Sauron

No more violent than Moses, Aaron, or David were - to name only a few biblical characters shared by christians and jews.

Then you're simply wrong. The evidence indicates that Islam started out precisely that way: seeking legitimacy from both jews and christians as an acceptable third path.

More of your fantasy conspiracy story about the secret connection between Islam and Roman Catholicism? Are you wearing your tinfoil hat, Inspector?

"often slaughtered"? Wrong.

Nothing ignored by Muhammad here; sorry. Your point holds only if you consider the OT to be accurately transmitted. If a person doesn't assume that - as Muhammad did not - then your entire argument falls apart. Again.

Sorry; I don't see how the existence of Jews is an evidence for Christianity.

Well, not really. At this time in history, "Arabs" were a much more narrowly defined group of people in the Mideast than they are today. Basically, the people of the Hejaz. The Jews weren't spread very deeply into that area, vis-a-vis other areas.

Based upon your tinfoil hat argument, you mean.

Pure malicious speculation on your part. Unless you have some evi...oh, never mind.

Or perhaps there is a common Semitic social/cultural milieu that emphasizes these things, and is independent and predates the Jewish version. For example, even Palestinian Christians today avoid eating pork; not because they think it is wrong, but because the cultural bias is so against it, that it feels wrong to them. Culture gets written into religion, and rationalized by it.

Sorry; that was actual analysis I just wrote. I'm sure you wouldn't recognize it.

Godless Dave

Anyhoo...

Weren't the tribal animist beliefs of the Arab people related the the tribal animist beliefs of the Canaanites, that the Jews developed Judaism out of? It's not as if Mohammed chose a completely foreign religion to base Islam on.

Clouseau

That's no more a re-phrase than it's banana fritters. It is on topic, but it does not alter the fact that Muhammad blindly ignored Genesis. Inventing another version does not change that, and treating that version as equally valid merely reveals bias. I could write a Qur'an myself on a wet Tuesday afternoon, and a damn sight more skilfully than Muhammad, but despite that, everyone would recognise it as a pathetic attempt to re-write, unless intended as entertaining fiction. The extraordinary thing about Muhammad's novel is that people in the West actually take it seriously. What they are really doing is taking seriously a malicious little thug and a band of undirected, primitive desert tribes- no doubt because Muhammad had the sense to say that Jesus did not really die! Islam, the Romanism of the East. Farcical.

Salam

In Arabic?

Lucretius

Form this site which gives an interesting background to the creation of Islam from its animist beginings to the history and development to its' montheistic state
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/MUHAM.HTM

Clouseau

No. It is essential?

Salam

The Quran is regarded as the miracle that Muhammad brought for his people. Arabs were and still are very proud of their language, and poems used to be the most respected art. When Muhammad recited the Quran to his people, he was challenging them in their own poetry abilities.

[17:88] Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others.

[11:13] Or, do they say: He has forged it. Say: Then bring ten forged chapters like it and call upon whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful.

[10:38] Or do they say: He has forged it? Say: Then bring a chapter like this and invite whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful.

[2:23] And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.

How can you judge the skillfulness of the Quran if you didn't read it? There's no English Quran, it's just the English interpretation of the Quran.

And yes it is essential.

Clouseau

It was a rhetorical question. It is not essential to re-write the Bible, or anything else of general application, in Arabic, or in any particular language.

I'm not referring to 'poetic abilities', but theology, which translates into any language. (And some Arabic-speakers disagree about the poetic quality of the Qur'an.)

Salam

Well, you can still rewrite it in English, like any translator did.

Sauron

And again, you're incorrect. Muhammad did not ignore Genesis; he considered it corrupted and not accurate. But he did not ignore it; he considered it and rejected it.

Since your assertion that he ignored it is wrong, then your charge of invention is likewise wrong.

Insisting that genesis is correct merely reveals bias.

That's highly unlikely, since you can't even support your half-baked assertions in this forum.

Actually, the extraordinary thing in the West is that people like you insist that the OT and NT are some kind of 'baseline' against which all other religions should be measured, and - conveniently - found to be wanting.

Wait - are we talking about the story of Joshua, Moses and Aaron during the conquest of Canaan? Please pick a topic and stick with it for more than one sentence.

No, just another tinfoil crackpot idea from you. Come on, Inspector - when are you gonna support your oft-repeated claim that Islam and Roman Catholicism are in bed together?