DBT

I'm curious in regard to the reasons why Mohammad incorperated Judaism into his new religion? Wouldn't it have been more logical for him to have claimed to be a prophet on behalf of his own tribal gods?

Perhaps Mohammad adopted the tenants of more the more established religions, Judaism and Christianity - in order to gain a greater degree of authority and legitimacy as a 'prophet' of God?....blending the fundamentals of Judeo/Christianity with his own tribal religion in an attempt to appeal to Jews, Christians and his own people?

Can his motives be determined?

Perhaps someone here has online recources that address this issue?...Any help appreciated.

J-D

According to some accounts I have read, Muhammad originally hoped to win the support of significant Jewish tribes. This may have influenced his approach.

In any case, Judaism and Christianity were both well-established, with well-recognised books. It doesn't seem surprising to me that Muhammad would have wanted to define the relationship between his new book and those older books, and neither does the particular way he chose to define that relationship.

karlmarx

I'm reading "The Rise of Christianity" by sociologist Rodney Stark. Stark connects a) the ease with which a new religion spreads and b) the common features the new religion has with existing culture. In other words, if a new religion has much in common with existing culture, it has a greater likelihood to spread quickly. For instance, Mormonism was not a totally brand new religion, but based on Christianity. Christianity was not totally new either, but was based on Judaism, Platonism and mystery cults.

It's unlikely that Mohammed consciously set out to base his religion on Christian and Jewish foundations for these reasons. However, the fact that he did so probably gave his religion a greater chance for success. If he hadn't done so, it's possible that Islam may not have survived outside his immediate circle - and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Clouseau

No-one can determine Muhammad's motives, imv; we know that he was a violent man, and that is about all, in that connexion. But I think that your suspicions meet the facts that we have. I don't agree that Muhammad wanted to appeal to Jews and Christians- he wanted an Arabic version of the imperial copy of Christianity that had suffocated true Christianity out of Europe. Indeed, Islam was to wipe out Christianity where Catholicism could not reach, and this was probably Muhammad's particular intention, imv.

Muhammad's strategy seems to have been somewhat complex, and this resulted in an ambiguous attitude to Judaism- though not to Jews, who were often slaughtered. His new religion had to borrow the authority of Christianity and its Bible, and at the same time had to refute and supplant it. The first was achieved via an invented connexion to Abraham through Ishmael (blindly ignoring the fact that God's promise to Abraham was not fulfilled through Ishmael).

Now one of the most convincing evidences for Christianity was the very existence of the Jews (as it still is), and Arabs, being in close proximity to exiled Jews, were more aware of Judaism than Europeans. And if Europeans persecuted Jews as well as Christians, Arabs were surely going to do likewise.

But Muhammad had theological reasons for adhering to Judaistic practices, because, if mankind was not to be justified by simple faith, religious works must necessarily be incorporated into his religion. And what better than borrowing some of the 'works' of the old covenant, which still had recognition and kudos, an appearance of virtue? So fasting, a revised form of kosher, and abundant formal prayer were made integral, part and parcel of the new religion.

Solo

One thing to keep in mind is that when we talk about 7th century Arabia, we are not talking about modern consciousness of race, nationality and religion. In Mohammed's time the predominant native Arabic religion was polytheistic animism which was seen by the more worldly Arabs, among whom M. counted himself as backward. They considered the monotheism of the Jews (and the monophysite Christianity of the region) superior, and freely adapted the faiths to include themselves in it. So it should be hardly surprising that when Mohammed had his mental challenge, he chose to interpret the adventures of his seizing temporal lobe in terms of the Judaic prophetic experience rather than attacks of the jinns.

The idea of unifying Arabia under Allah was central to Mohammed's message. At the outset the prophet attempted to reach to the Jewish settlements in the area, but was rebuffed, as he struck the more intellectual Jewish milieu as too unsophisticated. Mohammed took offense (the murders of the poettess bint Marwan, and poet Al Ashraf, who mocked him and his entourage are witness to this) and became morbidly suspicious of all Jews. The massacre of the Banu Qurayza followed.

In contrast, the relations between Mohammed and the Christians in the area were relatively peaceble, that is the latter agreed to either accept Islam (some even considered M. an Xtian prophet) or pay the yizyah (e.g. Yuhannan b. Rubah). However, the mission to the Byzantines did not go to well and Mohammed ordered an 'expedition' (a crusade ? -> b'ath) against the Christians in Palestine shortly before his death.

Jiri

DBT

Thanks for the replies...very helpful.
The closest thing that I could find on the topic was this.

Quote;
"On the sources of the Qur'ân, J Christy Wilson writes in Introducing Islam:
Scholars hold that a number of [Qur'ânic stories] may be traced to Jewish Talmudic sources and apocryphal gospels rather than to the Old and New Testaments.[6]"


"Non-Moslem scholarship has taken a different view of the matter. It has nearly always held that the major influences on Mohammed must have been principally, but not exclusively, Jewish and Christian, and that those influences were coloured by Mohammed's own character and made over to conform to aspects and need of the pre-Islamic Arabian mind.[15]"

J-D

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. What facts are you talking about here? Of course God's promise to Abraham was not fulfilled through Ishmael, because God made no promise to Abraham, because there is no God. But it doesn't sound as if that's what you're talking about. If you're talking about the fact that God's promise to Abraham was not fulfilled through Ishmael according to the Jewish story, as accepted by Christians, I can't see why I, as an unbeliever, should regard one religion's version of the story as more factual than another's. As an unbeliever I assume that Muhammad made up his version of the story, but no more so than the original version was made up.

Casper

I think that was the whole context of the thread. Just sayin there cheif.

Clouseau

Democracy is such a wonderful thing.

But you are going to take no chances about anyone believing in God, are you.

No, as related in Genesis. :banghead:

I can't see why anyone should think you important. Muhammad is overrated quite enough without anyone else pontificating.

J-D

I have no idea what you think I'm talking about, but I'm sure it's not what I actually was talking about. You obviously didn't understand a thing I was saying. Which may be your fault or may be mine. Or both, of course.

I shall attempt to rephrase my point.

When Muhammad made up his version of the story, he did not 'blindly ignore' (your phrase) the facts about what the existing account said (why you think your phrase 'as related in Genesis' is radically different from my phrase 'according to the Jewish story, as accepted by Christians' I can't think, as to me they seem virtually synonymous). He would have known, whether or not at first-hand, the Genesis story: he did not 'blindly ignore' it, but chose to produce a different version and to claim that it was the true original and that the Genesis account was a distortion.

The facts are these:

the fact about Jewish and Christian belief is that it holds that the Genesis account is the original and the Quran's account a distortion;

the fact about Muslim belief is that it holds that the Quran's account is the original and the Genesis account is a distortion;

the historical fact is that although the Genesis account was compiled earlier than the Quran's account, this does not make it any more veridical (neither account is historically factual).