Before Islam

[Qurratul Ayn]

Peace

"THE MESSAGE OF FALSE RELIGION


There are so many sects, cults, religions, philosophies, and movements in the world, all of which claim to be the right way or the only true path to Allah. How can one determine which one is correct or if, in fact, all are correct? The method by which the answer can be found is to clear away the superficial differences in the teachings of the various claimants to the ultimate truth, and identify the central object of worship to which they call, directly or indirectly. False religions all have in common one basic concept with regards to Allah. They either claim that all men are gods or that specific men were Allah or that nature is Allah or that Allah is a figment of man's imagination.
Thus, it may be stated that the basic message of false religion is that Allah may be worshipped in the form of His creation. False religion invites man to the worship of creation by calling the creation or some aspect of it God. For example, prophet Jesus invited his followers to worship Allah but those who claim to be his followers today call people to worship Jesus, claiming that he was Allah!
Buddha was a reformer who introduced a number of humanistic principles to the religion of India. He did not claim to be God nor did he suggest to his followers that he be an object of worship. Yet, today most Buddhists who are to be found outside of India have taken him to be God and prostrate to idols made in their perception of his likeness.
By using the principle of identifying the object of worship, false religion becomes very obvious and the contrived nature of their origin clear. As God said in the Our'aan:
That which you worship besides Him are only names you and your forefathers have invented for which Allah has sent down no authority: The command belongs only to Allah:

He has commanded that you only worship Him; that is the right religion, but most men do not understand ". (Soorah Yoosuf 12:40)​

It may be argued that all religions teach good things so why should it matter which one we follow. The reply is that all false religions teach the greatest evil, the worship of creation. Creation-worship is the greatest sin that man can commit because it contradicts the very purpose of his creation. Man was created to worship Allah alone as Allah has explicitly stated in the Our'aan:

"I have only created Jlnns and men, that they may worship me"(Soorah Zaareeyaat 51:56)​

Consequently, the worship of creation, which is the essence of idolatry, is the only unforgivable sin. One who dies in this state of idolatry has sealed his fate in the next life. This is not an opinion, but a revealed fact stated by Allah in his final revelation to man:

"Verily Allah will not forgive the joining of partners with Him, but He may forgive (sins) less than that for whom so ever He wishes"(Soorah An- Nisaa 4:48 and 116)"

Source: http://www.islamworld.net

Peace to all
​

 

[Qurratul Ayn]

Peace

"THE UNIVERSALITY OF ISLAM


Since the consequences of false religion are so grave, the true religion of Allah must be universally understandable and attainable, not confined to any people, place or time. There can not be conditions like baptism, belief in a man, as a saviour etc., for a believer to enter paradise. Within the central principle of Islam and in its definition, (the surrender of one's will to God) lies the roots of lslam's universality. Whenever man comes to the realization that Allah is one and distinct from His creation, and submits himself to Allah, he becomes a Muslim in body and spirit and is eligible for paradise. Thus, anyone at anytime in the most remote region of the world can become a Muslim, a follower of God's religion, Islam, by merely rejecting the worship of creation and by turning to Allah (God) alone-It should be noted however, that the recognition of and submission to Allah requires that one chooses between right and wrong and such a choice implies accountability. Man will be held responsible for his choices, and, as such, he should try his utmost to do good and avoid evil. The ultimate good being the worship of Allah alone and the ultimate evil being the worship of His creation along with or instead of Allah. This fact is expressed in the final revelation as follows:

"Verily those who believe, those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures), the Christians and the Sabians any who believe In Allah and the last day, and work righteousness *hall have their reward with their Lord;They will not be overcome by fear nor grief (Soorah Al-Baqarah 2:62).​

If only they had stood by the law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There Is from among them a party on the right course; but many of them follow a course that Is evil.". (Soorah Al-.Maa'idah 5:66)​

Source: http://www.islamworld.net


Peace to all

 

[Qurratul Ayn]

Peace

"RECOGNITION OF ALLAH


The question which arises here is, "How can all people be expected to believe in Allah given their varying- backgrounds, societies and cultures? For people to be responsible for worshipping Allah they all have to have access to knowledge of Allah. The final revelation teaches that all mankind have the recognition of Allah imprinted on their souls, a part of their very nature with which they are created.
In Soorah Al-A'raaf, Verses 172-173; Allah explained that when He created Adam, He caused all of Adam's descendants to come into existence and took a pledge from them saying, Am I not your Lord? To which they all replied, " Yes, we testify to It:'
Allah then explained why He had all of mankind bear witness that He is their creator and only true God worthy of worship. He said, "That was In case you (mankind) should say on the day of Resurrection, "Verily we were unaware of all this." That is to say, we had no idea that You Allah, were our God. No one told us that we were only supposed to worship You alone. Allah went on to explain That it was also In case you should say, "Certainly It was our ancestors who made partners (With Allah) and we are only their descendants; will You then destroy us for what those liars did?" Thus, every child is born with a natural belief in Allah and an inborn inclination to worship Him alone called in Arabic the "Fitrah".




If the child were left alone, he would worship Allah in his own way, but all children are affected by those things around them, seen or unseen.

The Prophet (PBUH) reported that Allah said, "I created my servants in the right religion but devils made them go astray". The Prophet (PBUH) also said, "Each child is born in a state of "Fitrah", then his parents make him a Jew, Christian or a Zoroastrian, the way an animal gives birth to a normal offspring. Have you noticed any that were born mutilated?" (Collected by Al-Bukhaaree and Muslim).​

So, just as the child submits to the physical laws which Allah has put in nature, his soul also submits naturally to the fact that Allah is his Lord and Creator. But, his parents try to make him follow their own way and the child is not strong enough in the early stages of his life to resist or oppose the will of his parents. The religion which the child follows at this stage is one of custom and upbringing and Allah does not hold him to account or punish him for this religion.

Throughout people's lives from childhood until the time they die, signs are shown to them in all regions of the earth and in their own souls, until it becomes clear that there is only one true God (Allah). If the people are honest with themselves, reject their false gods and seek Allah, the way will be made easy for them but if they continually reject Allah's signs and continue to worship creation, the more difficult it will be for them to escape.

For example, in the South Eastern region of the Amazon jungle in Brazil, South America, a primitive tribe erected a new hut to house their main idol Skwatch, representing the supreme God of all creation. The homage to the God, and while he was in prostration to what he had been taught was his Creator and Sustainer, a mangy old flea-ridden dog walked into the hut, The young man looked up in time to see the dog lift its hind leg and pass urine on the idol. Outraged, the youth chased the dog out of the temple, but when his rage died down he realized that the idol could not be the Lordof the universe. Allah must be elsewhere. he now had a choice to act on his knowledge and seek Allah, or to dishonestly go along with the false beliefs of his tribe. As strange as it may seem, that was a sign from Allah for that young man. It contained within it divine guidance that what he was worshipping was false.

Prophets were sent, as was earlier mentioned, to every nation and tribe to support man's natural belief in Allah and man's inborn inclination to worship Him as well as to reinforce the divine truth in the daily signs revealed by Allah. Although, in most cases, much of the prophets' teachings became distorted, portions remained which point out right and wrong. For example, the ten commandments of the Torah, their confirmation in the Gospels and the existence of laws against murder, stealing and adultery in most societies. Consequently, every soul will be held to account for its belief in Allah and its acceptance of the religion of Islam; the total submission to the will of Allah."

Source: http://www.islamworld.net

Peace to all

P.S. I thought it would be much easier to read when in different posts

 

[Grace Seeker]

Peace

OK, OK.

Now I know and I will try to contact the people who created the website and will let them know their mistake as if you read the article, i retrieved from a website.

Peace to all

Well, I have read your article, and now you've finished cutting and pasting the whole of it into this thread for all others to read as well.

I still suggest that the writers of that article understand only the Islamic description of Jesus and his message and that is to not really understand Jesus, his work and ministry, nor Christianity at all.

I refer you to the post of another, well articulated, Muslim on this very site who agrees with you theologically, but actually does get what the difference is between the Islamic and Christian understanding of these issues:post #52 by MustafaMc in "Basics in Christianity" thread.

 

[Qingu]

Grace Seeker, how can you be confident that Abraham and Moses actually worshipped the Hebrew God Yahweh? There are no records of their statements or beliefs. The Hebrew Bible was only written down between 1000 and 400 B.C.

Many religions make the claim that the heroes and prophets of previous faiths actually belong to their faith. It's called "syncretism." Judaism did this by incorporating Babylonian myths into its own theology. Christianity did this when Paul claimed that Abraham was saved through Christian theology which obviously did not exist at the time Abraham lived. Islam does this by claiming all Jewish and Christian prophets were, in fact, Muslims. So, too, did various Gnostic sects of Christians.

For that matter, most modern cults do this too. Mormons claim that previous Christian prophets were actually aware of Mormonism and that their real message has been distorted. Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese death cult, also claims that all religious prophets from Moses to Buddha to Muhammad were actually followers of Aum Shinrikyo and their leader was the latest incarnation.

Really, any religion worth its salt is going to try to incorporate previous religions under its umbrella. You get more followers that way.

 

[aqsakhan]

jazakallah khair for such a vast knwledge

 

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker, how can you be confident that Abraham and Moses actually worshipped the Hebrew God Yahweh? There are no records of their statements or beliefs. The Hebrew Bible was only written down between 1000 and 400 B.C.

A better question, as long as your are practicing skepticism as one's religious point of view, might be how can anyone be confident that Abraham and Moses ever actually existed? Outside of the Bible there is scarce little evidence for them. Some archeaological finds stir up a degree of hope for some proof, but as yet nothing definitive has come to light. So, why not just assume that the whole story is a concoction by some later priests who created the whole thing out of their own collective imaginations? This is in essence your argument after all. And if one accepts the Graf-Wellhausen school of thought in its totality, then such a question seems most appropriate. However, there are those who have raised some valid questions with regard to parts of that school of thought which guided much of Old Testament scholarship for many years.

In the last 60 years, credible scholars such as W.F. Albright have broken with the tradition of Wellhausen and are insisting on the primacy of archaeology in the broad sense as a method of control before one jumps into documentary hypotheses. They have also insisted on the substantial historicity of the partriarchal tradition and the precedence of oral tradition over written literature. In particular, Albirght holds a modified JEPD theory, in which J and E were transmitted separately being written down not later than 750 BC and that Deuteronomy was written at the time of Josiah -- not as a pious fraud -- but as an attempt to recapture and express the Mosiac tradition, and finally that the Priestly Code is most certainly not pre-exilic.

On the other hand, R.K. Harrison goes even further suggesting that there is no reason to doubt that one person, in his mind Moses, could not have played a highly significant role in both receiving the revelation of divine nature and will to a young, nascent Israel and in the task of sifting and correlating earlier Semitic (and specifically Israelite) legalistic practices and behavioral practices. After all, from the very beginning, even by many of the most liberal holders to Wellhausen, Moses was credited with portions of the Pentateuch such as the judgment against Amalek (Exodus 17:14), the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:22-23:33, along with the Decalogue), the restoration of the Covenant (Exodus 34:10-27), and itinerary (Numbers 33:1ff), and large portions of Deuteronomy.

The concentration in one man of the ability to write historical narrative, to compose poetry, and to collate legal material is by no means as unique as earlier critical writers were wont to assume. As Kitchen has pointed out, an illustration of this kind of ability from ancient Egypt at a period some seven centuries prior to the time of Moses has been furnished in all probablity by Khety...a writer who lived in the time of the pharoah Amenemhat I (ca. 1991-1962 B.C.).

from Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 538 referring to the work of K.A. Kitchen, The New Bible Dictionary, p. 849

The uniform testimony of oriental literary practice demanded that matters that were considered important or were required to be recorded for posterity should be written or inscribed in permament form, and not left to the care of bards and campfire romancers.

In the view of the present writer, almost the entire body of the Pentateuchal material could have been easily extant in practically its present form by the late Joshua period.

The Pentateuch is a homogeneous composition in five volumes, and not an agglomeration of separate and perhaps only rather casually related works. It described, against an accredited historical background, the manner in which God revealed Himself to men and chose the Israelits for special service and witness in the world and in the course of human history. The role of Moses in the formulation of this literary corpus appears pre-eminent, and it is not without good reason that he should be accorded a place of high honor in the growth of the epic of Israelite nationhood, and be venerated by Jews and Christians alike as the great mediator of the ancient Law.

Harrison, p. 541​

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

False religions all have in common one basic concept with regards to Allah. They either claim that all men are gods or that specific men were Allah or that nature is Allah or that Allah is a figment of man's imagination.

Is the writer aware of Buddhism, which claims none of these things?

Peace

 

[Qingu]

A better question, as long as your are practicing skepticism as one's religious point of view, might be how can anyone be confident that Abraham and Moses ever actually existed?

How indeed. I'm not entirely confident myself—not anymore than I'm confident that Sargon of Akkad or Gilgamesh or Hercules or Rama existed (all religious/ancestral heroes with superpowers like Abraham and Moses, believed to literally exist by their constituent cults).

Outside of the Bible there is scarce little evidence for them. Some archeaological finds stir up a degree of hope for some proof, but as yet nothing definitive has come to light. So, why not just assume that the whole story is a concoction by some later priests who created the whole thing out of their own collective imaginations?

Occam's razor. That's not necessarily the simplest or most elegant explanation. Many cults are founded around a legendary ancestor, whom current cult members mythologize. One of the most recent examples is Stalinism, which deified Lenin as a godlike figure—despite the fact that few of Lenin's teachings had much to do with Stalinism. Or in other words, Stalinism co-opted the historical figure of Lenin, deified him, and used him for its own purposes.

Christians in America are seeking to do the same thing today with the founding fathers, claiming they were Christians and America is a "Christian nation" (despite the fact that many were deists who explicitly opposed clergy and the Bible).

So it's entirely possible that Abraham and Moses were real people who were later mythologized and twisted to fit into a later cult's ideology—this seems to happen all the time in history, even right before our eyes.

In the last 60 years, credible scholars such as W.F. Albright have broken with the tradition of Wellhausen....

Not sure what your point in bringing this up was. I agree that archaeology should have primacy over textual studies, though obvious they are highly dependent on each other.

On the other hand, R.K. Harrison goes even further suggesting that there is no reason to doubt that one person, in his mind Moses, could not have played a highly significant role in both receiving the revelation of divine nature and will to a young, nascent Israel and in the task of sifting and correlating earlier Semitic (and specifically Israelite) legalistic practices and behavioral practices.

Then R.K. Harrison is either ignorant or out of his mind. First of all, the suggestion we have no reason to doubt that a man 2,500 years ago heard divine instructions from a magical burning bush is absurd. We have just as much reason to doubt this story as we have for doubting that Arjuna's charioteer was the god Krishna or that Gilgamesh got into a fight with the goddess Ishtar.

Secondly, Moses' story is clearly based on a pre-existing mythological template. His birth story is identical to Sargon of Akkad's birth story: sent down a river in a reed basket and magically survived. Unless you seriously believe that both people were floated down a river in a reed basket and magically survived?

After all, from the very beginning, even by many of the most liberal holders to Wellhausen, Moses was credited with portions of the Pentateuch such as the judgment against Amalek (Exodus 17:14), the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:22-23:33, along with the Decalogue), the restoration of the Covenant (Exodus 34:10-27), and itinerary (Numbers 33:1ff), and large portions of Deuteronomy.

What? Most of these laws are again based on a pre-existing legal tradition, specifically the Code of Hammurabi. Much of the Exodus code is identical to Hammurabi's Code.

Moses wasn't the first one to claim his stone tablets were the written commands of divine powers. Why on earth do you find this claim more credible than Hammurabi's claim that the gods Anu and Ea-Enki gave him his laws?

My general point here, Grace, is that you're in no position (as a Christian) to attack Muslims for retroactively assigning their faith to historical figures. If you approached the question from a secular perspective, on the other hand....

 

[Grace Seeker]

Much of the Exodus code is identical to Hammurabi's Code.

Have you read them both? Hammurabi's Code is a wonder, even more so given the context of the historical situation in which it arose. But to say that much of the Exodus code is identical to Hammurabi's (which, despite some similarities I believe fall far short of the definition of "identical") is like saying that since the colors of two different countries flags are similar that one was therefore derived from the other. Might be true in some cases, but tell me did Britian get its colors from France or France from Britian?

Moses wasn't the first one to claim his stone tablets were the written commands of divine powers. Why on earth do you find this claim more credible than Hammurabi's claim that the gods Anu and Ea-Enki gave him his laws?

Well for one, I don't recognize that Anu and Ea-Enki ever actually existed, but I do the God of Moses. As one who believes in no divine being, I can see why you would doubt all equally.

My general point here, Grace, is that you're in no position (as a Christian) to attack Muslims for retroactively assigning their faith to historical figures. If you approached the question from a secular perspective, on the other hand....

I don't think I have attacked them. I don't even mind that they view all of their prophets before Muhammad as also being teachers of submission to God, which they call by the general name of Islam. But to say that they all taught this type of general Islam is not to make their teachings any more identical to Muhammad's Islam than your Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. But what I especially think is untenable is the Muslim idea that though we have records of what Moses and other historical figures did in fact teach that they wish to toss all of that record, and then put alternate words into Moses' mouth for which no record exists except in the "revelation" that came to Muhammad. Words which I don't find any evidence Moses would have ever said. And words, with respect to Jesus, which actually deny what I believe Jesus did in fact say and do.

 

[YusufNoor]

Have you read them both? Hammurabi's Code is a wonder, even more so given the context of the historical situation in which it arose. But to say that much of the Exodus code is identical to Hammurabi's (which, despite some similarities I believe fall far short of the definition of "identical") is like saying that since the colors of two different countries flags are similar that one was therefore derived from the other. Might be true in some cases, but tell me did Britian get its colors from France or France from Britian?


Well for one, I don't recognize that Anu and Ea-Enki ever actually existed, but I do the God of Moses. As one who believes in no divine being, I can see why you would doubt all equally.


I don't think I have attacked them. I don't even mind that they view all of their prophets before Muhammad as also being teachers of submission to God, which they call by the general name of Islam. But to say that they all taught this type of general Islam is not to make their teachings any more identical to Muhammad's Islam than your Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. But what I especially think is untenable is the Muslim idea that though we have records of what Moses and other historical figures did in fact teach that they wish to toss all of that record, and then put alternate words into Moses' mouth for which no record exists except in the "revelation" that came to Muhammad. Words which I don't find any evidence Moses would have ever said. And words, with respect to Jesus, which actually deny what I believe Jesus did in fact say and do.

Peace be upon those that follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

do yourself a favor and order this book:

http://www.artscroll.com/Books/rnki.html

i'm almost finished with it and i'm AMAZED at how much "Islam" is in the book! it WAS on sale a couple of days ago, but i missed posting it. i bet you're hesistant, but seriously, the folks at Mesorah Publishing have really nailed it with this one. i'll post something on it,Insha' Allah, but first i need to deal with your comments "in another post", and i've been working on a "Ezra" post for snakelegs.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Peace be upon those that follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

do yourself a favor and order this book:

http://www.artscroll.com/Books/rnki.html

i'm almost finished with it and i'm AMAZED at how much "Islam" is in the book! it WAS on sale a couple of days ago, but i missed posting it. i bet you're hesistant, but seriously, the folks at Mesorah Publishing have really nailed it with this one. i'll post something on it,Insha' Allah, but first i need to deal with your comments "in another post", and i've been working on a "Ezra" post for snakelegs.

It looks excellent. I think I like the one on Joshua/Judges more. More likely to be leading studies on those books than on Kings. Now the question is, do I really need another reference book at all? Have to think about that, but thanks for the information.

 

[YusufNoor]

It looks excellent. I think I like the one on Joshua/Judges more. More likely to be leading studies on those books than on Kings. Now the question is, do I really need another reference book at all? Have to think about that, but thanks for the information.

Grettings Gene,

haven' t read the Joshua/Judges or I&II Samuel since i became a Muslim; but after reading the Kings book, that may change soon. [they're doing Chanakah sales and a few days ago they were about 15 bucks each!] believe it or not, i appreciate them more now!

they have a Torah done the same style called the Stone Chumash, it's AWSOME!

you probably haven't read much by any of the scholars that they use, but they use ALOT! i find this style better that the 5 volume Torah i have that is all RASHI, although it's VERY interesting.

you will find viewpoints that you've not seen before, you WON'T agree with ALL of it [i sure don't], but i continue to be VERY IMPRESSED the the company. i have alot of their ARTSCROLL series as well, they are more in depth. you DO get alot of stuff from the Talmuds added as well. i LOVE the Midrash as most of it is new to me.

[thb, reading the Stone Chumash changed my life. for the first time i could really see how someone could spend every waking moment contemplating God's Word!]

 

[tigersabre]

I don't think I have attacked them. I don't even mind that they view all of their prophets before Muhammad as also being teachers of submission to God, which they call by the general name of Islam. But to say that they all taught this type of general Islam is not to make their teachings any more identical to Muhammad's Islam than your Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. But what I especially think is untenable is the Muslim idea that though we have records of what Moses and other historical figures did in fact teach that they wish to toss all of that record, and then put alternate words into Moses' mouth for which no record exists except in the "revelation" that came to Muhammad. Words which I don't find any evidence Moses would have ever said. And words, with respect to Jesus, which actually deny what I believe Jesus did in fact say and do.

Hey Grace Seeker,

In using the word "Islam", submission to God can mean submission to whatever law Allah legislates at any point in history. In some cases, certain laws were in effect that are no longer in effect, so in this sense, "Islam" has changed over time, from the time of Adam until Muhammad (peace be upon them both).

For example, we believe that Adam's children were allowed to marry and reproduce with one another as the situation dictated, but that is no longer the case. In other situations, we believe the law has remained fairly steady (forbidding interest or pork, requiring circumcision, legislating the stoning of the adulterer, and so forth).

What we do not believe has ever changed is the fundamental theology - that only Allah and Allah alone is to be worshipped, that no partners should be associated with Him (be it a golden calf, a Prophet, a saint [we have the same problem with some Muslims as do catholics with saint worship]), and the only purpose for which we were created was to fulfill that purpose.

It is completely understandable that as a Christian, you would not believe in our position because of the texts you are convinced by. Likewise, as a Muslim, it is completely understandable that we take the Qur'aan at its word and are more readily convinced by secular evidence which shows competing texts and theologies after the leaving of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) from this world.

 

[Qingu]

Have you read them both?

I have!

Hammurabi's Code is a wonder, even more so given the context of the historical situation in which it arose.

Why do you say that? I'm not much of a fan of Hammurabi's Code. Though I definitely like it more than the Bible's laws.

But to say that much of the Exodus code is identical to Hammurabi's (which, despite some similarities I believe fall far short of the definition of "identical")

Ah, I don't think I said it was all identical, I said much of the Exodus code is identical. Which is, I think, true. Obviously there's no parellel with the religious laws in Exodus, or the Levitical laws, or the Deuteronomical laws that command you to enslave people you go to war with and commit genocide against people in the holy land. But the civil code of Exodus is very similar to laws in the Code.

Well for one, I don't recognize that Anu and Ea-Enki ever actually existed,

What? Why on earth not?????????

I don't think I have attacked them.

Yeah, "attacked" was probably too strong on my part.

I don't even mind that they view all of their prophets before Muhammad as also being teachers of submission to God, which they call by the general name of Islam. But to say that they all taught this type of general Islam is not to make their teachings any more identical to Muhammad's Islam than your Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses.

I'll go futher than you and say the claim that any of these people practiced general Islamic style submission is nonsense. There is no evidence that they were even monotheists in the sense Muslims, Jews and Christians understand the word. Judaism didn't even become a monotheistic religion until much later than Moses—"you shall have no other gods before me," and the Bible contains references to other deities whom Yahweh defeats in battle (like Rahab in the psalms, and analogue of Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish.) Abraham's covenant with Yahweh doesn't even make sense in the context of monotheism. The covenant is essentially a sort of debt-consolidation for deities. The Hebrews agree to stop worshipping separate gods for rain, fertility, and war, and consolidate their worship to a single god, Yahweh. In exchange, Yahweh promises to take the Hebrews under his wing as his "chosen people." Again, it doesn't even make sense unless the ancient Hebrews actually recognized the existence of these other gods.

Monotheism, as we understand it today, is largely a product of Greek philosophy. Though earlier Amarna-style monotheism, with its worship of a single solar deity, may have influenced Moses. And we know that the followers of Yahweh did their best to erase all worship—and hence, the very existence—of these other gods through genocide (book of Joshua).

But what I especially think is untenable is the Muslim idea that though we have records of what Moses and other historical figures did in fact teach that they wish to toss all of that record, and then put alternate words into Moses' mouth for which no record exists except in the "revelation" that came to Muhammad. Words which I don't find any evidence Moses would have ever said. And words, with respect to Jesus, which actually deny what I believe Jesus did in fact say and do.

I disagree that we have records of what Moses and Abraham taught. We have legends at best, more probably we have myths.

I think the Jews did the same thing to Moses' teachings as the Muslims did 2000 years later. They just did it earlier and closer to when he actually existed.

Edit: and sorry if it seems like I'm harping on you (I noticed we're having 2 arguments in 2 threads!) It's just that ... well, it's hard to hold an intelligent debate on this forum, so I'll take it when I can get it!

 

[Grace Seeker]

Edit: and sorry if it seems like I'm harping on you (I noticed we're having 2 arguments in 2 threads!) It's just that ... well, it's hard to hold an intelligent debate on this forum, so I'll take it when I can get it!

Well, while you said some things with which I can't fully agree; you didn't say anything earth-shattering or glaringly off the wall either. So, I think I'll just thank you for the compliment, and let this thread rest a bit.

However....... as to Hammurabl (and I'm not looking any of this up, so if I mess up, just scratch these comments) I think that it was wonderful, because it is one of the first examples of rule by law rather than by force. Today it is something we too easily take for granted, but in its day it was truely a novel proposition.

However, the law of Moses went beyond the law of Hammurabi in adding ethics. For instance the biblical injunction that you could only take an eye for an eye and not a life for an eye was a vast improvement on the code of Hammurabi. Also, in making God the king, even the king comes under the rule of God and thus under the rule of law. When David committed adultery with Bathsheba, Nathan was able to stand up to the King because God was standing behind Nathan and the king knew he was guilty. I don't think you see these sort of ethics in the Code of Hammurabi.

 

[Qingu]

Well, while you said some things with which I can't fully agree; you didn't say anything earth-shattering or glaringly off the wall either. So, I think I'll just thank you for the compliment, and let this thread rest a bit.

However....... as to Hammurabl (and I'm not looking any of this up, so if I mess up, just scratch these comments) I think that it was wonderful, because it is one of the first examples of rule by law rather than by force. Today it is something we too easily take for granted, but in its day it was truely a novel proposition.

However, the law of Moses went beyond the law of Hammurabi in adding ethics. For instance the biblical injunction that you could only take an eye for an eye and not a life for an eye was a vast improvement on the code of Hammurabi. Also, in making God the king, even the king comes under the rule of God and thus under the rule of law. When David committed adultery with Bathsheba, Nathan was able to stand up to the King because God was standing behind Nathan and the king knew he was guilty. I don't think you see these sort of ethics in the Code of Hammurabi.

Good points. I'd also add that the Bible says that children should not be punished for the crimes of their parents. In the Code, if you kill someone's daughter through negligence, you'd have to give up your own daughter to be killed. (Ironically, the Biblical injunction doesn't seem to apply to Yahweh, who punishes all of humanity for the sin of our ancestor Adam!)

That said, I think the Bible is worse than the Code in many ways. For example, religious tolerance. It's not a crime to worship other gods in the Code, but in the Bible the punishment is death. Women are also afforded more rights in the Code. The Bible has that wonderful law where if you rape an unbetrothed virgin, the punishment is marraige to the rape victim (plus brideprice to her father). And the Bible is the only religious text I know of that actually commands you to commit genocide.

So while I'll agree that the Bible improves the civic code of Hammurabi, it's a moral step backwards as far as human rights go.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Good points. I'd also add that the Bible says that children should not be punished for the crimes of their parents. In the Code, if you kill someone's daughter through negligence, you'd have to give up your own daughter to be killed. (Ironically, the Biblical injunction doesn't seem to apply to Yahweh, who punishes all of humanity for the sin of our ancestor Adam!)

That said, I think the Bible is worse than the Code in many ways. For example, religious tolerance. It's not a crime to worship other gods in the Code, but in the Bible the punishment is death. Women are also afforded more rights in the Code. The Bible has that wonderful law where if you rape an unbetrothed virgin, the punishment is marraige to the rape victim (plus brideprice to her father). And the Bible is the only religious text I know of that actually commands you to commit genocide.

So while I'll agree that the Bible improves the civic code of Hammurabi, it's a moral step backwards as far as human rights go.

Well, I will sound like a heretic to some of my more conservative Christian brothers and orthodox Jewish friends, but a few of those points are ones that have long made me think that oft times what we have is a person writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but not perceiving that revelation so clearly. I think their understanding may have been clouded by personal experiences in their own culture that are then reflected in their writings regarding God.

Though, on the point of original sin, I have a take on it that isn't about punishment at all. You can read it on this other website Christian Forums, post #9 of thread, "Why did Jesus have to die?". I see it more as we suffer because of the long-term effects of poor choices that our ancestor Adam made with regard to obedience, just as our descendants are going to suffer because of poor choices that their ancestors (us) have made with regard to things like the environment. The things that one does in life can change the entire world in which one's descendants have to live.

 

[barney]

Before Mohammed brought monothism to the Arabs, they worshipped countless gods. Sun gods , the moon god, fertility gods, water gods, and a king god in a similar manner to Zeus.
The Idols of the gods were stored in the Kaaba, about 360 of them. Mohammed threw them out.