Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Is Muslim religion even a religion or has it been evolved from The Bible itself?

Like those who could not feel that God is merciful, who did not believe in Christ formed another group and made laws, a few taken from Torah and largely according to their own personal will
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
helenS · 36-40, F
Islam is probably a sideline of Christianity, evolved from Christian circles who did not accept the Trinity dogma of the Nicaean council (or were unaware of it).
The "early history" of Islam as told by Muslims is most likely a typical religious founding myth, a construction that was setup much later. Chances are that Muhammad (which simply means "the praiseworthy one") never existed as a historical person. At least there are no reliable contemporary sources which might prove the existence of that person.
The following figures most likely never existed – they are just the embodiment of a founding narrative:
Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad.
Not sure about Buddha; Laozi is entirely legendary; there was never a historical Laozi.
JohnnySpot · 56-60, M
@helenS Muhammad the person who wrote down the Quran was most definitely a real person.
helenS · 36-40, F
@JohnnySpot The Quran was [u]not[/u] written by a single person. The book has a looong editorial history before it reached final form. The identity of individual contributors is unknown. 😑
Likewise, the Five Books of Moses were not written by a certain "Moses".
JohnnySpot · 56-60, M
@helenS Islam A Short History by Karen Armstrong
REMsleep · 41-45, F
@helenS Jesus was most definitely real and so was Muhammad. Too much documentation. Do research and read creditable sources from established archeologists and historians. We cannot prove that Moses nor Abraham exsisted using scientific sources due to how long ago that they lived.
They have found some evidence in Nepal of possible Buddah's birth home from 6th Century BC. It is generally accepted that Buddah did exsist.
helenS · 36-40, F
@REMsleep [quote]Too much documentation.[/quote]
Documentation about Jesus walking on water and raising the dead you mean? Name a source please.
Name one contemporary source which tells us about the praiseworthy one (= Muhammad).
REMsleep · 41-45, F
@helenS Yes the Bible should not be discredited as a reliable source regarding the existence of Jesus.
All of those men who wrote in the New Testament have been historically verified. They travelled, started churches, wrote letters. They each recounted from their own words various moments in the life of Jesus. Some had followers to write for them some of which also saw some of these events.
Archeology has proven various events that correlate with the events described during the life of Jesus in the Bible such as the fact that Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea during the year of Christ's death.

Roman historian Tacitus wrote unfavorably about Jesus and his legacy (followers) roughly 80 years after his death, confirming how he died and who sentenced him to death. By the time Tacitus wrote this he would have had many years to gather info. He was not a Christian and was widy known to be creditable.
This is very rare to have anyone write on a historical figure from the time of Jesus who was not a King or Ruler. There is very little evidence for anyone from that time period so comparatively we has alot of evidence regarding the existence of Jesus Christ.
helenS · 36-40, F
@REMsleep Thank you. I'm glad you answered. 🌷
In my opinion, the Gospels are a beautiful (and touching!) documentation of early Christian belief; they are [u]religious[/u], not historical documents. Their authors are unknown. I hold the Gospels in high regard (especially John, despite his apparent anti-Semitism), but not as reliable historical sources.
Tacitus' report is mere hear-say. How could he know? People must have told him that the Christians believe in a certain "Chrestos" (sic!).
Really it's so easy to see that the Gospels are not historical records, you just have to take off your religious glasses. 😎
REMsleep · 41-45, F
@helenS Notice that I did not say that The Bible was a historical book because it is not and this is not its purpose. In fact I believe that there is a clear message in The Bible that the texts are for the glory of God and for our instruction and not to use the text as a science or history book.
Now with that said it does contains some history by default and as I said before there is too much confirmed history which is written in the Gospels that has been verified by archeology or secular history.
Some authors of the New Testament are unknown but since the beginning we have known them by what they said and what they said that they witnessesd and what they emphasized when they wrote. We know who the Apostles were and we have some evidence of their existence which again is very rare as these were ancient poor people.as for Tacitus he is widely regarded as one of the great
Roman historians by modern day historians.
You dismissing his thouroughly researched accounts and life's work as hearsy is a bit arrogant.
Tacitus was also a Roman senator and a lawyer who had spent his life serving all around the area where Jesus's apostles were teaching so he would have seen alot regarding the rising of the early church in his lifetime.