Islam As a Pagan Religion

[KarenNC]

The difference here is that the Catholic Church is far older than Islam. To continue your analogy, let’s say you saw the cyclist, but your friend is going by what you said, then says, no that’s a corruption of what the actual color was. And a guy claiming to be the representative of the cyclist said so and his statement is proven by the fact that he said it was so.

That sounds illogical, but this is the same claim made by Muslims. The Bible is corrupt, and the Qur’an is actual word of God because the Qur’an says it is.

And Judaism is older than the Catholic Church (a whole lot older than the Catholic Church is than Islam), but the Catholic Church claims to know the real interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures by divine revelation just as Islam claims to know the real interpretation by divine revelation. Sorry, I don’t see a lot of difference in substance in that argument.

If you want to base claims to a correct interpretation of the spiritual world on antiquity of a religion, Christianity is a relatively new kid on the block.

 

[Verisimilitude]

…but the Catholic Church claims to know the real interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Catholic Church does not interpret the Hebrew Scripture differently, it says the Scripture has been fulfilled.

Islam does interpret both differntly, claiming both are false, but uses them as justification to say Islam is correct.:hypno:

 

[KarenNC]

The Catholic Church does not interpret the Hebrew Scripture differently, it says the Scripture has been fulfilled.

Sorry, don’t buy it. If the Jews say that the Scripture has not been fulfilled and the Catholics say it has, using the same text, I would say that’s interpreting the text differently.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Sorry, don’t buy it. If the Jews say that the Scripture has not been fulfilled and the Catholics say it has, using the same text, I would say that’s interpreting the text differently.

The texts/requirements did not change. The conclusion does.

 

[MHalsey]

Sorry, don’t buy it. If the Jews say that the Scripture has not been fulfilled and the Catholics say it has, using the same text, I would say that’s interpreting the text differently.

Actually, Jesus said it Luke, chapter 4:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,
19 and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.”
20 Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him.
21 He said to them, “Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.”

 

[KarenNC]

Actually, Jesus said it Luke, chapter 4:

And, Muhammed said something else. Honestly, unless one is willing to accept as valid the premises under which the revelation is supposed to have occurred (ie that Jesus really is God Incarnate), then that argument is no more convincing than that someone else said something else. It boils down to who does one accept as a valid authority. Even further, one has to initially accept that the original text (the Hebrew Scriptures) are the correct description of spiritual reality, otherwise the entire argument is pointless.

 

[KarenNC]

The texts/requirements did not change. The conclusion does.

What is interpretation other than drawing a conclusion?

 

[Verisimilitude]

What is interpretation other than drawing a conclusion?

Yea, that probably wasn’t very clear. Let me think about it a bit.

 

[Kadaveri]

The Catholic Church does not interpret the Hebrew Scripture differently, it says the Scripture has been fulfilled.

Like Isaiah 7:14? The Christian interpretation of that verse is *very different *to the traditional Jewish interpretation such that it can’t possibly be reconciled.

Christians have no more evidence that they are correct on such matters as Muslims do; it’s basically two people standing on either side of a room yelling ‘God said this!’ and ‘No! God said this!’ at each other. Not really going to go anywhere is it?

And Muslims worship the same God Christians do, and ironically for the title of this thread arguments otherwise are strikingly of the Paganistic persuasion, what else does screaming ‘OUR god is better than YOUR god!’ sound like? I mean if Muslims don’t worship ‘the true God’ then what ‘other’ God are we supposed to be worshipping? There is only one God afterall.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Like Isaiah 7:14? The Christian interpretation of that verse is *very different *to the traditional Jewish interpretation such that it can’t possibly be reconciled.

I’ll research it before I answer. (I hurry to much here, because I should actually be working.)

Christians have no more evidence that they are correct on such matters as Muslims do; it’s basically two people standing on either side of a room yelling ‘God said this!’ and ‘No! God said this!’ at each other. Not really going to go anywhere is it?

That is not quite accurate. The Koran contradicts Scripture, both OT & NT in many places. This is unique among the 3 faiths. The Qur’an changes the OT & NT texts. The NT does not change the OT. The NT belief that what was said in the OT has been completed/fulfilled is what differentiates the Jews and those who believe Christ is God.

If the two arguing are a Jew and a Catholic the argument is not what God said, but what He meant. If the two arguing are a Muslim and a Catholic, your example is more accurate. The fact that the NT has 600 years of history/acceptance before the Qur’an gives the NT more validity. Islamic indifference to that fact is why the discussion goes nowhere.

And Muslims worship the same God Christians do, and ironically for the title of this thread arguments otherwise are strikingly of the Paganistic persuasion, what else does screaming ‘OUR god is better than YOUR god!’ sound like? I mean if Muslims don’t worship ‘the true God’ then what ‘other’ God are we supposed to be worshipping? There is only one God afterall.

This is a subtle distinction that is often dismissed as insignificant. But it isn’t. Allah is not God. Allah was a pagan god elevated to the One by Muhammad when he conqured Mekka. It is not just another name for I AM.

The spirit that brought some of the revelations to Muhammad was not Gabriel. It never identified itself, but was assumed as Gabriel.

Muhammad associated what that spirit said in the name of allah with the God of Abraham…Christ. He had no authority to do so.

In that context Muhammad received revelations from a unknown spirit in the name of a pagan god. The fact that Muslims acknowledge a monotheistic god, with a differnt acceptance of the history of God makes me question if they are the same…

 

[Nighthaven]

Well archeologists already uncovered artifacts predating Islam, pagan carved Gods which bore the name of Allah and his daughters. Allah was a moon god if I remember correctly. So it wasn’t like the name Allah was something Muhammad came up with on his own. Before Muhammad was exiled from Mecca, the place was rife with many people who worshipped false idols. The trading city also hosted the Arian Heresy which denied that Jesus Christ was apart of the Trinity, or as equal to God himself. Muhammad living in Mecca had to know about both pagan and Arian beliefs, after all he lived in the very city where they were both very popular. Once you take a look at history all the pieces to the Islamic religion fit together; so it’s really no surprise that Allah is the name of God, and that Jesus Christ wasn’t divine.

As for the rest of the Koran, that’s all Muhammads creation. The prevailing ideas of the time made it into the Koran, “love those who only love you”, make war against infidels aka people who don’t believe as you, subjugation of people who don’t believe as you do, taxation of people who don’t believe such as you do, ect ect. ect. Now I’m not saying that during parts of Christian History that some of the above things didn’t happen, but we were capable of realizing the error of our ways and recover simply because Jesus told us to love our enemies, something that was totally counter-cultural at the time when he said it. So even though us Christians committed terrible acts we had a means to recover from them, and get back to what our religion originally started as: A peaceful religion. However since Islam doesn’t have a pope or a even a council that can officially rule on theology and make it binding to all Muslim’s, than if a group of Muslim’s decides to focus totally on the Allah sanctioned violence and oppression against those that don’t believe in Islam, than they aren’t in error, they are practicing Islam. This practice is a more brutal version than other Muslims choose to practice, but since there is no ruling party in Islam they can’t be condemned for their actions. This is why I believe many Imams and other higher level clergy remain silent about the Muslim violence against Jews and Christians happening today, they don’t simply have the power to denounce them. Instead of keeping this paragraph ongoing I’ll just sum it up. Christians have the means to be peaceful for their very bible instructs us to love our enemies, and if we suffer we offer it up to Jesus. Islam however does have peaceful writings in the Koran, but without a ruling council these can be adopted or totally ignored at random.

But I digress, yes Islam resembles many of the brutal cults that existed during the time of Muhammad. The only difference between them and him, is that they weren’t able to raise an army to conquer the area, Muhammad was able to and did. Unfortunately after Muhammad’s death the Caliph’s resumed the lust to conquer more land, which lead up to the Crusades.

I’m not going to write about the Crusades here because that is way off topic. Jimmy Akin did a piece on the Crusades which gives a thorough explanation of them, and why they happened.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/jakin_crusades_sept06.asp

Islam resembles the old pagan’s, not the nowadays pagan’s. These pagan’s today are more like nature hippies than actual pagan’s, simply because practicing the old ways would lead to frequent trips to jail and prison.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Well, it is an open question as to whether the God of the Muslims approves of dhimmitude any more than the God of the Christians approved of similar treatment of the Jews by those Christians in power throughout most of history. It goes back to politics and religious control of politics rather than necessarily the religion itself.
Compare the attitude of the Christian government and the Muslim government, both claiming to be acting with the blessing of God, in the article below.(it is unfortunately too long to quote)

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=378&letter=D]
IN the Qur’an established dhimmitude…

Qur’an 3.28 Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
Qur’an 9:29“Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”

Hadith:*Bukhari:V4B53N386 - *“Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: ‘Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master.’”

Shari’ah law, considered the laws of God, set up the required structure of dhimmitude. Muslims did not invent the idea of enslaving and/or demanding submission from those they conquered. But it is indeed codified in the Qur’an and Shari’ah law.

Every muslim country in the world today, even those who claim to be secular, have laws that put limitations on non-Muslims.

 

[aaronjmagnan]

As things stand, it seems that Allah is the name for the one God. And in Islam, this name denotes a specific character/personality while in Catholicism the name signifies the idea, while the description of that idea’s accidents is under scrutiny.

The idea about the “one God” is a universal concept, but I think was used as a quote from Romans, when Paul is preaching to the Romans saying that the unknown God is Jesus Christ, etc. This being said, in the Catholic faith, although the Muslims are correct is asserting one God, they have not fully comprehended His divine plan, which for us Catholics includes the sacraments and the Church.

I have seen some call Islam a heresy because Mohammed had converted to Christianity through his mistress, and then bore the faith of Islam through “visions.”

Pagan religions were the religions of the countryside in Rome after the Christian presence in Rome (Paganism). Strictly speaking, it is not a pagan religion, as, although the name of Allah (philosophically and linguistically called the “signifier”) has origins in the moon deity, we can come to the conclusion that what they worship now is not the moon God.

In the end, evangelism to the Muslims from the Catholics is probably most prudent coming from the standpoint of the Catechism, and in the ways of the early Church fathers, especially Paul in the quoted statement, and especially in the way Jesus did it.

When Jesus saw the Pharisees, he didn’t say “They are wrong in their actions so everything about them is wrong.” He said, “Do as they say not as they do.” Not that what Islam says is all good. But the spirit of Jesus’ comment is evident in Paul’s comment: “Rejoice in all that is good.” Now, if there is a shred of truth in Islam, then that part of it is good, e.g. “the one god.” And rather than puff up, we should build with love. Love is not free of contradiction and condemnation, but neither is it picking at every nervous suspicious to bear false witness.

There’s got to be another way to approach it that’s not destructive, but neither passive nor relativist.

God bless,
Aaron

 

[Subrosa]

an advice for you ,dont take islam from nonmuslims or you will be like that who go to dentist bec he has stomache

Do you think that it is ok to take christianity from nonchristians?

Sub

 

[Verisimilitude]

And Muslims worship the same God Christians do.

I’d like to be clear where it is difficult to be succinct.
My opinion- I do not know if it is a Catholic view. I just happen to be Catholic.

A Muslim worships God. The same God as Abraham. I do not deny that you know of Him.

A Muslim worships god. The same god as what was familiar to Muhammad, Allah:

While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god.

I think there was a fusion of religions through Muhammad since growing up his clan played some part in it’s care.

I have no wish to insult another human being. The denial or acceptance of another’s faith; however, by it’s nature can offend.

I think Mohammedanism distorts the Nature of God and that is expressed in Islam. I accept Muhammad had a spiritual visitation. I can even accept he might have been convinced he was “called” by God- at first.

I can appreciate devotion to a belief. I can respect you as a fellow human. I can acknowledge Muslim knowledge of the one God. As do Mormons, Jehovah Witness, and every RCC spin off.

The Jews must shake their collective head in bewilderment as Abraham is more “theirs” than anyone, and is spoken of by so many. I can empithize. (The promise came true!)

But for all of that, only one faith has scriptural calls for continuous physical warfare along with the more benign spiritual struggle even the atheist is aware of and that all people struggle with. The call for war is louder than the cry for peace in the Qur’an. I wish it were other wise.

Many Muslims here say non-Muslims should not judge the few who do terrible things in the name of Allah. You might believe a
murder-bomber in a US mess tent in Iraq is wrong, but you might not. If even 1% of 1.3 billion Muslims think that is justified is not something to dismiss. (13 million- about as many illegal foreign nationals in the US). There was a story that put it at 25% in the US alone. What do you think that translates to the Arab/Muslim world?

In surveys Pew conducted last year, support in some Muslim countries exceeded 50 percent, while it was considered justifiable by about one in four Muslims in Britain and Spain, and one in three in France.

If that many Muslims have such a view, why is it unreasonable for non-Muslims to consider the impact of such a view?

I do believe only Islam can justify such an act. And other similar nefarious violence in the name of god. No other faith of note or respectability has such doctrine. None.

It all goes back to the founder of each faith. I do not think Muhammad was an honorable man much less a prophet of God. I assume you do. Your faith is based upon what I find dishonorable no matter the similarity. It is Muhammad I object to. Even if Muslims do not accept the divinity of Jesus, to place such a man as Muhammad above Christ is difficult to pardon.

The worship of the One God is defined by these men: Abraham/Moses, Christ, Muhammad. Two/ are shown to be Just and Noble, one is not. You really don’t need to take the debate beyond that. Even the stories (245/246)that show Muhammad’s compassion are a paradox to the meaning of God.

 

[KarenNC]

The worship of the One God is defined by these men: Abraham/Moses, Christ, Muhammad. Two/ are shown to be Just and Noble, one is not. You really don’t need to take the debate beyond that. Even the stories that show Muhammad’s compassion are a paradox to the meaning of God.

I’m afraid you are on shaky ground if you are trying to claim that Islam is wrong because Muhammed was not perfect and God could not then use him to do something worthwhile. Take a look at the stories of Abraham:

Genesis 20: 12 Abraham marries his half-sister

Genesis 12: 10-20 Abraham (then Abram) gives his wife to Pharoah as a wife, deliberately lying that she is only his sister, in order to gain good treatment, livestock, servants, etc.

Genesis 20–it worked so well that he does it again, with a different king, Abimelech. For this instance, he gets a thousand shekels, sheep, cattle, male and female slaves and land.

There are words for a man who (repeatedly) rents out his wife’s sexual performance for gain, particularly under false pretenses. There are words for a man who (repeatedly) takes money for a contract he knows he cannot fulfill and has full reason to believe that it will not be able to be fulfilled. They are not nice words and “noble” and “just” are not the first ones that springs to mind.

You may want to note that Abraham and Moses are actually two separate individuals, btw, and their stories are not interchangable.

 

[ahmadhassan]

sorry did i missed something? what is topic here? why di christians always change topic and never answer my reply ,they just ignore my answer to their quotes

 

[eleonardo]

sorry did i missed something? what is topic here? why di christians always change topic and never answer my reply ,they just ignore my answer to their quotes

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you

 

[ahmadhassan]

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you

did i ignore answers ? my name is ahmad hassan ,see posts by a man named ahmad hassan and tell me where he ignored answers

 

[PauloFreire2]

I have always thought of Islam as not only pagan, but very violent and culturally backward. Yes, I know that during the Middle Ages a sophisticated variety of Islam was responsible for the West’s re-encounter with its Classical Tradition. I also admire the work of Averroes, the great Spanish-Moslem philosopher. Nevertheless, that higher cultural strain was conquered and suppressed by fundamentalist radicalism, which has hijacked Islam and pushed it back in time, at the tip of a blood-drenched sword. Muslims, as individuals, however, are still God’s creations, deserving of basic human dignity. :knight1: