Even Muslims do not claim their religion is completely novel. The rituals may differ, but the creed preached by Muhammad (peace and blessings upon him) is the same preached by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, John, Jesus, and countless other prophets (peace be upon them all): worship The One True God (Allah, Yahweh) with no partners.

As far as prayer rugs and other accessories, those are not actually part of our rituals as Muslims. Some people use them for practical purposes (prayer rugs help you avoid prostrating on dirt, asphalt, a potentially unclean carpet, etc. and prayer beads make it easier to keep count), while some others may have cultural reasons, and some just want to enhance their spiritual experience (e.g. incense and perfume).

▲

pushupentry1219 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

Muslims say that Islam _was_ the religion of all the prophets you've mentioned. Because of this they also believe that Islam is the _oldest_ religion, since Adam, the first man, followed Islam.

▲

ralmidani 7 months ago | parent [-]

“Islam” as a named religion with its own prescribed rituals and laws is specific to the message preached in Arabia in the 7th century.

“Muslim” is a more transcendent term that encompasses all the prophets mentioned in the Quran, as well as those not mentioned. Their creed and state of mind (absolute submission to God’s will) is the same, but they did not follow a religion called “Islam”. Earlier prophets and their followers prayed, fasted, and gave charity. Some even made the pilgrimage to Makkah. However, certain details of these rituals may have differed between them and today’s Islam, and between one another.

	▲	handfuloflight 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		I don't see why "Islam" could not also be seen as a transcendent term, in that any religion that was revealed by God through a prophet or messenger is Islam, in so far as that religion conforms to His will. Quran 3:19 Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam.

▲

mensetmanusman 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For completeness to the reader, the creed preached by Jesus is historically very different.

Rejection of Jesus’s Divinity: • Islam acknowledges Jesus (Isa) as a prophet but explicitly denies His divinity or status as the Son of God. The Qur’an states: “He [Jesus] was no more than a servant: We granted Our favor to him” (Qur’an 43:59). • The Qur’an emphasizes that Jesus did not die on the cross but was raised to heaven by God (Qur’an 4:157-158).

Etc., etc.

Islam historically reinterpreted Jesus and rejects the accounts of the first followers of Christ (the Church Fathers circa 100-300 AD).

▲

ralmidani 7 months ago | parent [-]

This is not by any means a “complete” picture. There was no consensus that Jesus is divine, or about the nature of the divinity ascribed to him, even after the declaration in 325 of the Nicene Creed - from which 5 bishops abstained and were at least temporarily exiled. This NPR interview with Bart Ehrman, a former Evangelical who later became a historian and wrote “How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee” is very illuminating:

https://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/300246095/if-jesus-never-call...

Excerpts:

> During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. ...

> You do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, or the last Gospel. Jesus says things like, "Before Abraham was, I am." And, "I and the Father are one," and, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things.

> I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.

> Right at the same time that Christians were calling Jesus "God" is exactly when Romans started calling their emperors "God." So these Christians were not doing this in a vacuum; they were actually doing it in a context. I don't think this could be an accident that this is a point at which the emperors are being called "God." So by calling Jesus "God," in fact, it was a competition between your God, the emperor, and our God, Jesus.

	▲	mensetmanusman 7 months ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There is never a consensus on anything until one decides who the interpreters are :)
	▲	PrismCrystal 7 months ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> no consensus that Jesus is divine, or about the nature of the divinity ascribed to him, even after the declaration in 325 of the Nicene Creed Which shouldn’t be surprising, because by 325 CE (and really, by 100 CE) Christianity had been around long enough for groups to take it in all kinds of directions, just like some Asian or African peoples have created new religions that are ostensibly Christian but preserve little of the Christianity originally introduced by colonial powers. In my own academic field, I deal a lot with third-century Manichaeism, where it is obvious how popular preachers could repurpose existing monotheistic religions into something that bore little resemblance to them. > This NPR interview with a former Evangelical… You really ought to state plainly in your post that this is Bart Ehrman. While he is a prominent scholar, even researchers of early Christianity who are not themselves Christians take issue with some of his claims.

▲

MrMcCall 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

It's all the Hanif Religion of Abraham, whose texts have been lost to time.

Compassion is the only purpose of all God's religions, and is the ultimate arbiter of our life's chosen actions.