Koran teaches that the disciples of Christ were Muslims.

[Jude3b]

Six hundred years before Muhammad was born, Christ's disciples allegedly claim, "We believe; and bear thou witness that we are Muslims."

Now, the disciples of Christ were obviously Christians, so how can anyone believe the Koran?

[Timothy Leary]

Jude,

I recommend that you learn the definition of a "Muslim" before you criticize their holy book. What this is saying is "Muslim" in the sense of a person who submits themselves to the will of G-d.

[kiwimac]

The word Muslim means "One who submits themselves to God", in that sense the Disciples were indeed Muslims as are any who have subordinated themselves to God.

Kiwimac

[Jude3b]

The word Muslim means "One who submits themselves to God", in that sense the Disciples were indeed Muslims as are any who have subordinated themselves to God.

Kiwimac

"Islam" is the name for the religion that the Muslim prophet Muhammad claimed Allah revealed to him through the angel Gabriel. The name is derived from the infinitive of the Arabic verb "to submit" (i.e. to Allah's will). "MUSLIM" IS THE TERM FOR A FOLLOWER OF ISLAM and comes from the present participle of the same verb.

If Muslims were followers of God - they would be called "Christian" - but they are not following the God of the Bible - the One true God. They follow another god - who they call Allah and Allah has no son. The God of the Bible - has a son and His name is Jesus Christ. So Allah is not the One true God that we read about in the Bible.

"The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch" (They were not called Muslims!)

[BlackOpal12]

"Islam" is the name for the religion that the Muslim prophet Muhammad claimed Allah revealed to him through the angel Gabriel. The name is derived from the infinitive of the Arabic verb "to submit" (i.e. to Allah's will). "MUSLIM" IS THE TERM FOR A FOLLOWER OF ISLAM and comes from the present participle of the same verb.

Good, you got that far without a problem.


If Muslims were followers of God - they would be called "Christian" - but they are not following the God of the Bible - the One true God. They follow another god - who they call Allah and Allah has no son. The God of the Bible - has a son and His name is Jesus Christ. So Allah is not the One true God that we read about in the Bible.


And... anyone suprised? Anyone? Jude3b... your entire argument again breaks down into "My Holy Book versus Theirs." You can't win this one. You can't lose it either. Either choose a point that isn't so heavily contended that it becomes moot, or get off the board. The New Testament does not mean anything nearly as intensive for a Muslim as for a Christian - no real suprise here. For you, God without a Son is heresy. For them, God with 3 parts is heresy. Get it? If not, then get out of the Islam section - you don't have enough presence of mind to bother wasting any more time on.


"The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch" (They were not called Muslims!)

Actually, as pointed out before - if you translate the idea of Christianity, at its root (i.e., following the will of God, and, for Christian's, his son), into Arabic, you get Islam. You seemed to have a good grasp on this at first - where'd you get lost? I'm guessing around the "Someone believes something different about the divine than I do, so they're wrong" part.

You're wasting time here, Jude3b.

[BlackOpal12]

One last thought, arising from your obsession with your exact interpretation of the nature of god:

Jude3b, do you consider Judaism a religion following your god? Or are they also heathens, because they do not recognize all the parts of your god?

I'd be interested in seeing which of your arguments against Muslims do not apply also to Jews, specifically "following god" without Jesus as a form of blasphemy and idol-worship.

Care to respond?

[Krusader]

One last thought, arising from your obsession with your exact interpretation of the nature of god:

Jude3b, do you consider Judaism a religion following your god? Or are they also heathens, because they do not recognize all the parts of your god?

I'd be interested in seeing which of your arguments against Muslims do not apply also to Jews, specifically "following god" without Jesus as a form of blasphemy and idol-worship.

Care to respond?
Jews and Christians both worship YHWH. Muslims worship another god, called Allah, who has nothing to do with YHWH. Jews do not believe that YHWH is tri-personal in nature, Christians do. Even though Christians and Jews differ ont he Trinity, the God they worship is one and the same.

[kiwimac]

Actually 'Allah' is the Arabic cognate form of the Hebrew 'El & simply means "The God" (ie. the One and Only God) quite how you can insist therefore that YHWH and Allah are different Gods is beyond me.

Kiwimac

[BlackOpal12]

Actually 'Allah' is the Arabic cognate form of the Hebrew 'El & simply means "The God" (ie. the One and Only God) quite how you can insist therefore that YHWH and Allah are different Gods is beyond me.

Kiwimac

Don't bother, Kiwimac. Please see this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43154

He clearly has no interest in legitimate argumentation, rather choosing to rely on long-debunked, fallacious pedantry and soundbites. He's not worth anyone's time, at this point.

[Krusader]

Black Opal, review the archeological piece I gave you. Allah was a god of Pre-Islamic religion. Artifacts don't lie. They have uncovered the idols of the "daughters" of Allah. Allah pre-dates Islam, and was the name of supreme astrological god of the Ka'ba. You can make all the claims you want about "allah" being the same as YHWH - but the Quran, itself, demonstrates that the source of these revelations had nothing to do with YHWH - the Quran being twisted misrepresentations of Jewish/Christian beliefs.

[BlackOpal12]

Black Opal, review the archeological piece I gave you. Allah was a god of Pre-Islamic religion. Artifacts don't lie. They have uncovered the idols of the "daughters" of Allah. Allah pre-dates Islam, and was the name of supreme astrological god of the Ka'ba. You can make all the claims you want about "allah" being the same as YHWH - but the Quran, itself, demonstrates that the source of these revelations had nothing to do with YHWH - the Quran being twisted misrepresentations of Jewish/Christian beliefs.

Yo, Crusader... that "archeological evidence" was debunked as a total fabrication years ago. Just because you're too foolish to bother fact-checking your resources doesn't mean that they are legitimate. The "moon-god" theory holds no more water than a plastic sieve. Either make a valid point, or stop wasting oxygen.

[Krusader]

Yo, Crusader... that "archeological evidence" was debunked as a total fabrication years ago. Just because you're too foolish to bother fact-checking your resources doesn't mean that they are legitimate. The "moon-god" theory holds no more water than a plastic sieve. Either make a valid point, or stop wasting oxygen.
Black Opal: Please provide the scientific data which "debunked" the archeological evidence which has been referred to. I will only accept that printed by non-Muslims, peer review journals.

[Krusader]

Black Opal states that I must make a "valid point" or stop wasting oxygen. Unfortunately, this is the type of remark emanating from "apologists" for Islam. Notice, that when scientific, archeological evidence is provided it is just nixed as meaningless. No critical thinking skills are necessary, apparently, since denial replaces scientific analysis.

[BlackOpal12]

Black Opal: Please provide the scientific data which "debunked" the archeological evidence which has been referred to. I will only accept that printed by non-Muslims, peer review journals.

A few points here -
1. Archeological evidence, when subjected to the interpretive lenses of a person with a vested interest in supporting their pre-existing suppositions, is bunk. An empty bowl could as well be for defecation as storing grain - depends on what you are looking at. Where is the archeological evidence of Morey's "findings?" Can you, parallel to my request, find the record of legitimate archeological evidence of Morey's work from non-Christian, peer reviewed journals?
2. Why do you only accept information from non-Muslim sources - it is a simple sociological reality that the persons with the greatest interest in a region or culture's history are the members of that culture. By suggesting that any Muslim's publishings are, by nature, invalid, you are guilty of poisoning the well. In that light, I can dismiss any Christian interpretation of Western history after the conversion of Constantine. Your sword cuts both ways, Christian.

Robert Morey, the originator of the "Allah as Moon-God" theory is a renowned polemicist, on par with Michael Moore in terms of both tenacity and willingness to twist fact and ignore logic. If I quote Moore as authoritative, is it your job to provide me with evidence that he lies, but restricted to evidence of such from persons uninvolved or uninterested in the nature of argument?

There is manifold legitimate information utterly debunking Morey's pack of misleading pseudo-archeological "work." However, due to the intrinsic interest in it, the vast majority does have some Muslim input - what with it being a study of their religion. If you are unwilling to consider that information because of the religious heritage of its source, you are no more righteously minded than the men who flew planes into the Trade Towers and the Pentagon.


Black Opal states that I must make a "valid point" or stop wasting oxygen. Unfortunately, this is the type of remark emanating from "apologists" for Islam. Notice, that when scientific, archeological evidence is provided it is just nixed as meaningless. No critical thinking skills are necessary, apparently, since denial replaces scientific analysis.


Yo, Crusader - look at my religious symbol... it hasn't changed since I got here. I'm not a Muslim, I'm a Buddhist. I have no need to be apologetic towards Islam - indeed, I find much of its traditional practices to be completely devoid of beneficence. However, I will no more accept your idiotic, anti-intellectual pseudo-arguments against their faith any more readily than I would accept theirs against yours. If you want to make legitimate arguments against Islam (and there are many), then do so. If you only want to use soundbites from spinsters, then don't waste my time. You accomplish nothing but spreading ignorance, and perpetuating the cycles of retributive vengeance that destroy our global society.

I have never been apologetic - however, you, Crusader, are clearly devoid of legitimate knowledge about Islam, and therefore have no place discussing it. Come back when you've read the Qur'an yourself, or honestly and openmindedly researched both the positives and negative impacts of Islam, and understand the simplest facets of logical argumentation.

Until then, your words are not worth the spits of energy it takes to light my screen that I might read them.

[Jude3b]

Jude,

I recommend that you learn the definition of a "Muslim" before you criticize their holy book. What this is saying is "Muslim" in the sense of a person who submits themselves to the will of G-d.

On Nov. 29, 2004, The Associated Press reported - Yoshiyah - that Thousands in Iran have signed up for suicide. Most likely you would have called it Martyrdom. I call them murderers.

Nevertheless, isn't it true that these suicidal terrorist murdering Martyrs get their authority for this Sin - from the Koran? Since Yes is the answer, why shouldn't I question to validity of the Koran?

[BlackOpal12]

Crusader, please provide your evidence regarding the following points about Arabian religion before the advent of the Islamic community:

1. In southern Arabia, including Qatab and Saba, the god Wabb was the recognized moon-diety. There is massive epigraphical evidence of this point, and the following. In the northern sections of Arabia, including Mecca, Jawf, Sin, and Petra, "Allah" (i.e. "The God") was used as the titular name of the sun-diety. In neither region of Arabia was "Allah" the moon-god - yet this is the claim you have repeatedly staked. How do you explain this?

2. In the northern parts of Arabia, it is also a well-established fact that the moon-god of pre-Islamic culture was not a moon-god, but a moon-goddess; i.e. the total inversion of the masculinized sun-god. For modern Islam's Allah to be the moon-god of pre-Islamic northern Arabia (i.e. Mecca), a divine sex-change would be mandatory. Can you explain this?

3a. In Aramaic, the terminology for God is "elah." Who do we remember who spoke Aramaic? And referred to God a lot? Oh, now I remember - it was your god. It is not an coincidence that the Aramaic word for God is so similar to the Arabic word, Crusader. Was Jesus of Nazareth referring to the "moon-god," as you claim?

Perhaps you'd believe myself and kiwimac better if I gave you a Christian source saying the exact same thing.

I quote,

elah - This Aramaic word is the equivalent of the Hebrew eloah. It is a general term for "God" in the Aramaic passages of the Old Testament, and it is a cognate form of the word allah, the designation of diety used by the Arabs. The word was used widely in the Book of Ezra, occuring no fewer than 43 times between Ezra 4:24 and 7:26. On each occassion, the reference is to the "God" of the Jewish people, whether or not the speaker himself was Jewish.

3b. When your Christ referred to elah, was he simply referring to the "moon-god" of Islam, in cognate terminological format? If elah, i.e. Allah, is nothing more than a moon-god, then what were Ezra and Daniel worshipping?

3c. Arabic Christians, Arabic-translated Bibles, and Arabic Christian mythology all call their God "Allah." They have done so since they first emerged in Arabic civilization. Are all Arabic-speaking Christians, then, committing idolatry?

4. When you refer to your "archeological evidence," what exactly is that evidence? I assume you are referring to the Statue at Hazor, which Morey decided was an idol of "Allah," the "moon-god." Stefan Wimmer, of the University of Murich, would like to point out a few things:

i: The statue which Morey claims is an idolatrous image of the moon-god is a figure kneeling, with arms outstretched - designed with the inscription of a holy symbol on a necklace, and an offering cup in the right hand. What gods do you know who's image is in a state of supplication to itself? The statue is a depiction a shaven-pate, robed priest offering supplication to his god - it is much akin to remembering warriors through statuary representations of their greatest deeds.

ii: The aforementioned statue was located in the leftward fringes of the temple - rather than the central or elevated positions reserved for images of divinity. This is not the location for a revered idol, but the location of a pretty decoration - and if you know anything about pre-Islamic polytheism, it was never considered wise to offend any diety - much less the Sun-God's counterpart. In the organization of the temple at Hazor, the central stelae are smooth, phallic - common representations of the "undescribable." The outermost items are, on the left, the statue (of a priest, which Morey called Allah), and on the right, a tablet with the religious tenets of the shrine. The statue that Morey so proudly waves around is nothing more than the immortalized depiction of proper clerical conduct.

Your turn, Crusader. I'd like you to find solid scientific evidence that refutes these points, peer reviewed, without referencing any Christian researcher, and get back to me once you've delineated it. Have a good time - see you never.

iii.

[Pilgrim]

On Nov. 29, 2004, The Associated Press reported - Yoshiyah - that Thousands in Iran have signed up for suicide. Most likely you would have called it Martyrdom. I call them murderers.

Nevertheless, isn't it true that these suicidal terrorist murdering Martyrs get their authority for this Sin - from the Koran? Since Yes is the answer, why shouldn't I question to validity of the Koran?
How is this germain to the conversation. Seems like a red hearing or a straw man to me. Why can't people stay on track?

[Jude3b]

How is this germain to the conversation. Seems like a red hearing or a straw man to me. Why can't people stay on track?

It relates because some viewing this thread state that one should not question or criticise the Koran - because of a question on the meaning of the word Muslim.

Let me state clearly that I am using the word Muslim, to mean a member of the Muslim religion. I am not playing word games about what the word means to some people, I mean a member of that religion.

[kiwimac]

Pilgrim,

It is obviously NOT germane but it does serve to deflect the conversation from becoming useful!

Kiwimac

[Solly]

The Koran says the disciples (and Abraham) were Muslims. The Koran was written by Mohammed. There were no Muslims - as designated as followers of a specific religion - then. QED, it means those sumitted to God, which became the designation of the followers of the new (old) religion.

What's up Jude, ran out of things to have a go at the RCC about. Who's next?

[Timothy Leary]

Probably the Messianics or Mormons, I'd guess. Maybe Atheists, but they're old news :P

[Krusader]

Black Opal, so you're a Buddhist - pretty agressive for one, I'd say.

However, I've been re-reading your posts and find that you have suggested that I read the Quran. I have don so - TWICE! Have you? Obviously not, since you are very selective in your information.

Have you read the biography of Mohammed - even a friendly version will do - you will note that Mohammed engaged in terrorism after the death of his first wife, and after he had fled to Medina. He attacked Syrian caravans. This is historic fact.

Furthermore, I don't see how the statues of the moon-god, and related artifacts dug up in Southern Arabia could have been "debunked." The moon-god for the Arabians was not a female, but a MALE deity. HE had daugthers. If you ever read the book, Satanic Verses, you will see that Mohammed once included the possibility of intercession by these female daughter deities of Allah - but that was later "abrogated."

Due to the inclusions of the Satanic Verses in the Quran, isn't it obvious that Allah was none other than the moon-god posing as YHWH??????

[kiwimac]

Crusader,

The archaeological evidence proves that Allah was never any kind of a moon-God. Perhaps you should take some kind of course in remedial english?

kiwimac

[Krusader]

Listen, Oh great educated one, there are many reputable, well-educated scholars who disagree with you. By the way, where did you get your degree? I went to Rutgers, myself! If it's from Ca., forget it.

I will be starting a new thread on this very issue.

[BlackOpal12]

Black Opal, so you're a Buddhist - pretty agressive for one, I'd say.

You clearly haven't met many of us - the Middle Way is very different from the Quiet Way.


However, I've been re-reading your posts and find that you have suggested that I read the Quran. I have don so - TWICE! Have you? Obviously not, since you are very selective in your information.


Yes, I have read it - I study with Farid Esack, an internationally acclaimed Muslim scholar.


Have you read the biography of Mohammed - even a friendly version will do - you will note that Mohammed engaged in terrorism after the death of his first wife, and after he had fled to Medina. He attacked Syrian caravans. This is historic fact.

Oh great, now we get accusations of terrorism. I note the total absense, in your writings, of any of the successes of Islam - the intellectual majesties of Spain, the first doctrine of religious tolerance in the Western world, etc. Yes, Muhammad was a military leader. Yes, he did attack caravans - however, to suggest that he was a terrorist is to apply a truly poor anachronism to the situation - what established power was Muhammad using tactics of fear and subterfuge to subvert and/or overthrow? Choose you words more wisely, Crusader.


Furthermore, I don't see how the statues of the moon-god, and related artifacts dug up in Southern Arabia could have been "debunked." The moon-god for the Arabians was not a female, but a MALE deity. HE had daugthers. If you ever read the book, Satanic Verses, you will see that Mohammed once included the possibility of intercession by these female daughter deities of Allah - but that was later "abrogated."


Lets see, how can the "statue of the moon god" at Hazor be debunked? Because simple anthropological contextualism makes it extremely obvious that the statue is of a priest, as evidenced by its decentralized location, paraphenelia of offerings, etc.

Again, you continue to speak of "the Arabians" as if there was one succinct religious culture - again, you are wrong. Reread the question about the gods of Northern and Southern Arabian, learn about the cultural divisions between the tribes, and the feudal polytheism that they practiced, and then try that again.


Due to the inclusions of the Satanic Verses in the Quran, isn't it obvious that Allah was none other than the moon-god posing as YHWH??????

And again, you posit a deeper theological question on the legitimacy of Islam's revelation - allow me to repeat my earlier point: I don't care if its divinely inspired or not. I care that the evidence you're attempting to us, derived from the "work" of Robert Morey, holds less water than an upside-down spoon. Allowing you to continue slandering logic and rationality thus would be a moral failure on my part.

Due to the inclusion of the slaughter of the Amelikites in the OT, doesn't that prove that YHWH is not in fact a loving diety, and hence, the messiah status of Christ is false? If not, then I'd advise rethinking your strategy.

Oh, and one question mark will do - if you want emotion, use italics or bolding. The multiple question marks simply make you look more like a child.

[InChristAlways]

Black Opal to Crusader Due to the inclusion of the slaughter of the Amelikites in the OT, doesn't that prove that YHWH is not in fact a loving diety, and hence, the messiah status of Christ is false? If not, then I'd advise rethinking your strategy. If God wasn't indeed a loving God, why would have have sent "Himself" in the flesh to suffer and die on the Cross as prophecied? Do you not read this as the Lord Himself coming to the temple? Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts. Do you also not see the wrath and vengeance He is bringing on Israel 40 yrs later when He sent the romans to destroy Jerusalem because of their disobedience?Malachi 4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, Burning like an oven, And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up," Says the LORD of hosts, "That will leave them neither root nor branch. I would like to understand how muslims view OT prophecies and why they don't see Christ as the one coming in Malachi.(the jews of course can't interpret their own scripture for some reason). Also, how do muslims view the book of revelation and where would I find that out? Thanks. Thanks.