more responsible one, which is why Paul blamed Adam.

Adam, the first man, blames Eve. There is no indication in Genesis 3 that Adam ate the fruit knowing that it was the forbidden one. In fact, there is the opposite indication as Adam calls it "some fruit". The first thing he does when god shows up is to point a finger at Eve. God also tells Eve that his husband will rule over him as a punishment which makes her basically second class citizen.

Where in the Koran does it say angels have no free will? If angels are merely the manifestation of Allah's will, thsn they are not really separate beings, so why even have names? They aren't really beings.

Angels are described in multiple places as beings that do only what Allah commands them to do. Your point about names is moot as its pointless.

66:6 O you who have believed, protect yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is people and stones, over which are [appointed] angels, harsh and severe; they do not disobey Allah in what He commands them but do what they are commanded.

No, because the situation Christianity and Islam are not the same. All of the followers of Christianity including its founder were all Jews, and for a while it was regarded as a sect of Judaism. Muhammad and most of his early followers were neither Jews nor Christians, and the people of Arabia never regarded Muslims as Christians or Jews.

Christianity accepts all the Jewish scriptures (the Tanakh, i.e Old Testament), while Islam rejects most of the New Testament, including its core teaching about the death, ressurection, divinity of Jesus. This is not the same.

Paganism was only the dominant religion of Arabia, a small, poor, and backward corner of the wider middle east world. The mideast as a whe was dominated by Christianity and Judaism, and as the great trader Muhammad was, he would know this. Muhammad would have had to been very stupid to model his religion after the immediate local religion of mostly poo camel herders and occupants of small dusty towns instead of a widely successful religion of a mighty empire.

Those are just arbitrary distinctions. You can repeat them all you want. Christianity and Judaism differ as well just like Islam and those two differ. It's just a matter of how much different they are.

Sure, Muhammad was aware of other religions. That doesn't change the fact that he was still most subjected to paganism. He was born and lived in Mecca after all, which was a financial and pagan religious center for the region.

The short answer is no, it is not an Abrahamic religion by any standards.

Whose standards?

[Infidel144]

Adam, the first man, blames Eve. There is no indication in Genesis 3 that Adam ate the fruit knowing that it was the forbidden one. In fact, there is the opposite indication as Adam calls it "some fruit".

KJV has: "she gave me of the tree"
ESV: "she gave me fruit of the tree"
JPS Tanakh: "she gave me of the tree"
Young's Literal Translation: " she hath given to me of the tree"

In the version you chose (NIV) it says "some fruit".
Or rather Adam says "some fruit of the tree".
Did you realize that Adam said, in the version you chose, "of the tree"?
Or did you not know that?

[PointOfViewGun]

KJV has: "she gave me of the tree"
ESV: "she gave me fruit of the tree"
JPS Tanakh: "she gave me of the tree"
Young's Literal Translation: " she hath given to me of the tree"

In the version you chose (NIV) it says "some fruit".
Or rather Adam says "some fruit of the tree".
Did you realize that Adam said, in the version you chose, "of the tree"?
Or did you not know that?

Are you assuming Adam was referring to the tree that god pointed out or do you know somewhere that Adam indicated as such?

[Infidel144]

Are you assuming Adam was referring to the tree that god pointed out or do you know somewhere that Adam indicated as such?

I'm not making any assumptions.

Now, again:
Did you realize that Adam said, in the version you chose, "of the tree"?

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm not making any assumptions.

Now, again:
Did you realize that Adam said, in the version you chose, "of the tree"?

Can you show me where in Genesis 3 Adam is specifically referring to the three god forbidden?

[Axalon]

More of the same...

The short (and probably correct) answer to the question is... No, they are not the same... Hence the established distinction of "Judaism", "Christianity" and "Islam" as separate movements. As if that very circumstance were not obvious, self-explanatory and clear enough to kill any whatsoever doubts on the matter, in the first place....

- A

[Infidel144]

Now notice here that Setekh is not answering my question.
He is not doing so, because, much like the serpent, or Satan/Iblis (the angel who refused Allah's command to bow), in the garden/paradise he is intent on being deceitful.
I rather doubt that anyone participating is stupid enough to buy into his nonsense.

[Calypze]

First off, Adam, Noah, and Moses were not historical persons. Referring to what religion they might have had makes little sense. It is however not the case that people who lived around when Moses is supposed to have lived (about 1200 BCE) believed anything like the tenets of modern Judaism. Judaism as a religion was really only formalized after the Babylonian captivity, and it then had lots of Zoroastrian influences.

And Islam is clearly not the same religion as Judaism or Christianity, just as Judaism or Christianity are considered to be separate religions. Islam is considered a distinct religious tradition, and I think it makes perfect sense for it to be so. It is however the case that Islam had a lot of Jewish and Christian influences.

[Common Soldier]

Adam, the first man, blames Eve. There is no indication in Genesis 3 that Adam ate the fruit knowing that it was the forbidden one. In fact, there is the opposite indication as Adam calls it "some fruit". The first thing he does when god shows up is to point a finger at Eve. God also tells Eve that his husband will rule over him as a punishment which makes her basically second class citizen.

The fact that Adam does not claim that Eve deceived him is proof that Adam.was not deceived. Had he been tricked, he would have complained that he had been deceived, just as Eve complained she had been deceived. And stop lying, Adam does not call it "some" fruit, in fact Adam specifcally said in Gensis 3:12 "she gave me from the tree and I ate" showing that Adam knew the fruit came from the tree. Adam was replying to God's question as to whether Adam ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, so there is no question of which tree Adam meant in his reply. Adding the word "some" that isn't in the text is a deliberately dishonest attempt to change the meaning, which discredits what you say.

Angels are described in multiple places as beings that do only what Allah commands them to do. Your point about names is moot as its pointless.

You are not answering what I asked. Simply becase do only what Allah commands does not mean that they couldn't, only that they chose to only do what Allah commands. They could disobey but chose not to.

PS - In Surah 2:34, thd Koran says all the angels bowed down before Adam, except Satan (Eblis). Thr Koran is calling Eblis an angel in Surah 2:34, so either you were lying when younsaid Eblis was not an angel or you are ignorant of the Koran. Which is it?

Those are just arbitrary distinctions. You can repeat them all you want. Christianity and Judaism differ as well just like Islam and those two differ. It's just a matter of how much different they are.

They are reall and fundamental differences, not abritary as you claim.

Sure, Muhammad was aware of other religions. That doesn't change the fact that he was still most subjected to paganism. He was born and lived in Mecca after all, which was a financial and pagan religious center for the region.

The fact remains that his potential Christian and Jewish audience was far larger when you consider the wider world in which hich he lived. Muhammad did attempt to incorporate pagan elements, in the form of the Satan Verses, but pressure from his Jewish and Christian audiences forced him to remove them. Incorporating pagan elements into his new religion risked loaing the far larger number of potential Jewsh and.Christian converts. Note there were Christian and Jewish Arabs, and there was more gained by appealing to Christians and Jews.

Compared to the rich Christians cities of the Middle East, Mecca was nothing. Mecca could not fompare to.a city lime Damascus, Constantinople, Alexandria or other cities of the Christian Byzantine Empire. And we.all know Muhammad and his followers were interested riches, which is why an act act of robbery was the blow struck by Islam, not an act of self defense.

Whose standards?

By the standard of Jews and Christians, 2 religions to one. Also there are more Christians than Muslims. Anyway you cut it, Islam's is thr minority opinion.

[PointOfViewGun]

The fact that Adam does not claim he was that Eve deceived him is proof that Adam.was not deceived. Had he been tricked, he would have complained that he had been deceived, just as Eve complained she had been deceived. And stop lying, Adam does not call it "some" fruit, in fact Adam specifcally said in Gensis 3:12 "she gave me from the tree and I ate" showing that Adam knew the fruit came from the tree. Adam was replying to God's question as to whether Adam ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, so there is no question of which tree Adam meant in his reply. Adding the word "some" that isn't in the text is a deliberately dishonest attempt to change the meaning, which discredits what you say.

From Genesis 3:

The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

I didn't lie. You just don't know the verse in question. If Adam was not blaming Eve he wouldn't mention her giving him some fruit at all. He clearly tries to shift the blame away from himself. According to him, the women god put him with gave him some fruit. Trying to accuse me of lying when the word exists in one of the most popular Bible editions in the world is kinda what discredits someone's statements...

You are not answering what I asked. Simply becase do only what Allah commands does not mean that they couldn't, only that they chose to only do what Allah commands. They could disobey but chose not to.

PS - In Surah 2:34, thd Koran says all the angels bowed down before Adam, except Satan (Eblis). Thr Koran is calling Eblis an angel in Surah 2:34, so either you were lying when younsaid Eblis was not an angel or you are ignorant of the Koran. Which is it?

Quran, or specifically 2:34, doesn't call Satan an angel. Quran 18:50 is quite clear on this:

And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord. Then will you take him and his descendants as allies other than Me while they are enemies to you? Wretched it is for the wrongdoers as an exchange.

They are reall and fundamental differences, not abritary as you claim.

Being real doesn't make them not arbitrary. There are surely fundamental difference but none that is relevant to figure out if they're all referring to the same religious ideology. They all refer to the same god, and each new one covers the prophets of the former. Each one tries to encompass the previous ones through additions or corrections.

The fact remains that his potential Christian and Jewish audience was far larger when you consider the wider world in which hich he lived. Muhammad did attempt to incorporate pagan elements, in the form of the Satan Verses, but pressure from his Jewish and Christian audiences forced him to remove them. Incorporating pagan elements into his new religion risked loaing the far larger number of potential Jewsh and.Christian converts. Note there were Christian and Jewish Arabs, and there was more gained by appealing to Christians and Jews.

Compared to the rich Christians cities of the Middle East, Mecca was nothing. Mecca could not fompare to.a city lime Damascus, Constantinople, Alexandria or other cities of the Christian Byzantine Empire. And we.all know Muhammad and his followers were interested riches, which is why an act act of robbery was the blow struck by Islam, not an act of self defense.

His wider world included Africa, India, Persia, Central Asia, the Levant, Anatolia, and Eastern Europe. I know it's nice to think that Judea-Christian religions dominated back then because of Roman Empire, since we're more exposed to it, but that was not really the case. You need to realize that he didn't have internet back then.

By the standars of Jews and Christians, 2 religions to one. Also there are more Christians than Muslims. Anyway you cut it, Islam's is thr minority opinion.

Sigh... If all you got going for you is a pissing contest it doesn't exactly make up a really good argument...

[sumskilz]

Judaism... then had lots of Zoroastrian influences.

Maybe not so much really, but more so in at least some movements in the first century BCE than in subsequent Rabbinic Judaism. If it weren't for the non-canonical Jewish apocalyptic literature preserved in the Christian tradition and some texts from Qumran, no one would ever have made this argument. It's not present in the Tanakh, except for possibly in the Book of Daniel.

Quoting Alan F. Segal (2012):

Iran's influence on Israel remains a true mystery. When the Iranian religious documents were first published in the West, in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, a wave of interest began in all things Zoroastrian (from the Greek spelling, “Zoroaster,” of its principal figure Zarathushtra), not just because they were exotic and new expressions of wisdom, though that was certainly part of the attraction, but because Iranian imagery and especially its religious dualism seemed to mirror many things about Jewish and Christian thought in the first few centuries of our era. After a period of extravagent claims and intense polemical scrutiny, most of it hostile, the scholarly world has admitted almost nothing from Zoroastrianism as an influence on native Jewish tradition.3

But the counterreaction seems almost as mistaken as the prior enthusiasm.4 In its two hundred-year rule of Israel and subsequent five centuries-long influence in the Middle East, Iran and Zoroastrianism had many chances to influence Jewish thought. The problem is that there is no easy way to date Zoroastrian texts, leaving us no clear, unmistakable settings for cultural borrowing. […]

It is difficult to conclude more than this from the fragmentary evidence about Zoroastrian beginnings. There are no clear lines of causation between Zoroastrian dualism and the dualisms that grew up in Israel. On the other hand, several images taken from Zoroastrianism can be seen to influence Hebrew society. In Zoroastrianism, a notion of an apocalyptic end, the frasho kereti, was strongly articulated. Perhaps it is a specialized form of the Hindu concept of the many cosmic eras, the Yugas. But whatever the source, Zoroastrians believe that the world will come to an end and be reconstituted in a Frasho Kereti. This has certain affinities with the notion of apocalypse in Hellenistic Jewish thought as well as the ekpyrosis (cosmic conflagration) in Stoicism. In Israel there was already a notion that the Day of the LORD, originally just a national holiday, would not be joyful yet full of woe for the wicked. God was going to visit vengeance not joy on his sinful people.

Later apocalypses were influenced by Manichaeanism in its medieval period. Fairly quickly though, the influences can be seen going both ways: Were the crucial Christian and apocalyptic Jewish materials influenced by Zoroastrianism, or perhaps even the opposite, since we cannot date many Zoroastrian texts very well?17 The Christian imagery in the depiction of Satan certainly derives partly from the various portraits of Angra Mainyu. But the Christian Satan develops independently and very formidably on his own, perhaps giving back to Zoroastrianism a well-developed demonology and an apocalyptic chronology. And, of course, the depiction of individuals judged each for his or her own sin seems clearly in line with parallel movements in Zoroastrianism and the Hebrew movement towards otherworldly judgment, which we see in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Second Isaiah, as well as the later prophets. So is it possible to say that one influenced the other exclusively? Probably not. On the other hand, if there has to be a standard-bearer for this kind of dualism, I would expect that Zoroastrianism would fit the bill best, even if we cannot demonstrate crucial stages in the dialogue. […]

In this passage [Yasna 43] a superior person is prophesied for the end of time. He will be the saoshyant (savior) of later Zoroastrian literature. It would be unreasonable to suppose that this figure is the basis for the Jewish messiah. “Messiah” is a Judean term used throughout the First Temple period. But nowhere in First Temple Hebrew Scripture does “messiah” refer to a future king, only the present one. A future king is addressed as “branch” or “scion of David.” It is remarkable how infrequently the term is used even in intertestamental Judaism before the first century CE, and immediately after a short second Persian stint as rulers of Jerusalem. The expectation of a messiah in Judaism is understandable on its own terms as part of native Jewish religion. On the other hand, some of the cosmic imagery that is sometimes attached to the reign of the Messiah in the Greco-Roman period, especially his supernatural qualities, may well have been borrowed from Persia where they originally applied to the saoshyant.

The same source may explain the accelerated interest in an apocalyptic end in Israel. There was a “day of the LORD” in Israelite thought but it develops quickly into apocalypticism under the influence of Persian thought. In Persia, it underwent some development as well. In Yasna 43, that day is merely a hinted “turning point.” It receives further development in Yasna 44:15-16 which alludes to the ultimate confrontation between Truth and Lie. Ahura Mazda is implored to “bring his impetuous weapon upon the deceitful and bring ill and harm over them.” Two great opposing armies confront each other. Which side will be victorious? Obviously, tradition answers that it is the good, the light, and the moral.

Almost identical imagery can be seen in the War Scroll from Qumran. But as I noted earlier, Rabbinic Judaism doesn't really have a concept of evil, nor can one arrive at it from a plain reading of the Tanakh in its original language. Which is strange in the former case, since you would expect more Zoroastrian influence on texts compiled in Sassanian Babylon than on various movements in Hellenistic Judah.

[Common Soldier]

From Genesis 3:

You said "some fruit" but your own source said "some fruit of the tree", meaning from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Just saying "some fruit" is not saying the same thing. Just saying "some fruit" meant it could be from any old tree. What Adam said was the fruit came from the Tree of Knowledge, which isn't what you said or implied. Yes, you were being deceitful. Next time quote the full phrase if not doing so changes the meaning.

I didn't lie. You just don't know the verse in question. If Adam was not blaming Eve he wouldn't mention her giving him some fruit at all. He clearly tries to shift the blame away from himself. According to him, the women god put him with gave him some fruit. Trying to accuse me of lying when the word exists in one of the most popular Bible editions in the world is kinda what discredits someone's statements...

Yes, you did. It is a lie when you only quote part of a verse and change its meaning in the process. Thr full verse, which you did not quote, makes it clear Adam was aware the fruit he ate came from the Tree of Knowledge.

Quran, or specifically 2:34, doesn't call Satan an angel. Quran 18:50 is quite clear on this:

Sura 2:34 makes it specifically clear Satan is an angel. If Satan was not an angel, then the true statement would be "all the angels fell down before Adam", period, no exception. But that is not what Sura 2:34 said, it said "except Eblis (Satan)" which cwn only mean Eblis was an angel. Verse 34 says nothing about Jinns.

We only have several options:

1. The Koran comtradicts itself and you withheld rhat information, making you dishonest, or you are so ignorant of the Koran you didn:t know about the verse, making you unqualified to talk about thr Koran.

2. Or to the Koran Jinn and Angels are the same thing, making what you said wrong.

If one says 2 + 2, that is the same as saying 4. Sura 2:34 is saying Eblis is an angel.

Being real doesn't make them not arbitrary. There are surely fundamental difference but none that is relevant to figure out if they're all referring to the same religious ideology. They all refer to the same god, and each new one covers the prophets of the former. Each one tries to encompass the previous ones through additions or corrections.

What you say is not accurate. Islam is not correcting Judaism when it falsely claims the Jews claim Ezra was the Son of God, and Islam was not correcting Christianity when it falsely said Mary mother of Jesus was the sister of Aaron. Islam is not even attempting to encompass previous core Christian teachings such as the death of Jesus , about which what Muslims say is contradicted by everybody else, Jews, Christians, and even gentiles all agree Jesus was crucified and died in total disagreement with what Islam teaches. Given that the Koran is full of major errors like "Jews say Ezra is the Son of God", claims of Islam."correcting" the other religions are not creditable. Merely borrowing a character or 2 from a existing religion doesn't mean it encompasses the existing religion

His wider world included Africa, India, Persia, Central Asia, the Levant, Anatolia, and Eastern Europe. I know it's nice to think that Judea-Christian religions dominated back then because of Roman Empire, since we're more exposed to it, but that was not really the case. You need to realize that he didn't have internet back then.

While Muhammad's world did include the Byzantine the Byzantine empire, there was evidence Muhammad knew anything about Central Asia, or Eastern Europe or India. While th Koran talks about the "Romans" (Byzantines) he makes no mention of the people of India or Eastern Europe or Central Adia that I am aware of. Please point out where in thr Koran he discusses them.

And the Byzantine empire was still one largest empire in the world at the time of Muhammad. The Gupta empire in India had fallen, the Byzantines had beaten thr Persian, Central Asia at the time had no large empire. Constantinople.was still the largest city in the region, larger rhsn any other city in Africa, Persia, Eastern Europe.

Note the Levant, Anatolia, North Africa, and parts of Eastern Europe.were part of the Byzantine Empire at the time of Muhammad.


In Muhammad's wider world you mention, the Byzantine Empire was the largest and most dominant, and Christianity was the largest religion. Naturally Muhammad would model his religion after it.

[Common Soldier]

[QUOTE=PointOfViewGun;15898807]From Genesis 3:

If Adam was not blaming Eve he wouldn't mention her giving him some fruit at all. He clearly tries to shift the blame away from himself.

Yes, Adam tried to shift blame. His attempt to shift blame would have been more powerful if he could havs said Eve deceived and he didn't know the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, but he didn't it because it wasn't true. Adam's attempt to shift blame failed, as did Eve's. Both were guilty of disobeying God, and both were expelled. Both Adam and Eve were ultimately blaming God, since after all God created both the woman and the serpent.

According to him, the women god put him with gave him some fruit.

No, according to Adam the woman gave him some fruit from the tree (of knowledge). "Some fruit" means fruit from any old random tree. "Some fruit from the tree" means fruit from a specific tree, a quite different meaning.. Perhaps you didn't mean to be misleading but you were.

Quran, or specifically 2:34, doesn't call Satan an angel. Quran 18:50 is quite clear on this:

Actually, 18:50 makes it clear that Satan was an angel, since only angels were directed to bow down to Adam, no mention of jinn being directed to. If jinn were not angels, then Satan could not have been criticized for not bowing down before Adam, since he, as a jinn, was not directed.to. But Allah does criticize Satan for not down, meaning Satan is an angel.

A jinn, therefore, must be a type of angel. This makes 18:50 with numerous other passages making Satan an angel, such as Sura 15:28-31 and 7:1-12. A number of Muslim scholars agree that jinn are angels, including al-Tabari.

Of course, this means your statement that angels can not disobey Allah is fasle, and you were wrong. Or the Koran is.


Fially, if I were to create my own religion, and stole from the Koran, and made Muhammad one of my prophets, but no more special than any other of my prophets, that would not make my new religion a continuation of Islam. If my new religion demanded the eating of pork, and a pilgrimage to my hometown of New York, that would not make my religion a continuation, addition or correction of Islam, even if I incorporated Muhammad in my new religion.

1. The Koran is not the same as the Bible and is contradicted by the Bible in a number of major areas.

2. Islam does not incorporate any of the Chrisrian apostles, and the only 2 persons from the New Testament are Mary and Jesus. Islam does not encompass any of the Apostles, so Islam cannot be said to encompass Christianity, it just borrows a few elements from it and rejects most of the rest. The specific teachings of Jesus are not included, nor is his death and resurrection, which is the core of Christianity.

3. The major errors te Koran makes, such as asserting that Christians worshipped Mary as a god along side of Allah surah 5:116-118 and that Jews claim "Ezra (Uzair) is the Son of God" surah 9:30, or confuses Mary, mother of Jesus with Mirriam sister of Aaron and Moses, really isn't in the position of saying it is correcting previous revelations.


4. The Koran acknowledges repeatedly that Muhammad was accused of repeating old fables and tales surahs 8:31, 16:24, 46:17, 68:15, 25:4-6. The Koran doesn't refute any of charges with any real facts or arguments. Note, we can find the stories in Koran in earlier sources written before the Koran, supporting the charges made against Muhammad. Just borrowing stories from another religion doesn't make that religion of the religion it is plagarizing.

[MaximiIian]

It's patently absurd to claim it's the same religion. But it is rooted in Judaism and Christianity, and generally claims to worship the same god as the other two.
But religion is much more than just what deity or deities you do or don't worship. Or work with. Or believe in.

Religion is the confluence of ritual practice, worldview, and community. Frankly, it's historically been emphatically about ritual, about what you do rather thank what you think. Even in religions that do emphasize belief, things-done is still of critical importance, because common action binds the community together in a tangible, material way.

[Sir Adrian]

If you read the Koran it's pretty obvious that Islam started out as a Nestorian sect and just spiraled from there.

[SNTMATTER123]

I think its more appropriate to look at religion as a memetic virus than as a set of conceptual theological points. You can be a muslim and hold views another muslim would find utterly and fundamentally contradictory to his understanding of islam, including some plain reading of text. the same is true of christianity, etc. the only point of interest to me is how these systems of thought propagate action, not so much the 'reality' of what Islam says or how it differs in minute detail from another faith, who's theology is equally meaningless outside of its real world impact. No one cares, and no one should care, about the triune God and how that philosophically differs from Islam, if they are talking about the same thing, etc. The only thing that matters is what Islam did, not what Islam 'thought'.

In that respect: Islam is just repackaged arabic imperialism, and Arabic culture differs little in substance from the old middle eastern--assyrian, babylonian-- ultra brutality, tribalism, and worship of power. Thats what Islam is. a packaged tool to be used by barbarous conquerors, to spread their filthy violent culture thats been a plight on mankind since it spawned in sumeria thousands of years ago. middle eastern culture has a strong continuity since ancient times, but in terms of its potential utility for mankind, it has none. its an evolutionary dead end that can only offer peace through rape and violence, homogeneity through murder. In that respect i suppose, its not particularly different from china.

To the extent to which islam or any middle eastern faith differs from this, is the extent to which it merged with a better native culture. Christianity is as decent as it is today because it merged with European culture and civilization, which tempered, somewhat, the pernicious influences of the middle east.

[Prodromos]

Christianity is as decent as it is today because it merged with European culture and civilization, which tempered, somewhat, the pernicious influences of the middle east.

I'm fairly sure it was the other way around.

[basics]

The promise from God was given to Sarah for her son, not Hagar's, to be the ancestor of Messias in direct line. Therefore Jesus Christ in His manhood was the fulfillment of that promise. So, Isaac was the type and shadow of Christ seen by his father's attempt, Abraham that is, at sacrificing him intervened by God at the very moment of striking. Ishmael because of his bullying of Isaac was put out of the camp with his mother and so any Divine acceptance was lost. Strangely it is on Ishmael that Islam is built and so it cannot be put in the same class as being Abrahamic.

I have asked this many times about Islamic belief in that it accepts Jesus to be a prophet of God yet denies His very words and claims. A prophet from God cannot lie since he is relaying God's own words to a people but not so Jesus. Even stranger is it's belief that Jesus is the One coming back to judge the world, not Mohammed or Allah or anyone else. Since only God is the Judge does that not make Jesus Christ Who He claimed to be all along? Of course it does and many Muslims are now coming round to seeing that and being converted. The only blood Jesus Christ ever shed was His own, can Mohammed say the same?

[PointOfViewGun]

I have asked this many times about Islamic belief in that it accepts Jesus to be a prophet of God yet denies His very words and claims. A prophet from God cannot lie since he is relaying God's own words to a people but not so Jesus. Even stranger is it's belief that Jesus is the One coming back to judge the world, not Mohammed or Allah or anyone else. Since only God is the Judge does that not make Jesus Christ Who He claimed to be all along? Of course it does and many Muslims are now coming round to seeing that and being converted. The only blood Jesus Christ ever shed was His own, can Mohammed say the same?

Just because content of Quran differs from Bible in relation to the nature of Jesus doesn't really Quran implies Jesus lies. There is no logic to that article. Care to show us where in the Quran does it say that Jesus will be the one to judge us all?