(Quote) Liberacion-894835 said:
Thanks Rae. I am writing down the titles of the books you recommended in this threa...
(Quote) Liberacion-894835 said:
Thanks Rae. I am writing down the titles of the books you recommended in this thread. I am a book lover and it has been my habit to read a book before sleeping. Please stay with this thread as we move to the other topics as I know you will have more books to recommend for futher readings, you being a resourceful person. I have this in mind that Mohammed being a merchant traveler between Egypt and Israel must have stumbled upon the Dead Sea Scrolls in one of his trips, probably getting a shelter on a stormy day inside a cave where the books were hidden. He being a seeker must have heard of a story about a man who was crucified and resurrected, and in his search he took interest on the books. It was said that the books when discovered was already in disarray, meaning someone had touched them before being found by that shepherd boy. Muslims said Mohammed spent his time mostly in the mountain caves before he founded Islam, came out from his so called fasting ( a copycat of Jesus Christ's forty day fasting before starting his ministry) and told everyone an Angel instructed him to write the Koran. They said he didn't know how to read nor write, which for a trader between two different speaking countries is unbelievable. I have a copy of the Koran and I saw many discrepancies, but the theme is mostly about a God who will punish anyone who disobey him. One example of a discrepancy is the concept of "Fasting". Fasting to Christian teaching is having no food at all, but in Islam it is only from sunrise to sunset, after which they can eat in the evening like having a feast for forty days. Could it be possible that during his fasting the devil also tested him when he got hungry to turn the stones into bread, yet he could not, thus his concept of fasting is twisted. I have a book listing all the discrepancies of Islam. I forgot the title (my books are all in storage after my divorce - can't access them yet).
According to the author Hilaire Belloc, Mohammed was an heresiarch and Islam began merely as an heresy:
'Mohammedanism was a <heresy>: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was_not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all) heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world_on the frontiers of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by travel_which inspired his convictions. He came of, and mixed with, the degraded idolaters of the Arabian wilderness, the conquest of which had never seemed worth the Romans' while.
'He took over very few of those old pagan ideas which might have been native to him from his descent. On the contrary, he preached and insisted upon a whole group of ideas which were peculiar to the Catholic Church and distinguished it from the paganism which it had conquered in the Greek and Roman civilization. Thus the very foundation of his teaching was that prime Catholic doctrine, the unity and omnipotence of God. The attributes of God he also took over in the main from Catholic doctrine: the personal nature, the all-goodness, the timelessness, the providence of God, His creative power as the origin of all things, and His sustenance of all things by His power alone. The world of good spirits and angels and of evil spirits in rebellion against God was a part of the teaching, with a chief evil spirit, such as Christendom had recognized. Mohammed preached with insistence that prime Catholic doctrine, on the human side_the immortality of the soul and its responsibility for actions in this life, coupled with the consequent doctrine of punishment and reward after death.
'If anyone sets down those points that orthodox Catholicism has in common with Mohammedanism, and those points only, one might imagine if one went no further that there should have been no cause of quarrel. Mohammed would almost seem in this aspect to be a sort of missionary, preaching and spreading by the energy of his character the chief and fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church among those who had hitherto been degraded pagans of the Desert. He gave to Our Lord the highest reverence, and to Our Lady also, for that matter. On the day of judgment (another Catholic idea which he taught) it was Our Lord, according to Mohammed, who would be the judge of mankind, not he, Mohammed. The Mother of Christ, Our Lady, "the Lady Miriam" was ever for him the first of womankind. His followers even got from the early fathers some vague hint of her Immaculate Conception.
'But the central point where this new heresy struck home with a mortal blow against Catholic tradition was a full denial of the Incarnation.
'Mohammed did not merely take the first steps toward that denial, as the Arians and their followers had done; he advanced a clear affirmation, full and complete, against the whole doctrine of an incarnate God. He taught that Our Lord was the greatest of all the prophets, but still only a prophet: a man like other men. He eliminated the Trinity altogether.
'With that denial of the Incarnation went the whole sacramental structure. He refused to know anything of the Eucharist, with its Real Presence; he stopped the sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore the institution of a special priesthood. In other words, he, like so many other lesser heresiarchs, founded his heresy on simplification.
'Catholic doctrine was true (he seemed to say), but it had become encumbered with false accretions; it had become complicated by needless man-made additions, including the idea that its founder was Divine, and the growth of a parasitical caste of priests who battened on a late, imagined, system of Sacraments which they alone could administer. All those corrupt accretions must be swept away.
'There is thus a very great deal in common between the enthusiasm with which Mohammed's teaching attacked the priesthood, the Mass and the sacraments, and the enthusiasm with which Calvinism, the central motive force of the Reformation, did the same. As we all know, the new teaching relaxed the marriage laws_but in practice this did not affect the mass of his followers who still remained monogamous. It made divorce as easy as possible, for the sacramental idea of marriage disappeared. It insisted upon the equality of men, and it necessarily had that further factor in which it resembled Calvinism_the sense of predestination, the sense of fate; of what the followers of John Knox were always calling "the immutable decrees of God."'