₦airaland Forum

Islam was originally a sect of Christianity

All the stories in the Quran did not exist anywhere except in the custody of Jews and Christians before Mohammed. There was no way Mohammed could have gotten them except from Jews and Christians
Mohammed also believed in the Prophethood of Jesus Christ and also in his immaculate conception or virgin birth. Jews do not believe that and the only people who believed that prior to Mohammed's birth were sects of Christianity. There is no where else he could have gotten the story if not from one of these sects that were present in Arabia back then. It is therefore academically sound to say he was originally converted by one of these sects. There is no other way. He was converted by Christians because they were the only ones who revered Jesus and believed in the virgin birth back then
Mohammed like many who came after him accepted Christianity and added his own to it for it to become Islam. He added in the main the practices of his own people. He is no different from the founders of Mormon church, Jehovah witness, Celestial church, cherubim and Seraphim and etc

lawani:
Islam was originally a sect of Christianity

There is no where else he could have gotten the story if not from one of these sects that were present in Arabia back then

Some people that make Agbo oftentimes add their own concoction to conventional medicine

AntiChristian:
1. Distinct Origins and Revelation
A. Islam presents itself as a distinct and final revelation from God (Allah) through the Prophet Muhammad, not as a sect or offshoot of Christianity or Judaism. The Quran explicitly states that it confirms and corrects previous scriptures but is a new, independent revelation (Quran 5:48).
B. The Quran challenges Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity (Quran 4:171; 5:73), which shows a clear theological divergence rather than mere adoption.
C. The Quran also rejects the idea of Jesus as the Son of God and emphasizes strict monotheism (Tawhid), which is fundamentally different from Christian beliefs.

2. Historical and Theological Differences
A. While Islam acknowledges Jesus as a prophet and accepts the virgin birth (Quran 3:45-47), it rejects his divinity and crucifixion, which are central to Christian faith.
B. The Quran’s narratives about biblical figures often differ in details and emphasis, indicating independent sources or oral traditions rather than direct borrowing.
C. The presence of Jewish and Christian communities in Arabia at the time of Muhammad does not imply that Islam originated as a sect of Christianity. Rather, Islam arose in a religiously pluralistic environment and engaged with these traditions critically.

3. Prophet Muhammad’s Unique Role
A. Muhammad is regarded in Islam as the "Seal of the Prophets" (Quran 33:40), meaning the final messenger who brought the ultimate and complete guidance.
B. His teachings include practices and laws that are distinct from Christianity and Judaism, such as the five daily prayers, fasting in Ramadan, and specific legal rulings.
C. The claim that Muhammad simply added his own cultural practices to Christianity ignores the comprehensive nature of Islamic law (Sharia) and theology, which is rooted in the Quran and Hadith.

4. Academic and Historical Perspectives
A. Scholars recognize that Islam emerged in a context influenced by Jewish, Christian, and Arabian traditions, but it is not accurate to say it was "converted" from Christianity.
B. Islam’s theological framework and worldview are distinct and represent a new religious system rather than a sect or derivative.
C. The comparison to modern religious movements like Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witnesses is anachronistic and overlooks the historical and theological context of 7th-century Arabia.

5. Verses Emphasizing Islam’s Distinct Identity
A. Quran 3:19: "Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam."
B. Quran 5:3: "This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion."
C. Quran 6:162: "Say, 'Indeed, my prayer, my rites of sacrifice, my living and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the worlds.'"

Islam is not a sect of Christianity but a distinct Abrahamic faith with its own unique revelation, theology, and practices. While it acknowledges and respects previous prophets and scriptures, it offers a new and final message. The claim that Muhammad was converted by Christians or simply adapted Christianity does not hold up against theological, historical, and scriptural evidence.

So it was from Allah that he first heard the name of Jesus Christ, Mary, Abraham and etc?

lawani:
So it was from Allah that he first heard the name of Jesus Christ, Mary, Abraham and etc?

Do you have proof he heard the details about them elsewhere?

lawani:
➜Islam was originally a sect of Christianity. All the stories in the Quran did not exist anywhere except in the custody of Jews and Christians before Mohammed.
➜ There was no way Mohammed could have gotten them except from Jews and Christians
➜ Mohammed also believed in the Prophethood of Jesus Christ and also in his immaculate conception or virgin birth.
➜ Jews do not believe that and the only people who believed that prior to Mohammed's birth were sects of Christianity. There is no where else he could have gotten the story if not from one of these sects that were present in Arabia back then. It is therefore academically sound to say he was originally converted by one of these sects. There is no other way. He was converted by Christians because they were the only ones who revered Jesus and believed in the virgin birth back then
➜ Mohammed like many who came after him accepted Christianity and added his own to it for it to become Islam. He added in the main the practices of his own people. He is no different from the founders of Mormon church, Jehovah witness, Celestial church, cherubim and Seraphim and etc

1. Mohammed's tales are fables he cobbled together about the Jewish and Injeel traditions that existed around his time. 🥱🥱

2. Mohammed believed in someone whose teachings he never once attempted to emulate. Mohammed believed so much that he confused the mother of Jesus with the sister of Aaron? Well, yeah, Mohammed could indeed have been part of a Christian sect. 😏11

3. Glad you didn't say he accepted Jesus Christ of Israel, as the Christians love to mouth on about doing. 🤔

Yeah, Mohammed is indeed no different from those you listed there. Sadly, he was able to capture the Arabs in the way he did with his many co-opted tales that prove nothing about him other than that he was good at the fraud that is religion.

AntiChristian:
[size=8pt]➜ The Quran explicitly states that it confirms and corrects previous scriptures but is a new, independent revelation (Quran 5:48).

I have heard this so many times repeated by your Mohammedians, but I doubt you truly understand the meaning behind this claim. If your Allah's (Mohammed's) Quran confirms the Scriptures before it, shouldn't your Allah's stories at least line up with the Stories and accounts in those Scriptures? 🤔

The last time I responded to a comment of yours, you claimed the Torah and Injeel were corrupted after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. I had mentioned in response that the Torah which existed before that particular point in time —the Dead Sea Scrolls — we have with us today. And even that Allah's(Mohammed's) Quran does not seem to agree with. So, how can Allah make such a very big blunder? 🤔

AntiChristian:
Do you have proof he heard the details about them elsewhere?

If you present someone's work as your original work in academic circles then you are courting jail. The court will not accept your argument that you got it from God

lawani:
➜So it was from Allah that he first heard the name of Jesus Christ, Mary, Abraham and etc?

The idea to use those stories came instead from the fact that he had chosen to associate the experience he had in the caves with what he believed a demon was with an angel called Gabriel from Christian mythology, as suggested to him by his wife's cousin.

Kobojunkie:
1. Mohammed's tales are fables he cobbled together about the Jewish and Injeel traditions that existed around his time. 🥱🥱

2. Mohammed believed in someone whose teachings he never once attempted to emulate. Mohammed believed so much that he confused the mother of Jesus with the sister of Aaron? Well, yeah, Mohammed could indeed have been part of a Christian sect. 😏11

3. Glad you didn't say he accepted Jesus Christ of Israel, as the Christians love to mouth on about doing. 🤔

Yeah, Mohammed is indeed no different from those you listed there. Sadly, he was able to capture the Arabs in the way he did with his many co-opted tales that prove nothing about him other than that he was good at the fraud that is religion.

He in a way accepted Christ because he acknowledged him as a prophet. He however did not acknowledge him as God. It was in the convention at Nice that early Christian leaders decided to accept the divinity of Christ. In the beginning there were many Christian sects that did not accept Jesus Christ as God. It must have been a sect that did not accept Christ as God that preached to him in Arabia

lawani:
➜He in a way accepted Christ because he acknowledged him as a prophet. He however did not acknowledge him as God. It was in the convention at Nice that early Christian leaders decided to accept the divinity of Christ. In the beginning there were many Christian sects that did not accept Jesus Christ as God. It must have been a sect that did not accept Christ as God that preached to him in Arabia

. I get your argument. There remain over 46,000 different Christian sects even to this day. 🥱🥱

Also, Mohammed did set himself as a replacement for Jesus Christ in his Quran, though.
➜Mohammedians literally pray to Mohammed 5 times every day during their Salats(Shahadas) — he is dead, but they still call on him to provide for them intercession so Allah will hear their prayers. He literally presented himself as a go-between for all muslims to reach Allah. (Muslims cannot be heard by Allah unless they first pray to Mohammed.)
➜ Mohammed is expected to sit on a throne next to Allah, in some way taking the place of Jesus in the Christian myths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RrBMugcvKQ?si=OV1ivqX3OcfhdU2w

lawani:
Islam was originally a sect of Christianity

All the stories in the Quran did not exist anywhere except in the custody of Jews and Christians before Mohammed. There was no way Mohammed could have gotten them except from Jews and Christians
Mohammed also believed in the Prophethood of Jesus Christ and also in his immaculate conception or virgin birth. Jews do not believe that and the only people who believed that prior to Mohammed's birth were sects of Christianity. There is no where else he could have gotten the story if not from one of these sects that were present in Arabia back then. It is therefore academically sound to say he was originally converted by one of these sects. There is no other way. He was converted by Christians because they were the only ones who revered Jesus and believed in the virgin birth back then
Mohammed like many who came after him accepted Christianity and added his own to it for it to become Islam. He added in the main the practices of his own people. He is no different from the founders of Mormon church, Jehovah witness, Celestial church, cherubim and Seraphim and etc

Lawani a derivation from moonlight or is it chief. The foundation of your argument crumbles with even a basic understanding of history.

Recognizing shared prophets doesn't make something a sect. Islam views earlier prophets as part of a continuous Abrahamic tradition, not as something derived from Christianity. Following your reasoning, Christianity would be a sect of Judaism knowing Jesus was Jewish, taught from the Hebrew scriptures, and the first Christians were Jews themselves. Either apply your standard consistently or discard it.

The claim that only Jews and Christians had these stories is simply untrue. Arabia maintained its own Abrahamic oral traditions (Abraham, Ishmael, the Kaaba). Moreover, Arabia was home to Jewish tribes, Syriac Christians, Hanifs, had contact with Ethiopia, and a widespread system of oral storytelling. Similar narratives don't automatically mean direct borrowing of texts.

The concepts of virgin birth and prophethood are not unique to Christianity. Miraculous births appear well before Christianity (Isaac, Samuel, John - the Baptist). Accepting Jesus as a prophet while simultaneously rejecting his divinity, crucifixion, the Trinity, and the atonement is an anti-Christian theological stance, not that of a Christian sect.

Saying there's no other way is just arguing from a place of ignorance. Other possibilities exist.

An independent Arabian monotheism (the Hanifs)
Cultural contact from multiple sources
Religious synthesis
Or the Islamic claim of direct revelation (which you can reject, but you can't historically disprove).

The comparison to Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses is a false analogy. These groups are centered on Christ and build upon Christian doctrine. Islam directly refutes Christianity's central tenets (the Trinity, Incarnation, Crucifixion). That's not building upon Christianity; it's contradicting it.

Shared cultural practices don't demonstrate derivation. Islam asserts it's restoring Abrahamic rites, and Christianity itself adopted pagan calendars and customs. By this logic, Christianity would also be invalidated.

So shared roots doesn't mean a sect. Neither does shared stories translate to conversion.
Nor rejecting core doctrines equal perfect continuation. Saying no other way is not evidence.

Islam is not a sect of Christianity. It is a distinct Abrahamic religion that competes with, corrects, and contradicts Christian theology. You're free to reject Islam theologically, but calling it a Christian sect is historically and logically indefensible.

honesttalk21:
Lawani a derivation from moonlight or is it chief. The foundation of your argument crumbles with even a basic understanding of history.

Recognizing shared prophets doesn't make something a sect. Islam views earlier prophets as part of a continuous Abrahamic tradition, not as something derived from Christianity. Following your reasoning, Christianity would be a sect of Judaism knowing Jesus was Jewish, taught from the Hebrew scriptures, and the first Christians were Jews themselves. Either apply your standard consistently or discard it.

The claim that only Jews and Christians had these stories is simply untrue. Arabia maintained its own Abrahamic oral traditions (Abraham, Ishmael, the Kaaba). Moreover, Arabia was home to Jewish tribes, Syriac Christians, Hanifs, had contact with Ethiopia, and a widespread system of oral storytelling. Similar narratives don't automatically mean direct borrowing of texts.

The concepts of virgin birth and prophethood are not unique to Christianity. Miraculous births appear well before Christianity (Isaac, Samuel, John - the Baptist). Accepting Jesus as a prophet while simultaneously rejecting his divinity, crucifixion, the Trinity, and the atonement is an anti-Christian theological stance, not that of a Christian sect.

Saying there's no other way is just arguing from a place of ignorance. Other possibilities exist.

An independent Arabian monotheism (the Hanifs)
Cultural contact from multiple sources
Religious synthesis
Or the Islamic claim of direct revelation (which you can reject, but you can't historically disprove).

The comparison to Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses is a false analogy. These groups are centered on Christ and build upon Christian doctrine. Islam directly refutes Christianity's central tenets (the Trinity, Incarnation, Crucifixion). That's not building upon Christianity; it's contradicting it.

Shared cultural practices don't demonstrate derivation. Islam asserts it's restoring Abrahamic rites, and Christianity itself adopted pagan calendars and customs. By this logic, Christianity would also be invalidated.

So shared roots doesn't mean a sect. Neither does shared stories translate to conversion.
Nor rejecting core doctrines equal perfect continuation. Saying no other way is not evidence.

Islam is not a sect of Christianity. It is a distinct Abrahamic religion that competes with, corrects, and contradicts Christian theology. You're free to reject Islam theologically, but calling it a Christian sect is historically and logically indefensible.

Abraham is the property of Jews and your notion that anybody apart from Jews originally knew about Abraham is wrong. It is like saying some other people knew about Oduduwa without hearing the story from the Yoruba or some people knew about King Arthur without hearing of him from the British. Abraham is the property of Jews. Always remember that. No tradition of Abraham among Arabs originally.
The first Christians were all Jews. So Christianity was infact a dissident Jewish sect at the beginning before they started admitting Gentiles. Emphasis on dissident.
Islam on its part is not dissident Christianity but Christianity itself. You can't believe in Jesus' prophethood and his virgin birth in the first century and say you are not a Jesus follower. Mohammed was converted by a Christian sect after which he added his own tribal practices to it to form Islam.

Note Mohammed wasn't converted by Jews but by Christians

lawani:
Abraham is the property of Jews and your notion that anybody apart from Jews originally knew about Abraham is wrong. It is like saying some other people knew about Oduduwa without hearing the story from the Yoruba or some people knew about King Arthur without hearing of him from the British. Abraham is the property of Jews. Always remember that. No tradition of Abraham among Arabs originally.
The first Christians were all Jews. So Christianity was infact a dissident Jewish sect at the beginning before they started admitting Gentiles. Emphasis on dissident.
Islam on its part is not dissident Christianity but Christianity itself. You can't believe in Jesus' prophethood and his virgin birth in the first century and say you are not a Jesus follower. Mohammed was converted by a Christian sect after which he added his own tribal practices to it to form Islam.

Note Mohammed wasn't converted by Jews but by Christians

Simple application of basic understanding of history and logical consistency has your arguments crumbled.

Abraham was never exclusively owned by the Jews. Jewish scripture itself states that Ishmael, Abraham's own son, was blessed, destined to multiply, and become a great nation (Genesis 16-17). Pre-Islamic Arabs traced their ancestry back to Ishmael, and Byzantine and Syriac Christian writers recorded Arabs identifying themselves as Ishmaelites, centuries before Islam even emerged. Abraham was a patriarch figure shared across Semitic traditions, not the sole property of one ethnic group.

Yes, Christianity did originate as a Jewish sect and that fact completely undermines your point. Christianity separated from Judaism by discarding Jewish law and fundamentally redefining the nature of God. Islam does something similar with Christianity but didn't separate from it. It acknowledges Jesus, but pointedly rejects core tenets like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the concept of Atonement. These aren't minor quibbles; they are fundamental contradictions. A belief system that denies the very foundations of Christianity cannot logically be Christianity itself.

Simply believing in Jesus's status as a prophet and his virgin birth doesn't make someone a Christian otherwise, Jews would also be Christians. Christianity is fundamentally defined by the divinity of Jesus, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. Islam explicitly denies all three.

The assertion that Muhammad pbuh was somehow converted by Christians is pure speculation, lacking any real evidence. The Qur'an contains criticisms of both Jews and Christians and outright rejects the central doctrines of Christianity. If Islam were simply a Christian sect, it wouldn't dismantle the core of Christian theology.

Your argument relies on a blatant double standard. Christianity is granted the right to diverge from Judaism and still be considered distinct but Islam is denied the same right to diverge from Christianity. That's not history; it's simply biased reasoning.

Shared prophets do not equal a shared religion. Abraham existed long before Judaism. Islam rejects the defining beliefs of Christianity.

Islam is a distinct Abrahamic faith just as Christianity is distinct from Judaism.

honesttalk21:
Simple application of basic understanding of history and logical consistency has your arguments crumbled.

Abraham was never exclusively owned by the Jews. Jewish scripture itself states that Ishmael, Abraham's own son, was blessed, destined to multiply, and become a great nation (Genesis 16-17). Pre-Islamic Arabs traced their ancestry back to Ishmael, and Byzantine and Syriac Christian writers recorded Arabs identifying themselves as Ishmaelites, centuries before Islam even emerged. Abraham was a patriarch figure shared across Semitic traditions, not the sole property of one ethnic group.

Yes, Christianity did originate as a Jewish sect and that fact completely undermines your point. Christianity separated from Judaism by discarding Jewish law and fundamentally redefining the nature of God. Islam does something similar with Christianity but didn't separate from it. It acknowledges Jesus, but pointedly rejects core tenets like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the concept of Atonement. These aren't minor quibbles; they are fundamental contradictions. A belief system that denies the very foundations of Christianity cannot logically be Christianity itself.

Simply believing in Jesus's status as a prophet and his virgin birth doesn't make someone a Christian otherwise, Jews would also be Christians. Christianity is fundamentally defined by the divinity of Jesus, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. Islam explicitly denies all three.

The assertion that Muhammad pbuh was somehow converted by Christians is pure speculation, lacking any real evidence. The Qur'an contains criticisms of both Jews and Christians and outright rejects the central doctrines of Christianity. If Islam were simply a Christian sect, it wouldn't dismantle the core of Christian theology.

Your argument relies on a blatant double standard. Christianity is granted the right to diverge from Judaism and still be considered distinct but Islam is denied the same right to diverge from Christianity. That's not history; it's simply biased reasoning.

Shared prophets do not equal a shared religion. Abraham existed long before Judaism. Islam rejects the defining beliefs of Christianity.

Islam is a distinct Abrahamic faith just as Christianity is distinct from Judaism.

You say Jewish scriptures, show me Arab scriptures mentioning Abraham or Ishmael. Ishmael is a man mentioned in the Torah who according to the Torah lived and died among millions of unknowns in the Egypt Palestine area thousands of years ago. No known descendants

Yes if Jews believed in Jesus' virgin birth and prophethood, they would be effectively Christians but they don't. I am surprised you don't know

lawani:
You say Jewish scriptures, show me Arab scriptures mentioning Abraham or Ishmael. Ishmael is a man mentioned in the Torah who according to the Torah lived and died among millions of unknowns in the Egypt Palestine area thousands of years ago. No known descendants

Yes if Jews believed in Jesus' virgin birth and prophethood, they would be effectively Christians but they don't. I am surprised you don't know

Demanding Arab scriptures is a bit of a misstep. Pre-Islamic Arabia relied on spoken word, not written texts. You really don't know? Just because there aren't written records doesn't mean there were no traditions. If that were the case, we'd have to say most ancient peoples had no history, which isn't true.

We actually have accounts from outside sources. Christian, Jewish, and Byzantine writers before Islam mention Arabs identifying as Ishmaelites, practicing circumcision, and claiming descent from Abraham. Even Jewish scripture mentions Ishmael's twelve princes and recognizes his descendants as distinct groups (Genesis 25; Psalm 83). To say there are no known descendants goes against both your own Bible and historical records.

Regarding Jesus; believing he was a prophet and born of a virgin doesn't automatically make someone a Christian. Christianity hinges on the concepts of divinity, crucifixion, resurrection, and atonement. Islam clearly rejects all of those. Agreeing on a couple of points while disagreeing on the core beliefs doesn't mean you belong to the same religion.

Christianity separated from Judaism despite sharing prophets, and Islam breaks away from Christianity in a similar way. Just because they share some figures doesn't mean they're the same religion.

Your argument doesn't hold up because it
asks for written proof from a culture that prioritized oral tradition,overlooks historical accounts from external sources,and confuses surface-level agreement with true theological alignment.

That's not really evidence, it's more like trying to bend the rules. It's special pleading.

honesttalk21:
➜Demanding Arab scriptures is a bit of a misstep. Pre-Islamic Arabia relied on spoken word, not written texts. You really don't know? Just because there aren't written records doesn't mean there were no traditions. If that were the case, we'd have to say most ancient peoples had no history, which isn't true.
We actually have accounts from outside sources. Christian, Jewish, and Byzantine writers before Islam mention Arabs identifying as Ishmaelites, practicing circumcision, and claiming descent from Abraham. Even Jewish scripture mentions Ishmael's twelve princes and recognizes his descendants as distinct groups (Genesis 25; Psalm 83). To say there are no known descendants goes against both your own Bible and historical records.
➜ Regarding Jesus; believing he was a prophet and born of a virgin doesn't automatically make someone a Christian. Christianity hinges on the concepts of divinity, crucifixion, resurrection, and atonement. Islam clearly rejects all of those. Agreeing on a couple of points while disagreeing on the core beliefs doesn't mean you belong to the same religion.
➜ Christianity separated from Judaism despite sharing prophets, and Islam breaks away from Christianity in a similar way. Just because they share some figures doesn't mean they're the same religion.
➜ Your argument doesn't hold up because it asks for written proof from a culture that prioritized oral tradition,overlooks historical accounts from external sources,and confuses surface-level agreement with true theological alignment. That's not really evidence, it's more like trying to bend the rules. It's special pleading.

1. Compared to many of the Semitic languages, Tthe arabic language is among the most recent.

The Arabic language has roots dating back over 1,500 to 1,600 years, with its earliest recognized written forms appearing around the 1st to 4th centuries CE, while its direct ancestor, Old Arabic, emerged even earlier in the 1st millennium BCE. It is a Semitic language that originated in the Arabian Peninsula, developing into its classical form by the 7th century CE with the Quran.
Key Historical Milestones of Arabic:
1st Century CE: Earliest, albeit sparse, inscriptions of Old Arabic, such as the En Avdat inscription (circa 125 CE).
4th Century CE: The Namara inscription (328 CE) in Syria represents one of the earliest, fully developed records.
6th Century CE: Pre-Islamic poetry and early inscriptions (e.g., Zabad, 512 CE).
7th Century CE (Quranic/Classical): Standardization occurred, leading to the language still recognized today.
https://alifarabic.com/what-is-the-history-of-the-arabic-language/

The Nabatean language is considered the precursor to the Arabic language. 🥱🥱

The Nabataean language is not identical to modern Arabic, but it is considered an early, transitional form of Arabic heavily influenced by Aramaic. While Nabataeans spoke a form of North Arabian/Arabic, they used Aramaic for official, written, and administrative purposes, which later evolved into the Nabataean script—the direct ancestor of the Arabic script.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-general/oldest-arabic-inscription-provides-missing-link-between-nabatean-and-arabic-writing.

2. This is wrong! The aryan sect to which the monk from whom Mohammed is said to have gotten his ideas regarding Christianity did not hold those ideas of divinity, crucifixion, resurrection, and atonement. The gnostics and other sects that were classified by Rome as heretical sects held ideas different from what is mainstream Christianity today. 🥱🥱

3. Christianity was never a part of Judaism. Judaism was a religion that was created and controlled by the descendants of Jacob for the purpose of administering access to the God of Israel. Christianity, on the other hand, was created and bankrolled by the Romans, who, as they had previously done with the religion of the Greeks, sought to gain control over the Israelites' only movement that had begun in Judea before Rome eventually killed/exiled much of the Jewish population, after the destruction of the Temple.

Islam came in trading stories; it claims to be linked to Christianity, made failed attempts to link itself to the Israelites and their prophets, in much the same way that the Christians before it did. So, in a lot of ways, Islam could be seen as just another sect under Christianity.

4. Even after the language took written form, there was no attempt by the people to document their so-called oral traditions. That is a big issue, as it could be construed that the people did not have a history, of the kind you claim for them, worth documenting. I am simply going off your claims here.🥱🥱

lawani:
If you present someone's work as your original work in academic circles then you are courting jail. The court will not accept your argument that you got it from God

Give us your proofs? These rants are just all barks and no bites!

Kobojunkie:
I have heard this so many times repeated by your

---

Mohammedians

---

Muslims (not like Christ - Christians), but I doubt you truly understand the meaning behind this claim. If your Allah's (Mohammed's) Quran confirms the Scriptures before it, shouldn't your Allah's stories at least line up with the Stories and accounts in those Scriptures? 🤔

Confirming it means acknowledging the existence of the scriptures and Prophets. The stories do not need to add up as we know your scriptures are not preserved. You can't even authenticate any of them!

The last time I responded to a comment of yours, you claimed the Torah and Injeel were corrupted after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. I had mentioned in response that the Torah which existed before that particular point in time —the Dead Sea Scrolls — we have with us today. And even that Allah's(Mohammed's) Quran does not seem to agree with. So, how can Allah make such a very big blunder? 🤔

What nonsense is this? Where did I mention any date of corruption to your scriptures? Can you tell us who penned down the scriptures and how it was preserved generationally before it was discovered in modern times?

Where's the blunder except the one in your head?

honesttalk21:
Christianity separated from Judaism despite sharing prophets, and Islam breaks away from Christianity in a similar way. Just because they share some figures doesn't mean they're the same religion.

Now it's clear that you are dishonest!

How come you tag different religions as Christians when they don't agree?

But here you are saying sharing some figures doesn't mean the same religion!

Do you now agree that JWs aren't same religion with those different religions all claiming Christians?

Meanwhile you have proved your dishonesty by claiming that your religion that is beheading people and the religion that's shunning people are the same!🙂

MaxInDHouse:
Now it's clear that you are dishonest!

How come you tag different religions as Christians when they don't agree?

But here you are saying sharing some figures doesn't mean the same religion!

Do you now agree that JWs aren't same religion with those different religions all claiming Christians?

Meanwhile you have proved your dishonesty by claiming that your religion that is beheading people and the religion that's shunning people are the same!🙂

Ah! What's happening now?

Your accusation falls apart due to its own inconsistencies.

1. You're mixing up different categories. Various Christian denominations (like Catholic, Protestant, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) all identify as Christian and debate their beliefs within that framework. Islam and Christianity are distinct religions because Islam clearly rejects key Christian beliefs (such as the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and the crucifixion). This distinction is well established in theology and religious studies.

2. Sharing figures does not mean they are the same religion unless you want to undermine Christianity itself. Christianity shares prophets and scriptures with Judaism, yet you acknowledge that Christianity is not Judaism. Islam shares figures with Christianity, but you argue that Islam cannot be seen as separate. This reasoning lacks logic and seems to be an example of special pleading.

3. Jehovah's Witnesses are different from other Christian groups, but they are still classified as Christian. While their beliefs differ, this is similar to the differences between Protestants and Catholics. Disagreement within a religion does not create a new religion; a rejection of its core principles does, which is why Islam is not Christianity.

4. Your argument that beheading vs. shunning makes same religion is a strawman. No one has claimed they are the same religion. The focus is on ethical consistency. Executing apostates is wrong, and total shunning that causes documented harm is also wrong. Condemning one while defending the other lacks moral clarity and is selective outrage.

Your accusation of dishonesty is unfounded because you are conflating categories, applying double standards, and attacking claims that were never made. The inconsistency lies with you, not me.

Kobojunkie:
1. Compared to many of the Semitic languages, Tthe arabic language is among the most recent. The Nabatean language is considered the precursor to the Arabic language. 🥱🥱


2. This is wrong! The aryan sect to which the monk from whom Mohammed is said to have gotten his ideas regarding Christianity did not hold those ideas of divinity, crucifixion, resurrection, and atonement. The gnostics and other sects that were classified by Rome as heretical sects held ideas different from what is mainstream Christianity today. 🥱🥱

3. Christianity was never a part of Judaism. Judaism was a religion that was created and controlled by the descendants of Jacob for the purpose of administering access to the God of Israel. Christianity, on the other hand, was created and bankrolled by the Romans, who, as they had previously done with the religion of the Greeks, sought to gain control over the Israelites' only movement that had begun in Judea before Rome eventually killed/exiled much of the Jewish population, after the destruction of the Temple.

Islam came in trading stories; it claims to be linked to Christianity, made failed attempts to link itself to the Israelites and their prophets, in much the same way that the Christians before it did. So, in a lot of ways, Islam could be seen as just another sect under Christianity.

4. Even after the language took written form, there was no attempt by the people to document their so-called oral traditions. That is a big issue, as it could be construed that the people did not have a history, of the kind you claim for them, worth documenting. I am simply going off your claims here.🥱🥱

It is indeed abnormal the addition of statements not made by me to mine then expecting me to respond.

honesttalk21:
Various Christian denominations (like Catholic, Protestant, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) all identify as Christian

Just as Jews, Churches and Islam identify as worshipers of the Abrahamic God o!🙂

MaxInDHouse:
Just as Jews, Churches and Islam identify as worshipers of the Abrahamic God o!🙂

Your dishonest mischief only shows how far you can go. This response of yours commits a category error by using a false equivalence.

It mixes up different kinds of things.

Christian denominations are disagreements within the Christian faith. Islam on the other hand compared to Christianity is completely different religions with fundamentally incompatible beliefs.

Moving from are they the same religion? to do they worship the same God? is a sneaky change of subject. Just because they share some history doesn't make them the same religion.

You fraudulently juggle levels of classification.
Abrahamic is a wider category than Christian.

Abrahamic religions
├─ Judaism
├─ Christianity
│ ├─ Catholic
│ ├─ Protestant
│ ├─ Jehovah’s Witnesses
└─ Islam

Using the top level (Abrahamic) to claim Islam is the same as Christianity is like saying cats are dogs because they're both mammals. It's a classification mess.

The comparison falls apart because Jehovah's Witnesses are considered Christian since Jesus is central to their beliefs even if those beliefs are considered unorthodox. Islam isn't Christian because it directly denies that Jesus is divine and that he was crucified. They can both be Abrahamic without being the same religion.

The hidden either/or problem is clear with either Islam is Christian, or Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Christian This doesn't work because it's comparing differences between religions to disagreements within a single religion.

The key takeaway is that though there are shared prophets or historical roots they don't define a religion. Core beliefs do. Christianity and Islam are separate religions; Christian denominations are not. This isn't a smart comparison it's a basic error disguised as an argument.

With all these grammar i only have one question for you:

Do the Jews, Churches and Muslims have the same root claiming worshipers of the Abrahamic God?🙂

honesttalk21:
Your dishonest mischief only shows how far you can go. This response of yours commits a category error by using a false equivalence.

It mixes up different kinds of things.

Christian denominations are disagreements within the Christian faith. Islam on the other hand compared to Christianity is completely different religions with fundamentally incompatible beliefs.

Moving from are they the same religion? to do they worship the same God? is a sneaky change of subject. Just because they share some history doesn't make them the same religion.

You fraudulently juggle levels of classification.
Abrahamic is a wider category than Christian.

Abrahamic religions
├─ Judaism
├─ Christianity
│ ├─ Catholic
│ ├─ Protestant
│ ├─ Jehovah’s Witnesses
└─ Islam

Using the top level (Abrahamic) to claim Islam is the same as Christianity is like saying cats are dogs because they're both mammals. It's a classification mess.

The comparison falls apart because Jehovah's Witnesses are considered Christian since Jesus is central to their beliefs even if those beliefs are considered unorthodox. Islam isn't Christian because it directly denies that Jesus is divine and that he was crucified. They can both be Abrahamic without being the same religion.

The hidden either/or problem is clear with either Islam is Christian, or Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Christian This doesn't work because it's comparing differences between religions to disagreements within a single religion.

The key takeaway is that though there are shared prophets or historical roots they don't define a religion. Core beliefs do. Christianity and Islam are separate religions; Christian denominations are not. This isn't a smart comparison it's a basic error disguised as an argument.

honesttalk21:
Demanding Arab scriptures is a bit of a misstep. Pre-Islamic Arabia relied on spoken word, not written texts. You really don't know? Just because there aren't written records doesn't mean there were no traditions. If that were the case, we'd have to say most ancient peoples had no history, which isn't true.

We actually have accounts from outside sources. Christian, Jewish, and Byzantine writers before Islam mention Arabs identifying as Ishmaelites, practicing circumcision, and claiming descent from Abraham. Even Jewish scripture mentions Ishmael's twelve princes and recognizes his descendants as distinct groups (Genesis 25; Psalm 83). To say there are no known descendants goes against both your own Bible and historical records.

Regarding Jesus; believing he was a prophet and born of a virgin doesn't automatically make someone a Christian. Christianity hinges on the concepts of divinity, crucifixion, resurrection, and atonement. Islam clearly rejects all of those. Agreeing on a couple of points while disagreeing on the core beliefs doesn't mean you belong to the same religion.

Christianity separated from Judaism despite sharing prophets, and Islam breaks away from Christianity in a similar way. Just because they share some figures doesn't mean they're the same religion.

Your argument doesn't hold up because it
asks for written proof from a culture that prioritized oral tradition,overlooks historical accounts from external sources,and confuses surface-level agreement with true theological alignment.

That's not really evidence, it's more like trying to bend the rules. It's special pleading.

So you now agree that Islam broke away from Christianity? Just the same way the Mormon church and the JW broke away. I want you to realize that Mohammed accepted the doctrine of the virgin birth and Jesus' prophethood from Christians. He was converted by Christians!

We can say the first Christians were dissident Jews because they were actually hunted down and persecuted by Jews but Mohammed was just a Christian. His acceptance of Jesus as a prophet and belief in the virgin birth makes him so and there was no time he was persecuted by Christians. He was infact helped and supported by Christians

There are many pre Islamic writing from Arabia. Tonnes of it. The epic of Sumer is one. None mentions Abraham or Ishmael. There is no Torah story in any

Kobojunkie:
. I get your argument. There remain over 46,000 different Christian sects even to this day. 🥱🥱

Also, Mohammed did set himself as a replacement for Jesus Christ in his Quran, though.
➜Mohammedians literally pray to Mohammed 5 times every day during their Salats(Shahadas) — he is dead, but they still call on him to provide for them intercession so Allah will hear their prayers. He literally presented himself as a go-between for all muslims to reach Allah. (Muslims cannot be heard by Allah unless they first pray to Mohammed.)
➜ Mohammed is expected to sit on a throne next to Allah, in some way taking the place of Jesus in the Christian myths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RrBMugcvKQ?si=OV1ivqX3OcfhdU2w

Yes Mohammed preached against idolatry and used it to gain mileage only to turn himself into the biggest idol in human history

AntiChristian:
Give us your proofs? These rants are just all barks and no bites!

Torah stories inside the Koran is not proof enough for you? If you see Oduduwa stories inside the Koran, will you need proof of where Mohammed got it from?

AntiChristian:
➜Confirming it means acknowledging the existence of the scriptures and Prophets. The stories do not need to add up as we know your scriptures are not preserved.
➜ You can't even authenticate any of them!
➜ What nonsense is this? Where did I mention any date of corruption to your scriptures?
➜ Can you tell us who penned down the scriptures and how it was preserved generationally before it was discovered in modern times?Where's the blunder except the one in your head?

1. Acknowledge the existence of prophets from a bloodline that Allah claims Allah did not choose? We are talking of prophets of YHWH of Israel, whereas Allah claimed he instead chose the bloodline of Ishmael. How does that work? 🥱🥱

1a. Authenticate the works— the Torah and the Gospel—that Allah claims his Quran affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of? 🥱🥱

2. Are you backtracking now? You no longer believe the Scriptures, which Mohammed himself confirmed as true(without fault) from Allah at the time he showed up on the scene, were valid? 🥱🥱🥱

I had asked you exactly when the Torah and the Injeel had been corrupted, and you said after the fall of Jerusalem, which I presume is 70AD, was it not? 🥱🥱

3. Why does it matter the particular identities of those who penned down the Scriptures and how they preserved them if the important information here is that it was penned down by those chosen by YHWH to do so? 🥱🥱

According to Surah 6 vs 114 to 116, no one can change the words of Allah.

˹Say, O Prophet,˺ “Should I seek a judge other than Allah while He is the One Who has revealed for you the Book ˹with the truth˺ perfectly explained?” Those who were given the Scripture know that it has been revealed ˹to you˺ from your Lord in truth. So do not be one of those who doubt. The Word of your Lord has been perfected in truth and justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All-Hearing, All- Knowing. ˹O Prophet!˺ If you were to obey most of those on earth, they would lead you away from Allah’s Way. They follow nothing but assumptions and do nothing but lie - Quran 6 vs 114 - 116

If Allah indeed sent those same books which you now claim are corrupted, then are you insinuating that Allah must have been in error regarding the extent of his power in this? 🥱🥱

More importantly, if no man can change the words of Allah, yet you believe that the Torah and Injeel have been corrupted, wouldn't this logically lead you to the conclusion that the only one who could have carried out such corrupting, as you choose to believe, is Allah himself — the only one capable of changing Allah's own word?

I mean, nowhere in the 114 chapters of your Quran is it claimed that the Torah and Injeel were corrupted, or that they were corrupted, at the time Mohammed venerated those same books. So, where exactly does this idea of yours that the books were corrupted really come from if Allah himself said the opposite of them in your Quran? Clearly, my head ain't the one filled with blunders here. 🥱🥱

honesttalk21:
➜It is indeed abnormal the addition of statements not made by me to mine then expecting me to respond.

My post was instead meant to correct a lot of the misinformation contained in your post there. You keep twisting the facts to make even more non-facts, I have noticed. 🥱🥱🥱

lawani:
So you now agree that Islam broke away from Christianity? Just the same way the Mormon church and the JW broke away. I want you to realize that Mohammed accepted the doctrine of the virgin birth and Jesus' prophethood from Christians. He was converted by Christians!

We can say the first Christians were dissident Jews because they were actually hunted down and persecuted by Jews but Mohammed was just a Christian. His acceptance of Jesus as a prophet and belief in the virgin birth makes him so and there was no time he was persecuted by Christians. He was infact helped and supported by Christians

There are many pre Islamic writing from Arabia. Tonnes of it. The epic of Sumer is one. None mentions Abraham or Ishmael. There is no Torah story in any

Your assertion that Muhammad pbuh was converted by Christians or just a Christian is totally untrue and doesn't hold water historically. There's no real evidence suggesting he ever practiced Christianity or went through any kind of conversion from it. Islamic texts portray him as a monotheist in a society full of polytheism, not as someone who used to be Christian and then started a new religion. Saying that accepting the virgin birth and Jesus as a prophet makes him a Christian is a huge stretch. By that logic, anyone who respects Jesus would automatically be a Christian which makes the definition so broad it loses all meaning. Christianity has some core, non-negotiable beliefs which are Christ's divinity, his sacrifice for sins, and his resurrection. Islam has rejected all three of these from the very beginning. Muhammad pbuh didn't break away from Christianity because he was never part of it to begin with. If just sharing a few beliefs makes religions the same, then Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics would be the same religion.

Your claim about pre-Islamic Arabian writings mentioning Abraham falls apart when you bring up the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is from Mesopotamia, not Arabia, and existed centuries before Abraham. This shows a basic misunderstanding between Sumerian (Iraqi) and Arabian cultures. If you have tons"of pre-Islamic Arabian texts, you should name them specifically instead of vaguely pointing to stuff from completely different civilizations.

The idea that Muhammad wasn't persecuted by Christians is irrelevant when it comes to classifying religions. Mormons weren't universally persecuted by Christians either, but they're still considered a distinct religion. Persecution doesn't define theological boundaries doctrine does. Islam's clear rejection of Christianity's core beliefs makes it a separate religion, regardless of whether Christians helped early Muslims or whether Muhammad pbuh ever encountered Christian teachings.

lawani:
So you now agree that Islam broke away from Christianity? Just the same way the Mormon church and the JW broke away. I want you to realize that Mohammed accepted the doctrine of the virgin birth and Jesus' prophethood from Christians. He was converted by Christians!

We can say the first Christians were dissident Jews because they were actually hunted down and persecuted by Jews but Mohammed was just a Christian. His acceptance of Jesus as a prophet and belief in the virgin birth makes him so and there was no time he was persecuted by Christians. He was infact helped and supported by Christians

There are many pre Islamic writing from Arabia. Tonnes of it. The epic of Sumer is one. None mentions Abraham or Ishmael. There is no Torah story in any

Your main mistake is confusing theological influence with religious identity. Christianity came from Judaism but is a different religion because it doesn't think the Torah is enough and believes in Christ's divinity. Islam makes reference to Christianity and Judaism but is a different religion because it rejects the Trinity, crucifixion, and atonement from the start not as a break away, but as a separate claim of revelation. Mormonism came from Christianity but is a different religion because it adds new scriptures and changes the idea of salvation. All three claim to have Abrahamic roots, but they're not the same religion. This principle applies consistently across the board except, it seems, when you're trying to score points against Islam.