The Abrahamic RELIGIOUS, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religious communities of faith that claim descent from the practices of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham. The term derives from a figure from the Bible known as Abraham.

I agree with colleague Dr. Segun Michael.

Best regards

But are they religions?

Following

Is any religion that involves itself in politics really a religion?

The Abrahamic religions, usually thought of as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, derive from Abraham and his relationship with God. All three religions accept that God initiated the relationship with Abraham and that Abraham became the Father of many people. In this sense Judaism has solid ground to its claim as a religion, rather than just a form of political and social control. Christianity accepts Jesus as the Messiah, the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, and claims origin in the Abrahamic relationship alongside Judaism. In this sense Christianity also has solid ground to relationship with the Divine through Abraham and his relationship with God. Thus making it clearly a religion. Islam also accepts the Abrahamic relationship with God, but traces its heritage through a different son of Abraham, as revealed to them by a later prophet (Muhammad) not accepted as such by Judaism and Christianity. The base issue for Islam is not the social and political control that many focus on, but the relationship between Abraham and God as interpreted through different eyes. Thus as its base Islam is also religious in nature and not about social and political control.

An additional issue is the current focus on political and social life as different from religion. All three religions accept and assume that all aspects of an adherents life are a part of their relationship with God. Individuals either live their lives in ways that enhance their relationship with God or live them in ways which are detrimental to this relationship. Artificial divisions between aspects of an adherents life and modern redefinitions of religion as based on whatever unimportant aspects are left when the social and political are removed create false distinctions. At its core this question comes from this tradition and the answer depends on what definition is given to religion.

It is clear that all three religions accept what modern people would define as social and political aspects as part of the relationship with deity. However, the core of none of these religions is social and political control per se. The core is the relationship between God and man as revealed through Abraham's relationship with God, and subsequent events which each religion interprets differently that follow this initial event. None of these religions would accept the redefinition by modern academics which removes large aspects of life from the sphere of the spiritual/religious and reassigns these to secular categories.

On the other hand there is little argument that all three religions have been used and used religious rhetoric to cause extensive harm. Just because the core beliefs of a religion can be used in this way does not mean the religion is based on goals of social and political oppression. All three religions have clearly defined concepts of sin and wrongdoing and provide numerous examples in their Scriptures of adherents who strayed from the intended path.

To summarize: Yes, all three are religions in the proper sense. Yes, all three have aspects in their core beliefs which modern humanity would redefine as social and political, but which are actually parts of the broader spiritual life all three religions assume. And finally, yes, all three religions have been used by adherents and others who have failed, intentionally or unintentionally, to uphold the tenets of these religion to oppress others through social and political means.

Great reply, Joseph. Nevertheless, let's consider religions in the past perhaps to understand those in the present, or at least throw light on religious attitudes to the nature of religion per se.

The first organised religion was in Mesopotamia and its likely that the priestly corp had considerable hand in the running of the early cities as these were perceived of as belonging to individual gods. Nevertheless, in Ancient Egypt religion was about prayer and worship and functioned on a number of levels with concerns for the preservation of kings as gods, purity of form, with behaviour purely secular in nature. Behind the animal facades of their gods were ideas and ideals. Like Mesopotamian religion, human behaviour was not the concern of gods as these were concerned with the cosmos, although human behaviour could affect the cosmos.

The concentration on Abraham as the original source/conduit of god is due to his position within the myths and legends of Judah, as in Israel his role was assumed by Jacob/Israel. The primary concern of both was progeny.

To split off political and social concerns from religiousness seems an unnecessary way to construct an understanding of religion. In today's heart-breaking immigration crises, for instance, some religious leaders remind us that the Judaic Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy) commands us to protect the non-citizen in our midst 36 times.

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz' working definition of a religious tradition was worldview ("beliefs") conjoined with an ethos ("commandments"), which elements are readily discernible in many cultures' spiritual currents. As just one example, the twin paramount virtues in Mahayana Buddhism are wisdom (// worldview) and compassionate activity (// ethos).

From the "Abrahamic" Friends Service Committee (Quakers) and Martin Luther King's "soul force" civil rights movement, to Gandhi's satyagraha and today's Buddhist Peace Fellowship - spiritual understandings being enacted in interpersonal and social settings have long been integrated matters. (The Vajrayana yab-yum image embodies that perspective in the symbol of the sexual embrace between wisdom [the female] and skillful compassionate action [the male].)

David 'long been' in Abrahamic religions, no other. Geertz understanding again, if as you insist, is concerned only with the same religions, as beliefs for many religions outside of the Abrahamic religions are there but not so intricately constructed. Early religions rarely had a political side.

Buddhism of course is not usually considered a religion and it is open if they worship anything. The very properties, ethics, you point to were originally secular with nothing to do with, that is, no connection to religion. In fact the so-called ethics of the Hebraic religions originally concerned the community (in this instance small and based on clan or tribal units) and procreation.

As both a Buddhist minister and a degree-holder in Buddhist studies from Harvard's Center for the Study of World Religion, I admit I find it odd for it to be suggested that Buddhism is not be considered a religion. I fear there's a bit of a straw person argument going on here, with an effectively prejudicial starting definition for what "religion" is and is not.

And to decide what is "originally secular" is also fairly idiosyncratic in this instance, given that for centuries the word "secular" originally referred to a kind of Christian priest - namely, one who wasn't in a religious order, but "belonged to the age [siècle]."

the term secular might indeed have had such a meaning, but clearly doesn't now, nevertheless it is normally agreed that Buddhism is or was not originally a religion, and certainly you are the very first I've met who decrees otherwise. I have just done a quick search on this:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-liusuwan/is-buddhism-a-philosophy-_b_10176992.html

https://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/is-buddhism-a-religion

I do not pretend these are the final word, but my reading has always confirmed this. Straw, yes. But from which direction is it blowing?

Again, as both a Buddhist minister (legally recognized in my state as a leader of a religious organization) and a student of religion, I'm comfortable understanding my practice as religious, even while I'm aware that the way the word "religion" is often defined by many in the modern West tends to presume a connection with unprovable metaphysical beliefs, and that Buddhism, like contemplative traditions in general, is much more about a "going and looking" empirical engagement with experiential practices than it is the mere endorsement of beliefs in, say, metaphysical beings. I disagree with that latter requirement for defining religiousness, but, even so, Buddhism's founding adherents matter-of-factly held presumptions that many today would consider metaphysical beliefs, including:

• the existence of various heavens and hells (the Buddha is understood to have traveled to the Trayastrimsha heaven to teach the Dharma to his deceased mother there)
• reincarnation
• superpowers (the Buddha could do things like see past lives and appear in more than one location at a time)
• non-material beings (gods like Indra, celestial bodhisattvas like Manjushri, nature spirits, asuras, demons)
• the efficacy of generating blessings of merit by, for instance, placing flowers on shrines or praying to celestial Buddhas, like Amitabha in his heaven-like Pure Land
• and the confidence that Maitreya - another Buddha - will be coming to earth in the future.

David, surely the items you mention were included after, not part of the original teachings? Original so-called religions were often different during inception. I have suggested elsewhere that the Jesus mission was a medical cult, as that is what it looks like, and medical ideas and teaching was commonly then through cult-like organisations, and I have elsewhere read that Muhammad's adventures were really a warrior/conquest movement (which again it resembled, motivated by the conquest wars of the empires around Arabia, for the hadiths are profoundly violent and appear to have been used to motivate Arab warriors.). Through processes of syncretism other ideologies and ideas are accrued. Historians are unravelling the first centuries of Muslim history and finding it very different, more secular than religious. The resurrection notions of Buddhism might have been appropriated from Judaism (the messiah myth), which obtained it from Egyptian religions, and of course both put it onto Jesus. The concept of original religious perceptions of Buddhism I believe unlikely.

I came across this in an interesting article in the Guardian, a serious UK newspaper:

More positively, though, thinking of Buddhism as a philosophy brings it into dialogue with the ancient conception of philosophy, one of whose essential components was precisely what was called spiritual practice or exercise, the various ways in which one is able to liberate oneself from illusion and make oneself better capable of ethical action and, of course, the ethical refusal to act. It is worth noting that the ancient philosophers tried to live in communities and one can think of a philosophical community, whether instantiated in a Christian congregation, a Buddhist sangha, a humanist group, as serving to protect and support the conditions for that undeluded perception of the world from which issues moral action.

I am always stunned by the thinking of this time, which when compared to the Abrahamic books (yes they were different and my judgement is thereby slightly askew), especially the last, actually does look godlike.

But what if "religion" is a 19th century western construct, since only modern (and post modern) westerners have a "religion" compartment in their lives. I have spent time in Middle Eastern countries, where to be an Arab is to be a Muslim, and I have spent time in Papua New Guinea and spoken with people who have no conception of what I mean when I speak of religion. That country has over 800 languages and thence, over 800 cultures, all with their gods and spirits and rituals, but they don't call it "religion." it is their culture and the way they express it. And in the 1st century CE in the Greco-Roman world people would not have considered Judaism and Christianity as religions. There were Judeans (Palestinian and Diaspora) and Gentiles, and some of each were what we could call "Christ-allegiants." That term transcends ethnicity, so we might want to call it a "religion", but they would not have thought of it in those terms.

apologies for clicking the add button too many times and thinking nothing was happening

I'm with you on this. Its an idea I've come across before. I have come across the notion that anything that consists of the supernatural is a religion, but really? I bet the people in Papua New Guinea did not have a set of codes connected to their religions? If a religion (Arab) serves as a group form of shared identity, and Islam very much does, is it therefore really a religion? Is it a device for political and social motivation?

The problem with the Abrahamic religions in this context is that their codes-so called morality, etc-serves other purposes and is not directly linked to spiritual ends (no matter what the adherents say) but to political and social ends. The earliest Hebrew/Judaic codes are not remotely ethical but serve other ends-procreation and keeping the community intact. They were not transcendent. Nor are Islamic codes.

To suggest religion is not about politics and social relations is counter-factual. Jesus was executed for his politics. More than a healer, he was an eschatological preacher who's primary focus was the Kingdom of God. And it was for that latter focus that he was crucified - crucifixion was a punishment the Romans imposed on political criminals.

I'm not expert in Sumerian or Egyptian socio-religious patterns, but (what we would call) political leaders in those societies were intimately involved in (again, what we would call) religious rite and ceremony, and at times they were considered to be divine themselves.

Many of the modern world's countries espouse state religions. (The British queen is the supreme governor of the Church of England.)

And figures like Moses, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Gautama Buddha, and Muhammed were political from the get-go. In the Buddha's case, he promulgated a community that was organized on a basis that included an explicit renunciation of caste, which is an inherently socio-political move.

We can cherry-pick elements from the earliest Buddhist records to decide for ourselves which of them were "original" and which were "added later" - but, once more, those earliest records are replete with references to rebirth, heavens, hells, devas, spirits, and siddhis (special abilities, like the ability to read minds).

To decide religion is something apart from social values and political concerns is more of a personally decided outlook than something which in fact comports with the history of (what we call) religions as the human engagement with what's most true and ethical and beautiful in life.

The Sumerian city state had temples to usually one or at most two gods who inhabited the city, that is the city not only belonged to these 'national gods' but existed in approximately two planes of reality-the real one inhabited by deities and another shadowy one inhabited by human beings who were charged with maintaining the god's property. Human beings were the god's servants/slaves, and the mayor or king the appointed administrator-the shepherd. So, in this instance, not really a good point for your argument as the two domains functioned differently. Religion had a superstitious property but worship was separate from day to day human society, except that for keeping the city and the god's health and house maintained, the god protected the inhabitants from adversity and war. This is of course the exchange system, mercantile in substance, that is behind many if not most religions.

Egyptian religion, although based on the natural world, also functioned through ideas and was without the controlling god idea of Abrahamic religions. The religion acted as a philosophic conduit of pure discovery. My ideal if you like! There were no rabble rousing calls for war, specific social behaviour, or denial of thinking. Superstition existed within the religion but not within its control.

Religious Moses is not religious Mosesic it's Judaism from God with a book

Religious Jesus is not religious Jesus; it is the Christianity from God with a book

Mohamed religious, it's not religious Mohamedic; it's Islam from God with a book

The religious Abrahamic = it is religious Abrahamic. From God???? with a book?????

Why God chose the names of his religions (Judaism, Christianity , Islam) which differs from the names of the messagers (Moses, Jesus, Mohamed) but for abrahamic , God has made an exception. it does not make sense.

Precisely. But both Sumerian and Egyptian religions had books. In both cases they are philosophical not proscriptive. No do this, don't do this attitude to the complexities of life.

Placing of religious tropes in books provides a sense of authenticity, of historical and experiential reality, for that's what writing does. The Egyptian use of symbols within a closed environment provided an experience, thereby a deeper religious and unforced worship unlike the worship by numbers and groups of Abrahamic religions.

The books fabricate, the ancient false news of Trump, in order to instill belief. There is no hint in the original Pentateuch text of Abraham's iconoclasm nor of his supposed monotheism, which were included 500 years later, but most people believe there is. Books encourage not so much false news, as false history. Worship is thereby corrupted, as such falsifications are usually done for political intent.

No, they're slave systems.

Robin, unfortunately a justified position. Enslaving the mind and life! But one thing I've learned, some people happily embrace slavery and believe its a good thing.

Going back to Stanley's original question, I think it depends on what definition the "religion" has from the perspective of the person who is defining it, which may differ from the perspective of the people who are living it. Religion could be a way of life, and in the way of life there is always politics and social dimensions and dynamics. The family, which we call the basic unit of the society, and basic unit of the church, there is politics, social dimensions and dynamics. Seeing all the posts, it is clear that we share our respective understanding of the topic and our own perspectives about religion. I truly appreciate everyone's posts. Thank you.

Marc, thanks, but I'm still hoping to find a suitable description. Clearly, the ancient Egyptian approach is distinctly different and although monotheists tend to claim superiority and moral high ground this does not seem justified as monotheists' morals seem strange to say the least-there are several proscriptions against violence but their gods insist on violence at every turn. These religions have established the Other-Hebrew/Canaanites, Islam-Unbelievers-obsess over sex and the human body within paradigms of corruption and insist that death provides perfection. I compare this with the Iranian religion under Zarathustra (probably another mythical figure)which seems at least less contradictory, and much healthier, by comparison.

I woulk like to make some points:

1. I agree with those who say that the modern conception of religion is not in accord with ancient conceptions of religion. No ancient culture would have divided secular from sacred. Life simply was and consisted of what you experienced and the gods (or God) that were present. One was expected to offer certain rituals, but mostly in order to keep the gods off of their back. What we call true worship, in modern times, was not a concept back then.

2. The idea that gods expected certain behavior was neither political nor pietistic. It simply was what you had to do to keep the gods off of your back. One can read the latter Greek playwrights, right before Christ, to see that they had begun to disbelieve in the gods. Even the Ilead and the Odyssey have strong critiques of the gods within them.

3. Gods were connected with the nations that worshipped them. This does not mean that the political powers controlled the gods. One need only read various swaths of the Old Testament to see how often the prophets stood against the political establishment in the name of God. It is incredibly anachronistic to try to make early worship into political worship.

4. In the Abrahamic religions, there was little differentiation between behavior and religiosity. There are many Old Testament and Muslim laws that function to form the community, but there is little evidence that those laws were chosen by the powers that be, and extensive evidence that the Old Testament prophets used the laws against the powers that be.

5. Frankly the idea that Abrahamic religions obssess over sex is, at best, ever so false. They were much more concerned over other matters. In passing, to argue that prohibitions on violence necessitate a pacifist stance is an invalid claim. It sets up two poles which appear to be that the gods approve of violence everywhere or the gods are pacifist. What about a middle stance that the gods disapprove of inappropriate violence but permit appropriate violence? Yes, I do know that we can argue over what violence is appropriate.

Well, I will stop here.

I think that we should always be aware that descriptions of early religion come from particular sources and may have only some degree of truth.(Religion in the Construction of the Cultural 'Self' and 'Other' Alar Kilp) In the Bible the prophets certainly on occasion used their visions, etc, against the establishment but often based on ethnic reasons-fear of its dilution. Mostly, they were the establishment attempting to enforce views. certainly the evidence for extensive and exclusive YHWH worship is uncertain until the establishment of Yehud under the Persians. The religious authorities were then working for the Persians to ensure stability through religion ( Persian Policy and the Yehud Community During Nehemiah* Jeremiah Cataldo ). Sexual obsession seems justified given how many rituals and laws were directly or indirectly based upon sexual behaviour, usually that of women ( Sex and Sin in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity Fall 2018 ~ SKSM HRHS 8335 ~ Dr. Ashley L. Bacchi ) from Eve and Lilith onwards. Endogamy and exogamy, often expressed through parables of incest, infuse Biblical text. Procreation is an important obsession (crops up consistently) within the Pentateuch.The understanding of violence hardly fits the Christian understanding which is detailed in Christ and Culture: Graham Ward: Blackwell: Pub.

In this dialogue, we are using the word "religion" in different senses, and this creates some confusion. Even now the word "religion" has many senses, even in the Christian Tradition... I'm affraid Stanley is using it assuming that "religion" has (should have) nothing to do with politics and social matters. David thinks this is a simplification of "religion" (see David's answer). Philip thinks Stanley is using a western-liberal sense of "religion" that doesn't fits very well with some religions (well, he speaks of XIX Century western construct of religion). Stanley suggests a new method: "let's consider religions in the past perhaps to understand those in the present, or at least throw light on religious attitudes to the nature of religion per se." This method assumes that "religion" mantains its sense during the ages (always and everywhere)? I guess Ernesto thinks so. Maybe we can find some cases that fit well with the western-liberal sense (see Stanley's reply to David)... But I think this is not enough in science. The problem is "religion" is a complex word, with a complex history. And complexity emerges when people begin to answer...

I will suggest a more comprehensive understanding of religion, using different approaches to the phenomenon.

For a psycological approach to Religion see, for instance, http://www.inters.org/psychology-religion.

Thanks Migeul for your contribution but for me psychology posits too narrow a view on the matter. It brings in fact a present day view of the phenomenon without really answering a number of fundamental issues.

Science and religion make very poor bedfellows, no matter how hard people try to squeeze them in together.

It is, on my side, not really about tracing religious forms. In fact many ideas of the West, whether it can be called liberal or not, are offshoots of religion itself-bits formed through its fragmentation, caught up like psychology, etc, into authentication by belief. By that I mean, psychology is merely one way of looking at human behaviour and interactions but has become a 'truth', with priests, high priests, etc. In fact many modern institutions seem to function that way. As a trained psychotherapist, it is perhaps more obviously the case there than elsewhere.

Migeul, let me just say a few things concerning the information you have sent.

The writer (s) state that one deed requires contextualising within other deeds, and that intention underlies each deed-

now my point here is the point of the question: this mainly references Abrahamic religions. The writer (s) it seems assume Abrahamic religions as the template and projected it onto all other religions. So effectively this seems mainly to concern itself with Abrahamic religions but still doesn't wrestle with pertinent aspects. The thinking blocks that traditionally occur with this religion.

Many, if not all religions have political aspects, meaning they can be used by people to make politics. To my understanding a religion is required to provide answers to humans to question they do not have answers for, to understand things they cannot comprehend. "At the beginning humans created god in the likeness of themselves". Religion -in my understand- does more concern to people's lives and environments than to the spiritual, the after-world, the transcendental. Religion is the source of norms, of ethics. Ethics refers to how people can live together. One might want to call this social control or politics, but ethics is fundamentally necessary....

Eberhard, any reading of the Pentateuch would disabuse anyone of the notion that religion contains or institutes ethics. The source of norms-oh no, definitely and thankfully not. Certainly, politics and religion are eternal stable-mates, but not in every instance. As curiosity pieces the book religions are worth examining, but belief?

Ethics can be found initially in Egyptian secular writing and Mesopotamian laws-not emphatically within religion.

Stanley, of course I agree. Religious texts are not the only sources for ethics, and not all religious texts are foundation for ethics. Alone the differences in Christianity between Old Testament and New Testament is huge (e.g. an eye for an eye vs. a new law of love in the sermon of the mount; or the dominion aspects of the book of Genesis vs the idea to preserve god's creation manifest e.g. in Francis of Assisi. Or in Hinduism the Bhagavad Gita as a source of ethics (dharma; what is right; selfless action)..... vs fundamentalist Hindus movements, which can be interpreted as conservative political ideologist against everything that is Non-Hindu, and which does not have the integrative eclectic aspects (Syncretism) of modern Indian thinkers like Tagore, M.K. Gandhi, which of course -coming back to the original question - if Abrahamic religions are political or control social behavior. Of course my example referring to Hinduism goes beyond

Abrahamic religions, but my argument was that most or even all religions have such political and social aspects, as religions are sources of ethics, but I agree: they are not the only sources, not not all religious texts from today's perspective promote or speak in favor of contemporary ethics.

I find it somewhat ironic that you cite "an eye for an eye" as an OT example vs the Sermon on the Mount when it is cited in the Sermon on the Mount, albeit with the suggestion that it doesn't go far enough. Far enough in the sense that its original intention is to limit retribution to no more than something equivalent. Do not exact more than one eye or tooth for a damaged eye or tooth, to legislate for retribution. Forgive me for taking the discussion off on a tangent.

No, you are right in this (did I cite this? I don't remember doing so, nor would it be something I would normally do) nevertheless this comes from Mesopotamian law where it was also employed for the reasons you give-to provide an overall standard and halt any further bloodshed.

Oh, dear, I did and its directly above. But of course Philip it was meant to be a progressive law but nevertheless the difference between mutilation, still considered justified in Islam, and Christian tolerance and understanding is huge. For one, it involves concepts of good and evil, with the Christian one offering a modulated view and Islam an authoritative one.

"An eye for an eye" is in the OT ( Leviticus), but it did not originate there. It is about retaliation and the NT sets another principle (Love your enemy). Originally an eye for an eye is from the Code of Hammurabi of ancient Mesopotamia, dating back to about 1754 BC. It is thus much older than the Hebrew law. Even the Qur'an has the phrase.

The phrase is also in the Deuteronomy and Exodus and in the Torah and Talmud. In the NT, sermon of the Mount, reference is taken to the OT. It says: "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. [...] But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you .

Yes, I know its origins-a fairly common approach in the Middle East from the 2nd millennium BCE and a streamlining of general laws that involved vengeance or attitudes very similar to Islamic laws now. They were or have been appropriated by the Abrahamic religions and passed off as proceeding from god. A typical elite move-our laws were made by god and you must obey. Islam of course still does it. With corresponding ideas of sin, which really is no more than rhetoric.

Religions don't exist as 'agents' or 'subjects'; only people who confess to particular beliefs and act accordingly exist. They however tend to disagree on the 'essence' of their religion, and there is no judge...

تحية طيبة للجميع؛

لابد من التنبيه على أن نسبة الديانات إلى رسول الله إبراهيم عليه الصلاة والسلام هي نسبة شهرة ، فقولنا الديانات الإبراهيمية يقصد بها الرسالات الثلاث التي أنزلها الله على سيدنا موسى وسيدنا عيسى وسيدنا محمد عليهم صلوات الله وسلامه ، والغاية من جميع رسالات الله إرشاد الناس إلى الغاية التي خلقهم الله من أجلها، وبيان طرق السعادة في هذه الحياة وما بعد الحياة، وجميع رسالات الله لا تجبر أحدا على اتباعها قبل أن يتيقن بحقيقتها، فالاتباع يكون طوعا وفق قناعة الإنسان . ورسالة سيدنا موسى وسيدنا عيسى عليهم الصلاة والسلام خاصة ببني إسرائيل وهم أبناء سيدينا يعقوب عليه السلام، أما رسالة سيدنا محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم فهي عامة للناس وهي الرسالة الوحيدة التي تكفل الله بحفظها، فالتوراة والإنجيل في أصلهما من الله لكن يد البشر غيرت فيها ، أما الإسلام فلم يتغير كتابه أقصد القرآن الكريم، لكن اختلاف أنفس البشر والبحث عن المصالح الدنيوية المادية أو السياسية أسهم في إيجاد بعض التفسيرات والأفكار غير الصحيحة .

فأول سورة في القرآن الكريم نرى فيها قول الله تعالى؛

الحمد لله رب العالمين ولم يقل رب المؤمنين أو المسلمين فالله رب لجميع المخلوقات

وفي الآية الثانية يقول الله تعالى الرحمن الرحيم فالرحمن والرحيم لايمكن أن يأمر الناس إلا بهذه الأخلاق

وفي آية أخرى يقول الله تعالى:

لا إكراه في الدين

I-m not sure that all Moslems believe that there is no compulsion, but that is not perhaps the issue. Nevertheless, I am sure that there would be sayings in the Qur'an to that effect. There are passages there on war, inciting, and on peace, inciting that as well. It has passages on slavery/agreeing with it. I personally do not find it interesting or valid, and honestly you have identified one reason why it cannot be considered a true religion along with its other shades, that is Christianity and Judaism. Its repeition, constant in the Qur'an, suggests as much brain washing technigues as religious purpose. (in all honesty, are the phrases you have used really good literature and the best a god can do?) Its loose approach to the truth. Moses did not probably exist, nor did Abraham. The figure of Jesus in the Qur'an is not the same as the Jesus of the Christians. As an educated man I find this deplorable, but all three religions do it. They do it because there are political intentions there as well as religious ones. At too many points the Qur'an resembles a political tract-a template for a new politics rather than a new religion.

السيد الفاضل ستانلي ويلكن تحي طيبة، أرجو أن يتسع صدرك لكلامي؛

اللغة العربية لا يمكن أن تترجم كل معانيها إلى اللغات الأخرى وبالخصوص آيات القرآن الكريم ، والترجمة لا تنقل روح الكلمة وجميع معانيها ، لذلك لا أستغرب عدم تأثر غير الناطقين باللغة العربية بالكلام الإلهي.لأنهم لا يقرأون إلا ترجمة البشر وفهمهم للآيات.

نجد في القرآن الكريم آية تلخص رسالة الإسلام وهي قوله تعالى ((وما أرسلناك إلا رحمة للعالمين)) أي أن الله لم يرسل محمدا إلا ليكون رحمة لجميع الخلائق. فهذا هو الإطار العام لدين الإسلام وما خالفه من قول البشر لا يعد من الإسلام.

وقول الله تعالى ((لا إكراه في الدين)) لايعني أن الله يقبل من عباده أن لا يؤمنوا به ، فالله لم يخلقنا ويهبنا السمع والبصر والعقل والفكر لنأكل ونشرب ونتزوج ونموت، بل لشيء أكبر من ذلك، لنعبده ويعم الأمن والسلام والحق في الأرض، ولذلك أرسل الله لكل أمة رسولا ولم تقتصر رسالات الله على سيدنا موسى وعيسى ومحمد عليهم صلاة الله وسلامه، يقول الله تعالى في القرآن الكريم (( وَمَا يَسْتَوِي الْأَعْمَىٰ وَالْبَصِيرُ (19) وَلَا الظُّلُمَاتُ وَلَا النُّورُ (20) وَلَا الظِّلُّ وَلَا الْحَرُورُ (21) وَمَا يَسْتَوِي الْأَحْيَاءُ وَلَا الْأَمْوَاتُ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُسْمِعُ مَن يَشَاءُ ۖ وَمَا أَنتَ بِمُسْمِعٍ مَّن فِي الْقُبُورِ (22) إِنْ أَنتَ إِلَّا نَذِيرٌ (23) إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ بِالْحَقِّ بَشِيرًا وَنَذِيرًا ۚ وَإِن مِّنْ أُمَّةٍ إِلَّا خَلَا فِيهَا نَذِيرٌ (24) وَإِن يُكَذِّبُوكَ فَقَدْ كَذَّبَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُهُم بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَبِالزُّبُرِ وَبِالْكِتَابِ الْمُنِيرِ (25)

فالله بين لنا طريق الحق التي تسعد به البشرية في الدنيا والآخرة ، وطريق الباطل التي تغضب الله وتؤدي إلى الظلم والقتل والجور والعدوان وفساد الدنيا , وطلب منا أن نتبع طريق الحق دون إكراه، ووعد من يتبع طريقه بالخير في الدنيا والآخرة . وطلب منا أيضا أن نبتعد عن الظلم وطريق الباطل دون إكراه وتوعد من يتبعها بضنك العيش والجزاء في الدنيا والآخرة.

وتشريع العقوبات في الإسلام ينصب على ما فيه إضرار بحقوق الناس والمجتمع بشكل عام. وشرح ذلك بالتفصيل أمر يطول.

وخلاصة القول:

نعم إن الديانات الإلهية (مصدرها من الله وليس من إبراهيم وأبنائه) الأخيرة أقصد رسالة سيدنا موسى وسيدنا عيسى وسيدنا محمد عليهم الصلاة والسلام جميعها في أصلها حقيقية وصحيحة، ومصدرها واحد وهو الله، وتدعو إلى عبادة الله والسعادة في الدنيا والآخرة. لكن نصوص التوراة والإنجيل حدث فيها بعض التغيير، والتغيير لم يحدث في القرآن بل في تفسير بعض المذاهب والأحزاب

فمنشأ الإرهاب واستغلال الأديان لمصالح بعض الناس أو المذاهب والأحزاب ... ليس من الله بل من فكر البشر

أرجو أن تتكرم بقراءة بحوثي العلمية التي أتحدث فيها عن التسامح والرحمة في القرآن الكريم والإسلام

أ.د حسن عبدالجليل عبدالرحيم علي العبادلة I honestly find what you have written here peurile and frightening. Allah thinks we are his slaves, eh? An odd idea and leading me to all kinds of fearful understandings. Falsehold leads to murder, injustice, aggression-but not false ideas let alone false religions.

Your ideas belong to another time/they predate reason, civilisation and humanity. Sorry but all you have done is convince me that these religions need to go-as quickly as possible. 22) You are only a harlot. (23) We have sent you in truth, with a harp and a harp; and from a nation, there is only a sinner in it. 24 And if he lied to you, he lied Who before them came their messengers with evidence and Balzbar and enlightened book (25) This is meaningless twaddle. I am a harlot? That's nice. This really is appalling stuff, and the Qur'an is full of it.

Stanley you remind me of a character in the Bible named Nicodemus. He was highly educated, an honest man, who was captivated by Jesus. He asked Jesus how can you be born again? Jesus said to him you are an educated scholar and you do not know how to be born again. The rabbi says to Jesus I know you are from God because no man can do what you are doing unless God is with him, now tell me how can you be born again? Jesus explained it in a secular concept. He says to him the wind blows and you feel it, and sometimes you hear it, but you donot know where it came from or where it goes this is what it means to be born again. The Holy Spirit of God comes upon a man and he feels it on the inside, the man opens his mouth and the Holy Spirit gives him an unknown tongue. He cannot speak in English for a while. He does not know what the language means, but he knows that God's knows. God will respond to him by revealing himself to him more each day if he will read the Bible or listen to the Bible. He began to live a life controlled by the Spirit of God who has brought alive his inward born made it born again because it was living in trespasses and sins. Just like the physical world has its entertainment. The spiritual world of God has entertainment: the church, gospel concerts, convocations, workshops, etc. all there to help you mature as a Christian. When you are born again your old life of drinking, smoking, adultery, lies, stealing is just not in you anymore. You want to socialize with people who are like you now (born again) and you want to obey the rules they may have that was given to them by God so that you can stay born again and go to heaven to be with your new friend and Father, Almighty God. I hope I helped. God Bless.

Faith, I am not sure what Nicodemus has to do with me, with all respect.

Christianity, as expressed in many Christian texts, is an expression of the supernatural and against its claims engages in the kind of personification of the Hellenistic religious world. Holy Spirit for example seems simply a revisit to mainly Egyptian deities. The born again construct seems devoid of ethical rationale/that is there is no discernible moral, ethical or intellectual rationale for a person claiming such an exulted position. It simply of course expresses the initiation into a cult/in the case of early Christianity mainly a medical one.

Stanley, a cult is a religion or sect that is false. Believe me Christianity is not false. It is true. There are not many ways to God. There is only one way to the living God and that is by the Son, Jesus Christ. We can accept Jesus now as our Savior from sin and live eternally with him or we can reject him and live in depression, worries, stress and believe a lie. The lie is there is no God or heaven. This is a lie. Christianity is TRUE. If you reject Jesus you will be living a life of hell. The life the Spirit of God gives is joy, peace, patience, love, faith, kindness, gentleness, etc.

Faith, while I respect your faith there is little argument in your piece above, simply assertions. My work here is often to tweak out those elements of each religion that clearly come from elsewhere. Little in Christianity is actually original, not even a magical founder.

Stanley, I am afraid you are wrong. You see everyone else is imitating God they are not original. Christianity is original. It came from the Living God. You are wrong also about Christianity not being magical. One of the etymology for magical is Majesty. Psalm 45:3 KJV states: "Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty." NLT says "Put on your sword, O mighty warrior! You are so glorious, so majestic!" This Psalm is talking about Jesus. The Hebrew word for majestic here is הדך this means magnificence which would you not agree a sort of enchantment. Isn't it magnificence that raises the dead, heal cancer, heal Aids, heal leukemia, feed a multitude of 5,000 with only two fish and a few loaves of bread. I would say this is magic, majestic, magnificent, beautiful, excellent, glorious and enchanting. Have you ever thought about what the Word Gospel means? It is God's spell upon the world. It is original. Everyone else is copying the living God. God Bless!!!!

https://jesusisnotfakenews.com/crucifixion-earthquake-and-darkness-referenced-outside-the-bible/

Stanley Wilkin I came across this forum while reading around about alternative explanations for religious beliefs. I'm coming into this without a bias and a neutral stance. I'm interested in a genuine discussion as it's quite literally impossible to argue definitely for/against the validity of religion.

For example, arguing that Religion X is true and then referencing Religion X's book as proof doesn't really get anywhere. Wouldn't this be a Begging the Question fallacy? I know that it definitely IS an example of a Divine Fallacy, but that too I think can be argued as the reverse (i.e. arguing that Religion X is invalid because the Divine Fallacy says it's invalid.) It is important that I mention that because something is a fallacy does not immediately make the argument invalid.

Also, I have a question for Faith Bays . Would stating that Christianity is indeed magical a sort of conflict of interest? I thought magic and witchcraft (like making 2 fish feed 5,000 people) were detested in the Bible? I'm genuinely asking, perhaps I'm missing something here.

Ali Moharami

1) I think of this as similar to the thought experiment Roko's Basilisk whereby learning of something's existence puts the learner at possible risk that did not exist beforehand. Using an uncontacted tribe or group of people as an example, say they have no concept of heaven or hell. Life just ends. Now introduce a missionary outsider to this group of people that explains to them that Religion X says they will go to heaven for believing or go to hell for not. These people are now forced to make a decision: continue their ways and risk going to hell if it does indeed exist or adopt the religion. This decision only became necessary because of the missionary introducing the concept of eternal damnation to them. Hopefully I illustrated the idea.

2) This is just the inconsistency between the concept of free-will and the idea that a higher power already knows what occurs at all points in time. It's almost like having a movie on DVD (imagine we already watched it and know how it ends.) Everything that can and will occur is already on the DVD. We the viewers know the entire timeline and its events. But the characters in the movie still conform to that timeline by acting and reacting to events as they occur during the movie.

J.H.

I do appreciate your efforts here and I hope you understand that this for me is a process. Let us say that the major problem with the Judaic religions is that they exult god, by all accounts an emperor , which I suggest replcates the ancient superpowers', Assyria, Babylon and Persia, gods-Asshur, marduk, and in the case of Persia the imperial omnipresence. The ideas are attached to that singular exualtation and it is believed that all morality is too. The morality of these (see here the sheer nastiness of the viewpoints) religions is pinned to the demands of the gods and are not separate. Deuteronomy talks of punishing slaves and Gilead of exploiting women. In fact much of the early Bible is not moral at all but reflects the same hospitality code of Ulysses and the very same misuse of women.

Detaching moral scope from all three religions with their desire for conversion and power is wise.

I was looking for some reasonable description of religion, and merely became convinced at how horrible people are, or can be, when they believe. These views would have horrified ancient pagan or polytheistic religous believers. By the way many of the high points in Judaic religions, comes from Egypt or Zoroaster.

There is one writer on here, called Paul, an Haitian, who discusses the ideals of Voudou (do not forget that Christianity includes blood sacrifice, Judaism probably had child sacrifice and Islam is strongly connected to violence.)

J. H. I appreciate your honest question. I do not think you are trying to challenge me but you just want me to explain how God is magic. Many times God is referred to as majestic in the bible, just read some of the Psalms. Majestic is in the family of the etymology for magic. Many times we think that because magic is associated with witches and wizards that magic is bad. But God is majestic, meaning he is good, powerful, omniscient, and most holy. God work miracles in the lives of many people every day. His Son Jesus performed many miracles. Like you said, feeding 5,000 people with two fishes and five loaves of bread. His priests are representing him on earth to perform majestic service for him. To be a part of Christianity, you have to be born again so that you can receive miracles or majestic works from God. God healed me of cancer at the age of 15. God healed me of pre-diabetes and God has healed me of rheumatoid arthritis. God works miracles in the lives of countless people. :)

Stanley Wilkin I may ask you for some examples of those nasty viewpoints you mention. More so to just get an idea of your relative use of the word "nasty." At face value I think I do have to agree that some are/become horrible because of belief, but I think this may be outliers making a much bigger impact on my viewpoint. The media is my primary source of passive information and rarely does it exhibit what I currently think to be the common believer. "Passive" meaning exposure that I come across instead of explicitly researching. And so, I do have to make a conscious effort to remind myself that these passive depictions may not provide an accurate sample of the whole.

Your mentioning of older civilizations and demands of gods reminds me of another idea that crossed my mind which is remote governing (and now that I'm rereading Faith Bays's response, is similar to the Christian God's priests as representatives). This idea originally came to me during studies in my Russian Culture university course; specifically, the very early origins of modern Russia. Early Russia had the problem of trying to retain control over vast distances, hugely diverse terrains, and over differing cultures/types of peoples. Back to generally speaking, with a religion governing can be standardized. A single book could layout the, for all intents and purposes, unambiguous actions that citizens were to abide by. And with a set decree that the book cannot be altered (such as in Islam) or foster integrating different interpretations there is no opportunity for someone to make changes in their favor and then argue that the new edits are what the gods want. Sure, it would be easy for someone at a remote location to actually do this, but it would also be easier for the governing body or a representative to visit and conduct an audit so to speak. As an additional point, with a promise of paradise, the citizens would have had a much higher (or even at all) incentive to follow. As a citizen, if you’re obeying and following, its because it is to the benefit of you, not that of a monarch or a king. Paradise or heaven, I think, would have been MASSIVELY more enticing and valued during these earlier times where life was a constant struggle. Where death, disease, and poverty would have been a very real and very normal part of the lives of people. Religion would be a win-win for both the governing body and the citizens. Again, hopefully I'm conveying my thoughts well.

(As a side note that I found fascinating that we studied in my course: Vladimir the Great, a leader of Kievan Rus, had gone through a process of selecting a religion from the available options for his kingdom to adopt. This was a politically motivated decree as opposed to a belief-based decision. For instance, he did not adopt Islam because alcohol was such a big part of the culture at the time. I cannot find the original source that my professor had provided, so for the time being take this anecdotally.)

Faith Bays So you're saying that majesty and miracles have different defining aspects that separate it from magic? If my understanding is correct.

J. H. I am not separating magic and majestic. If the Psalmist believes that God's majesty was magic then this would not separate a miracle from being majestic or magic too. :) WARNING: Anyone who tries to curse a Christian, his curse will backfire and fall on him. Christians cannot be cursed. You will fall into the hands of an angry God.

Faith Bays very important Question ...

The source of all heavenly religions is the same, and its essence is the foundation of monotheism and worship of Allah the Creator, the Magnificent, righteous deeds and leaving a good memory, in preparation for the Day of Judgment.

Good morals are a way of life for the individual and for the whole society, and it can be considered a universal constitution for all peoples, to avoid wars and worldly corruption, away from the spirit of hatred, hatred and excessive self-love.

Nagham, the notion that religion can only be and is legitimised by monotheism is absurd and given the degree of violence that directly evolved from monotheism cannot be smoothed away by religious rhetoric. It is insulting to genuinely spiritual religions that developed from Hinduism and other religious cultures. As the morals of monotheism are by and large based on certain time periods, and the cultures of that period (a great deal of Islamic law is based on pre-Islamic Arabic society and superstition) and given the obvious redactions in The Sermon on the Mount difficult to know what the original Christians believed.

Each of the books provides specific moralities that have little to nothing to do with 'avoiding wars' and I am concerned (and frightened) by the assertion of a universal constitution. One based on which religion, pray?

Broken parts, when combined togethor forms the vessel back, which in the beginning contained the water.

Abrahamic Religions are said to have evolved or should I say, are actually a part of "One" Truth, which was revealed to Adam (this is what becomes apparent as image by reading the bible and Quran).

Adam had no revelation, but his Innate knowledge of God acted as a revelation, but as the time progressed man became divided and torn that disposition based knowledge into sects and creeds, which began to get named as "Religions" - The Theory of Quran and Bible.

If you can study the primal theory of Quran and Bible, maybe that will help you a lot (there are many verses in the Quran which advocate that all religions are man made, and that Allah never gave any religion, but it was always truth thought from His side) etc.

It seems Quran and Bible, challenge the very idea of having religions or "isms" on the surface of the earth (Quran 6:159) and (Quran 3:103).

Best of luck for your research, and peace!

Dear Stanley Wilkin, I believe that corruption and wars are due to the spirit of selfishness and not because of the doctrine of monotheism

... Because the origin of the Abrahamic is monotheism and the worship of the One God and abandoning idols, the problem is not in religion but in those who implement the laws and rulings of religion.

I do not know what is the problem with regard to good morals as a universe-constitution, for all peoples, to avoid worldly wars and corruption ... In a conversation of the Messenger Muhammad, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, he said, “Rather, I sent to complete noble morals.” This is an explicit call to think that monotheism is one of the highest values of morality among individuals.

الحديث النبوي الشريف يقول انما بعثت لاتمم مكارم الاخلاق

my regards