Page 2 of 2

Re: Former Muslims,now Christians

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:58 am
by Hombre
For the good of me, why a Hindu is better explaining the nature of Judea, Christianity or Islam. then Jews, christian or muslims.?

As for those "Abrahamic" bagabu claimed by Muslims - in addition to manfred's input. Muhammad knew well his historical position as the 3rd in line to other 2 religions (600 & 1500 years). In order to legitimize himself as "prophet", and render Islam "ancient" as Judea, he had to do something. The only way this con man could do it, was dupe those backwards Arabs and link himself to those biblical figures.

He used another trick. To convince others to follow him, he incorporated not only the pagan practices in and wound Ka'aba and Mekkkah - Also from Judea, Christianity & Hindu. The very reason many Islamic practices mirror of those practiced from these religions. His entire take on creation, prophecies, prayers facing ones holy sites - all were borrowed or plagiarized from other religions. Anyone who questioned him was killed. Some prophet!!!

No man in history instilled so much fear on so many people for so long

Re: Former Muslims,now Christians

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:37 am
by deafAncient
Because I am raised as a Westerner, and I have exposure, rather intimate exposure to people who are Christians. My stepmother is one. Several other family members are. But I never grew up Christian, though they tried. I have lived in Texas nearly all of my life.

Rajivji's works explains very well the concept of "History-centrism" as well as "Geo-centrism," which these religions are based on.

That is correct what you say about Muhammad linking himself to these biblical figures. That is what I mean. The incorporation of pagan practices and making them fit the Islamic framework is called digestion.

Re: Former Muslims,now Christians

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:40 am
by manfred
You see, I don't think there is such a thing as an "Abrahamic family" of religions. It is a pretence of suggesting common ground where there is none. I would not even agree that Allah is the God of the Jews and Christians.

Allah was the title/name of the chief idol in the Kaaba before Islam, and not the name of the the Jewish and Christian God. Muslims will tell you that Arabic translations of the bible also use Allah, but these were written long after Islam, and neither Jews nor Christians would even for a second consider that their God, whatever name is used, is the "best of deceivers" or "is torturing whoever he wants."

Allah of the Quran is a cruel, remote deity who created most men merely to torture them, a deity with the same psychotic personality as his creator Mohammed.

Ask yourself this: who actually benefits from this strange construct of this "family" of "Abrahamic religions"? Who needs the other two religions to justify its existence? It is ONLY Islam which needs these things.

Islam legitimises itself by claiming ridiculous things that Abraham was a Muslim, as was Jesus.... It is a parasite simply creating its own religion from corrupted traditions of other people.

Re: Former Muslims,now Christians

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:42 pm
by Fernando
This talk of Abrahamic religions raises a question for me. It's been suggested that the Arabs needed a religion, and a book, to bolster their confidence and self-justification as they stormed their neighbours, whom they called the people of the books. But surely one of the main players at that time was the Zoroastrian Persia. My question is, did the Zoroastrians have a "Book"? If so, why were they not considered people thereof?

Re: Former Muslims,now Christians

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:48 pm
by manfred
That is an interesting question, and yes they do have a sacred collection of texts of some kind, called the Avesta. Most of it is lost today because the Muslims destroyed much of the Persian religion and much was only written or collated shortly before Mohammed was born, some 100 or so years before. Most importantly Zoroastrianism generally strong;y opposes proselytising and for that reason simply was not well known by Mohammed. He used many sources, almost anything he could get his hands on, but simply was not exposed to their writings or teachings in general. His Qur'an spews a lot of hate on Jews and Christians, but strangely misses to mention the Persians altogether. The Hindu also have books, as do the Buddhists, for example, but Mohammed simply did not know about that.

Re: Former Muslims,now Christians

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:40 pm
by Hombre
deafAncient wrote:The incorporation of pagan practices and making them fit the Islamic framework is called digestion.
So, that famous saying "if it looks like duck, walks like a duck & talks like a duck - it is a duck" hold true.

If Islam believes in pagan ideology, then itself is a religion based of mix mash of pagan, Hindu, Christian & Jewish religion - nothing of its own ha?

Re: Former Muslims,now Christians

PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:48 am
by Ibn Rushd
There are collections of the Z. scriptures. I will post a thread in the Resource Centre with links to books.

Re: Former Muslims,now Christians

PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:36 am
by SAM
coray wrote:Not a single Muslims every converted to Christianity, you filthy liar. It is all fake.

Whoever becomes a Christian never even was a real Muslim before.
You're right, for example iffo ... he did not embrace Christianity.

Re: Former Muslims,now Christians

PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:40 am
by manfred
Still got your blinkers on Sam. Take them off and look around.

Re: Former Muslims,now Christians

PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:56 pm
by Fernando
Cutting back to Zoroastrianism, if I may, I posted much the same as below in Ibn Rushd's thread in the resource centre:
By coincidence, a light hearted article by Tom Holland, on ancient religions, has appeared in The Spectator, which very briefly addresses Zoroastrianism
So ancient that some scholars date its origins back to 1800 bc, the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism, Christianity and Islam has been immeasurable.
(my emphasis) A pity he didn't write more on that.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/would-you-believe-it-a-selection-of-ancient-faiths-ripe-for-revival/

I can't recall his expanding on that remark in In the Shadow of the Sword but I'd be very interested to read what he has to say on the matter.