Is Islam a myth?

Historical fact – the materials are there. I'm not suggesting any 'conspiracy'

I don't know his motives. I wouldn't have thought he was cheating, or that he was drugged. Just telling it as he saw it.

Just what I've said. The stories attributed to Isa are not original, they're from apocryphal texts.

 

..so he was deluded? He thought that he was receiving revelations, but actually it was all from his subconscious mind?
Clearly, you think that Muhammad was able to read & write.
..which would be very surprising for somebody raised in the desert 1500 years ago.

Of course, it is actually possible that Muhammad wasn't guilty of plagiarism, and that the stories are true

Funny isn't it, how we can believe everything that is handed down from the Romans,
but not the Arabs?
..even though what the Arabs tell us is the truth, is practically the same as what the Jews believe.
Oh well, each to their own.

 

Well ... whether or not they were revelations is a matter of faith, isn't it.

Why would you think that? Could he not? A merchant and traveller, a man with interests in religious matters, and with a rich benefactor?

But either way, he could easily have heard these stories round the caravan campfires, or from the Christians he spoke to.

As regards the revelations:
"By the command “Read” descending on Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah (peace be upon him), the illiterate Prophet, the concept of reading was freed from the strictures of alphabet and syntax into the rich world of meaning and practice."
"Away from the narrow restrictions of concrete books, it flies gracefully across the open book of nature – reading the omnipresent Signs of God ..."
Read – the first commandment in Islam

This, from an Islamic source, makes sense to me.

Unlikely though, to be fair.

You can't dispute the veracity of the Gospels, and then assert the veracity of such narratives without suspending credibility.

Can we? I'm not sure we can?

Surely a source is a source is a source, and has to submit to the same methodology as any other.

Quite.

 

Do you think?
Wow .. Muhammad, peace be with him, was a brilliant author, theologian and lawyer in that case.
The Qur'an is not just "stories" .. it is "a work of art", and it's incredulous to consider it to be the work of one human being.

"such narratives"?

Exactly.
..and the only reason I can see that you dismiss it is because you don't like what it says.

We both believe in the Creator of the universe.
We both claim to be monotheists.
We both claim that there is a life after death.

..so what is all the fuss about? Ah, yes .. creed.
You insist you know that Jesus is of the same substance as God.
You insist that Jesus cancelled the Jewish law.
You insist that Jesus died for our sins.
..and so on.

Too much cherry-picking for my liking. What is the meaning of righteousness?
I know that Catholics aren't the greatest culprit, but such creeds lead to choosing your own morality.

 

Not just the revelations, but the whole cornucopia has to be taken on faith - God / Allah, creation, soul, heaven, hell, deliverance, judgment, being raised again, prophets, sons, messengers, saints, manifestations, imams, mahdis. Differ a little and God / Allah send you to Hades.

Ah, you forget and say something which you should not have said. Mohammad did not write it, he could not. Remember, he was illiterate. Allah sent the Ayat as and when required to suit the occasion over 22 years at an average of 23.6 Ayahs every month or 5.2 Surahs every year.

 

Ah, no … that things aren’t simple black and white

You insist you know that Christ is not

You insist that Christ did not *

You insist that Christ did not

… and on, and on

Too much cherry picking of NT scripture

Not required

What Christ lived and taught?

Nor Moslems possibly. But the point is you don't appear know Catholics

And our own faith

* Christ supercedes the old law of Moses, without cancelling it -- in the same way Einstein supercedes Newton. It's not a simple binary yes/no equation.

 

Really?

- wikipedia -

..so what is this "new covenant"?

- wikipedia -

- wikipedia -

Many Christians believe that that is all there is to it..
..and others..

- wikipedia -

Hmm .. apparently, Jesus didn't specifically teach about a "new covenant" .. which is why nobody seems to know
what it actually is.

 

I don't know enough to say. As the scholars say, there's a lot we don't know about the man.

As the apocryphal childhood narratives, or the various Gnostic crucifixion narratives.

Muhammed_isa, you've been doing that consistently! I find the logic dubious.
Islam can believe in the Incarnation, born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is clearly no ordinary man. It can believe in the Ascension. I fail to see why it cannot believe in the Resurrection.

I have the Gospel of He who is the Only-Begotten Son of God (to which I think Islam agrees), who lived, preached, died and ascended into Heaven (all of which Islam agrees). I don't need 'another' Gospel.

Yep. We all got 'em!

Quick correction here: No. You're falling into Garaffa's trap there.

Pots, kettles, etc.

 

There's something forgotten here, before I step out of the discussion again, for fear of getting sucked back into a whirlpool -- which is that Christ taught not merely by his words but by his life. Christ's life and death and resurrection are his great teaching. The veil of the temple was torn, and the new covenant superceded the old. According to the scriptures.

Of course there are different opinions about all the fine details. There are libraries of opinions and discussions, and including wikipedia, of course. It's not a simple binary yes/no issue. The spiritual symbols are there because a few words are not sufficient to explain spiritual mysteries. God creates synchronicity. IMO

I know you will not accept it, but am responding because others read and posts last for years

 

No, that's not true.
Naturally, what he is reported to have said has a bearing on how we should live our lives.
eg. love our neighbours, forgive others who have wronged us

..but his death and resurrection?
I don't understand .. should we follow his example and be crucified?

 

Care to explain?

 

If necessary

whole problem

 

Hmm .. we can all be martyrs .. but one needs to be very careful.
I wouldn't recommend surrendering to an evil tyrant just for the sake of it.

I suppose you think that Muhammad & his disciples should have let themselves be killed and
not emigrated to Medina?

Perhaps you'd also like to explain why Jesus ascended to heaven at that particular time and didn't continue with his mission of starting a new religion?
I would imagine that plots on his life would have continued. Look what happened to John the Baptist.

Oh wait .. there is no point asking you questions, because you don't think that they need to be answered rationally

 

Oh, I don't know 'bout that...I think the Jews would have a VERY different opinion of Jesus than either Christians or Muslims.

 

I had hoped we ALL (not just you, muhammad_isa) had reached a mutual end point, where all could shake hands and walk away.

I really don't want to get in the middle of the other discussions. But this here I must answer.

Are you sincere about a rational answer, by your own definition earlier? Honestly, genuinely, forthrightly?

I ask because the way you frame this question, apart from the obvious sarcasm, clearly demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the established timeline of what took place - by sacred scripture. Remember, you are the one that gets offended when sacred scripture is attacked or maligned, and so surely you would understand why I would feel precisely the same with these comments. If your questions are sincere, then the lack of understanding is forgivable, but if this is a sarcastic stab, you are stabbing at G-d.

If you are sincere, I will be happy to present my understanding, and it will differ in minor details from what Thomas would present, but the details aren't sufficient to condemn one to hell. Being disrespectful of the gift offered from G-d, that is another story.

 

I would have to agree with you on that.

 

I do not want to be sucked further into this conversation or its sister conversation a few sub-forums above. I am still not convinced that someone will not have to be the adult in the room. Perhaps @StevePame could be temporarily called up from out of retirement!

There is a basic truth that I do not recall seeing articulated in these threads or if articulated not as well as it ought to be. It has nothing to do with the threads themselves. It has everything to do with who we are. I keep hoping that somebody who is in the middle of this "sturm und drang" will express it.

I'll keep waiting.

 

State the obvious, why don't you..
I think you know fully well what I mean.

eg. the Oneness of G-d and the prohibition of pork and blood

 

I don't read minds from halfway around the world. I took you at what you wrote. If you didn't mean what you wrote, how is it you deride me? You said NOTHING about pork or blood, that comment was SPECIFICALLY about Jesus - per you!

And since you don't have the decency to even comment on your own blasphemy, and instead wish to divert onto me for your transgression without so much as a simple apology, I think we are through.

 

I've more or less answered it.
Jesus is the Messiah [Christ]. He will return at a time appointed.
Those that believe in him, regardless of their religion, will be rightly-guided.
Those that reject him will not.

..nothing new there..