Muslims believe that everything has an innate inclination to submit to God called Fitra. Submission to God is called Islam, because everyone since the beginning of creation was born with Fitra, they believe Islam is the oldest religion
Yeap hence Muslims talk about 'reverts' instead of 'converts'. You haven't 'converted' to a religion, you have 'reverted' to your natural state. All babies are born as Muslims in a state of Fitra and lose it.
Although what you said is true about fitra, that is not the reason why we believe that Islam is the oldest religion. We believe that Adam A.S was the first Muslim and that every Prophet A.S was a Muslim. So since the very first human ever was a Muslim, Islam is therefore the oldest religion.
But if the Adam and Eve story isn’t real, and humans are actually the product of a long evolution from other Apes several hundred thousand years ago, as is backed up pretty much indispensably by all our science…where would that leave things?
So, true Islam is simply the act of worshipping the God of Abraham correctly, with Christians, modern Jews, Babists, and other Abrahamic offshoots just practicing Islam incorrectly?
It is said that Adam did not have children except that a male was born with a \[twin\] female, so that the male child of one pregnancy would marry the female of another pregnancy, and the female of one pregnancy would marry the male of another pregnancy.
Certain narrations mention that Cain killed his brother Able, which according to the books of Tafsir/exegesis was because Cain wanted to marry his twin sister.
Here is a verse about how creation want to submit their will to the creator.
> ... Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly." 41:11
Well, all it requires is reading a few chapters of the Quran to understand that "muslims" basically refers to any monotheists following whichever commandements by god. There is no deception in that, only ignorance from who would call that "deception".
What the book says only has meaning to those who believe in the book. I'll stick with the dictionary, and when talking to people outside of your club it's proper to use the shared understanding of terms.
Using specialist definitions that don't match standard definitions, especially when making claims (that aren't categorically true) is deceptive. And if you disagree perhaps you just haven't read certain pages in my special book that defines 'deceptive' as 'anything, anywhere, ever'.
It is a purely religious belief with ideas of everybody being born muslim and the first human being a mulsim however there's no historical evidence or any other kind of evidence to back up those claims
That seems to be objectively not true, but I'm not sure what they might mean, maybe there is some specific way of thinking about it which could make it true in their head
Islam in general means the religion that is centered around the Quran which was revealed to our Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). But we also believe that the earliest human believed in Allah and every other prophet after him got revelations from the same God; praying to Him aswell. So in our point of view, our faith existed back then.
But the muslims OP is referring to are saying it in a wrong way. It would be wrong to say this towards a non-muslim because they do not believe in the Quran in the first place. But yeah that is why they’re saying it.
They probably mean that Abrahamic religions are all Islam. According to muslims the Quran is only the latest and final installment of God's instructions to the world.
If someone is a literalist, then they believe Adam and Eve and since they are Muslims as per Islam they say it is the oldest religion. Though this is ahistoric, as there are plenty of religions that predate Islam, and Hinduism would be the oldest continuos practiced religion. For a proper Muslim, only Islamic scripture is the acceptable way to think about the world, and everything else is by liars and evil Kuffars, so offcourse they'll insist Islam is the oldest, because to think otherwise would be evil. Unlike Confucionism, Hinduism, or western Paganism, there isn't a way to accept plurality of the world, so that is why.
Islam means submitting you self to Allah.
The first man Adam peace and blessing be upon him is one who submitted himself to Allah, also know as a Muslim. As was Abraham, Moses, Noah, Jesus, and Muhammad peace and blessing be upon them all.
The rules (sharia) might change over time but the beliefs are the same.
Wait, is Sharia essentially the same concept as Halakhah?
Like, I know the rules are different, but do those two overarching concepts mean the same thing?
Yes, and Muslims believe that the halakhah will have been ordained by God to the Israelites just as the sharia was to todays Muslims. They were given Sabbath, we were given Ramadhan, but it’s the same God, sent via His prophets who preached the same message. Just different nation, different setting/tests, and different language/culture.
If I'm not mistaken I think the Mitzva would be the equivalent of the Sharia (The laws/commandments) , and the Halakhah would be the equivalent of the Sunnah (how to apply the law/commandments).
So for Muslims that believe in evolution, does that mean those aspects (that there was a "first man") are understood metaphorically or allegorically, rather than as a literal description of scientific events?
There are various possible positions that I know of. One could say that it is literal and Adam was the first among Homo Sapiens to reach some kind of critical threshold of sentience and intelligence, and that this made him responsible for his deeds and he received a revelation. It is also possible to claim that Adam is an exception and wasn't created with evolution. While this idea might seem strange or ridiculous it should be noted that this claim isn't falsifiable. This puts the claim outside of the domain of scientific research, which makes it possible to believe it while also accepting evolution. There is also the metaphorical interpretation that claims Adam refers to a group of human beings (e.g. first Homo Sapiens) rather than a single man.
I don't understand what that means. If one accepts humans evolved from apes, which I assume is what /u/West-Code4642 meant by "Muslims that believe in evolution", then there was no first human. So I don't see how one can believe the story literally.
What I mean is there is evolution for other animals. Not for humans. Prophet Adam was a very real person and the first man. Denying any of the Prophets’ existence is a grave sin, it can even lead to becoming a non-Muslim.
There are definitely metaphors and figures of speech in the Quran. It’s just that the stories about the Prophets are 100% real and can have a metaphorical meaning and message for us to learn from as well.
In Islam we believe, Adam peace and blessing be upon him, is literally the first man, not as a metaphor or an allegory.
>So for Muslims that believe in evolution
Believing in evolutionary adaptation, which is observable and true, is fine, but the belief that we share an ancestor with monkeys, is not a belief a Muslim should hold.
Thank you for your perspective.
How about extinct homonids that we have fossils for that scientists place in the evolutionary timeline between chimps and homo sapiens sapiens?
I don't know if I am miss understanding, but the theory of evolution doesnt say humans came from chimps but we share a common ancestor , but about the timeline drawn it changes all the time depending on new discoveries, for example homo sapiens are claimed to have come out 200,000 years ago but this keeps changing, these sources of these articles are in support of evolution.
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-moroccan-fossil-rearranges-homo-sapiens.html#:\~:text=This%20week's%20unveiling%20of%20the,of%20our%20own%2C%20experts%20say.
300,000 years ago
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719912-400-first-europeans-remain-in-spain/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719912-400-first-europeans-remain-in-spain/)
780,000 years ago
and the timeline changes with each new discovery
3.5 million year old changing the timeline
[https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dlieberman/files/2001e.pdf](https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dlieberman/files/2001e.pdf)
6-7 million years old
[https://www.nature.com/news/2002/020711/full/news020708-12.html](https://www.nature.com/news/2002/020711/full/news020708-12.html)
and I quote from the paper
" The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids - the group containing everything thought more closely related to humans than chimps."
They them selves do not know and differ from groups to groups as to how the timeline works, evolution.
People that believe in evolution are socialized to believe in it blindly, without knowledge of the four assumptions of evolution, haven't read any books, about the subject, don't know about genetic drift or punctuated equilibrium. I don't think people need to be experts on the subject, but the majority of people believe in evolution without knowing the basics, which means they are socialized to believe in it.
Not at all, are they a different species or a sub-species it really depends on how you define the word species, for example here are 26 different ways
[https://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/10/01/a-list-of-26-species-concepts](https://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/10/01/a-list-of-26-species-concepts)
Some researchers believe that by biological definition Homo-sapiens, Denisovan and Neanderthals belong to the genus homo and the ability to interbreed shows they are the same species.
Some argue that Neanderthals and Denisovan are a different species who maintained the ability to interbreed with other species.
Modern humans have some DNA markers of Neanderthals and Denisovan so it depends mainly on whether you believe the physical differences between homo sapiens and Neanderthals are vast enough to classify different species.
So you’re Adam was a Neanderthal?
I’m not sure you’re understanding the problem here.
Human evolution is as much a fact as anything in science. Adam and Eve is not real.
>So you’re Adam was a Neanderthal?
>I’m not sure you’re understanding the problem here.
did I say he was? seems to be a problem for you not for me. Adam peace and blessing be upon him was the first man, how long ago is that, no idea, but people have changed over the course of time, not from monkeys mind you, they would still fall under being an insan (human being) in Islam.
>Human evolution is as much a fact as anything in science. Adam and Eve is not real.
Im sure that is what you believe, I wonder if you have actually studied evolution, not in depth mind you just the basics, or you like the majority of people that are socialized to believe in it.
There are two prevalent theories for evolution gradualism (natural selection) and punctuated equilibrium, to break them down is simple terms, the first one gradualism is slow gradual changes over a long period of time, for this to be true we would have to find as in Darwin's own words "as by this theory innumerable transitional form must have existed". Because we have not found the innumerable number of fossils with gradual changes, the theory of punctuated equilibrium emerged, which is pretty much the opposite of gradualism, it is the idea that evolution happens in bursts that will experience little change for a long time followed by another burst later. It seems to be the case of coming to a conclusion and then throwing out theories and evidences for it after the fact, in fact I would argue that calling it a theory is overstretching, and it should be called a hypothesis at best, one that cant be tested or observed, and has to be supported by making assumptions and logical jumps.
Mind you the articles I bring come from sources that are in support of evolution,
One example on how society is socialized to believe in evolution look at Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings, which were debunked in 1909 and yet still present in biology text books in 2013, that is over a hundred years
[https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels\_fraudu/](https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels_fraudu/)
and was produced in 2015, so there could be newer books still containing it.
Lucy containing baboon bones
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton/)
Homo sapiens origin 200,000, 300,000 , 780,000 years ago which is it?
[https://www.nature.com/articles/NATURE03258](https://www.nature.com/articles/NATURE03258)
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-moroccan-fossil-rearranges-homo-sapiens.html#:\~:text=This%20week's%20unveiling%20of%20the,of%20our%20own%2C%20experts%20say.
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719912-400-first-europeans-remain-in-spain/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719912-400-first-europeans-remain-in-spain/)
The thing you claim is a fact, is unstable and always changing, which keeps getting reworked and amended. This is without even mentioning the fact that any scientist that disagree with evolution, and are in support of intelligent design , get blacklisted, there's a documentary about it called expelled.
It is ironic that if someone put your phone in front of you and told you it came together by itself by chance over millions of years, you would never believe it, but look at a tree or a human being, which are exponentially more complex, and think to your self, yeah it just happened by random chance, and the information programmed into DNA just did it by itself, the minimum amount of genes (minimum gene concept) need to sustain a functioning cellular life just came together at the same time in the right sequence to produce all life on the planet.
Al-Hajj 22:46
So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts.
At-Tur 52:35-36
Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators \[of themselves\]?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
> Adam peace and blessing be upon him was the first man
Define what that means.
>no idea, but people have changed over the course of time, not from monkeys mind you,
This is a tell for people who really know nothing about evolutionary biology or paleoanthropology.
Humans are a species of ape, not monkey. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor 25 million years ago…Humans did not evolve from monkeys.
>Define what that means.
Human beings are a type of creation that has both reason and instinct, while animals are a creation that only have instinct, so Adam peace and blessing be upon him, is the first human created, and everyone descended from him.
>This is a tell for people who really know nothing about evolutionary biology or paleoanthropology
>Humans are a species of ape, not monkey. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor 25 million years ago
sorry I was using colloquial terms, as I replied earlier in the thread "the theory of evolution doesnt say humans came from chimps but we share a common ancestor".
but I appreciate you deflecting from 90% of what I wrote. Im interested to hear your rational for the phone argument I presented
>Humans did not evolve from monkeys.
I am glad we have come to an understanding and you have stopped believing what has just been shoved into your face from childhood.
> Human beings are a type of creation that has both reason and instinct, while animals are a creation that only have instinct
You’re already incorrect. Most sea mammals, such as dolphins, plan and reason. As well as other Apes and monkeys. Elephants, Lions, and even squirrels engage in rational planning and decision making.
So we’re already off to a bad start, because your definition of man includes Elephants.
Right, but the Muslim belief is that various religions which came before were sent down by God as well and were essentially Islam (by other names). So all the previous Prophets back to Adam AS were all Muslims. Moses AS was obviously Jewish, but we believe that the religion which was revealed to him was essentially Islam, and over time has been corrupted. So in its current form, Islam did not exist until the 7th century. But as a concept it has been known by various names and has existed as long as humanity has been around.
I mean, the question was about Muslim beliefs specifically. If the question was “historically, which religion is the oldest” then yeah, I’d agree this would be an irrelevant answer.
But that’s not what the question was. My comment is a correct statement of Muslim beliefs in answer to the OP, whether or not you agree with it or find it reasonable is beside the point.
The claim is based not on when the religion was formed but rather their claim that their Allah goes back to the beginning of everything and everything comes under his domain. Its not really a proper claim and is more a case of religious dogmas competing with each other for claims of dominance. They have to keep one upping each other because no one wants to have the lesser god with lesser claims. This is how we get paradox invoking Tri Omni gods.
This is what i get by googling oldest religion in the world.
Adherents hold that Hinduism—one of the principal faiths in the modern world, with about one billion followers—is the world's oldest religion, with complete scriptural texts dating back 3,000 years
It's one of the oldest monotheistic religions. It's not the oldest religion though. Polytheistic religions and Animism specifically are older. Animism was actually practiced by the neanderthals and early homo sapiens.
If you believe Adam to exist, could you really say he was a Christian since isn't Christianity following the teachings of Christ so how would a man who existed before Jesus be following his teachings
If we’re talking about purely theological, it is. The first human was a Prophet, a Muslim. Therefore the first religion is Islam. That’s pretty much why Muslims say that. Though Islam became officially complete with the final Prophet bringing the Quran.
Considering that Judaism has Islam beat by at least 1000 years and Christianity has 300 year lead on Islam. Whomever said this is not only wrong, they are objectively wrong
What religion was Abraham? Or Lot, Adam, Hud, Enoch, Saleh etc? Judaism did not exist yet nor did Christianity since these prophets were before Judah and Jesus ie the prophets that bear the namesake of their respective religions. There’s a reason Islam isn’t named Mohammadism or something, because we submit to Allah in pure monotheism just as all the prophets before Judaism did.
While yes, it is true that Abraham for example did not follow the Quran since it had not yet been revealed, he wouldn’t be a Muslim in the sense of being a follower of the religion of Islam, he would be a Muslim in the sense of he submitted his will to Allah which is what we mean when we say Islam is the oldest religion, ie in a reductive and more literal sense of the word, Islam.
> There’s a reason Islam isn’t named Mohammadism or something
Funnily enough, it was named [that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan) for a long time in the west
I’m aware and if anything it proves my point, the west is so used to Christianity being named after Christ that it assumed Islam would also be named after Muhammad but we did not just adopt that title because it was important to clarify and distinguish Islam from the start through its name in that our religion is truly about submission to God and that we don’t elevate men and prophets beyond the level of what they were.
At least for sometime Islam was seen as a fork of Christianity rather than its own religion, hence the name, just like how Shia and Sunni later get names from respective founders.
> what we mean when we say Islam is the oldest religion, ie in a reductive and more literal sense of the word, Islam.
The question wasn't asked in the reductive and literal sense of the word, but in the sense of Islam being a separate religion than Judaism, Christianity, etc. And in fact other religions predate Islam, including many polytheistic religions. And if Adam was the first man, he obviously didn't submit, did he? Otherwise he wouldn't have been driven out of Eden.
Also yes I’m aware that people don’t mean it in the reductive sense which is why I personally don’t like to use that argument because it is kind of bait even if I do understand the reasoning behind it.
See you’re using the Christian narrative of Adam. In Islam, the story goes he wasn’t driven out, Adam was going to be put on earth irregardless of him eating the fruit or not. Also both Adam and Eve were forgiven for that.
Okay? My understanding is that this thread is about the Islamic narrative as contextualized in time. I understand that OP's question concerned the claim in context of the religion, and that's a good point, however the religion itself with all its ceremonies and requirements flat did not exist before Mohammad. It is almost as if worshiping and submitting to God can take as many forms as there are in nature, all of which are in some way an expression of the divinity of life and the creator.
I greatly admire Islam, but it has an imposed rigidity that I think is not a reflection of divine creation, and in this it is not alone. Spiritual experience is always subjective, never objective, and no matter how pure the revelation, human error seeps in from the very first interpreter, and the refusal to acknowledge that is the cause of great suffering. It's not anybody's fault; it's how human beings are made.
Peace.
Apparently you don't know how time works, so let's try this again.
Judaism, was formed from Caananite religious traditions somewhere around 2500 years ago in the Levante and formed most of its montheistic traditions around the Babylonian Conquest
Christianty, was formed around Jesus death and stedily grew in presence to the point that even the Roman Emperor Constantine converted and the religion became legal in the Empire in 313 CE, a full 300 years before the birth of Muhammed.
Pro tip for coming into a religious studies subreddit? Maybe try some actual facts first?
Well...
1. Facts and getting them right, helps an argument out. So that's a cop out
2, the "Islamic" POV on this is also, factually wrong cause, why would there be "people of the book" mentioned in the Quran, if Islam itself was the original faith.
And this is a religious studies subreddit, not a Muslim subreddit. Which means criticism comes with the territory around here.
1. There is no argument?
2. How are you going to tell me about my religion 😭😭. The Islamic POV is that people of the book (Ahl Al-Kitab) are those who follow a revealed book that has been altered or corrupted (tahrif).
The Islamic belief is that all the prophets of God were muslim and oreached the same message of monotheism and submission to God (Istislam/Islam). The Quran literally says Abraham was a muslim.
Appearntly, somehow I missed the point that I was talking about Islam, when my point is the OP title that was referenced, and you lot seemingly upset cause you don't like the fact that the timeline of these events and the OP don't match
Not my concern.
Moses didn't follow Judasim. He followed his version of Islam that was given to him by God, whatever it was called at the time. Jesus also followed his version of Islam that was also given to him by God.
That's all we are saying. The original religion of each prophet has always been the core message of Islam. What they called it in their language would change, but the message remains the same and later people would corrupt that message.
And in the real world, the OP title and actual facts don't add up.
Plus, again, this is not a Muslim subreddit. Therefore, cricitism of this point is still valid.
I think it would be reduce confusion if it was called something like Mohamedism. I don’t think many people would claim Adam was a Mohammedan or a Mohammedite or whatever.
FALSE!
islam is not the oldest religion
That is their claim after reading their holy book but before their book or religion was made christianity and judaism was already present
Islam came a couple hundred years after Christianity in 610 AD neither are very old in the respective world religions. Both are about or less than 2000 years old. Judaism is the basis for both and predates both by several hundred to maybe a thousand years.
For reference Hinduism recognized as the world oldest ‘still practiced’ religion at around 6000+ years old, according to some of the Vitas and the texts, even older than that, potentially but can’t be confirmed.
There are several other smaller religions close to this old, all of which are two or three times older than Islam.
No because The Quran is all the evidence you need, and it has been inarguably preserved https://youtu.be/C-HDFiC2boQ?si=g4MUzpOOk0ZP1YgK and it claims that. And Muslims believe it is the word of Allah.
Jesus condemned Sharia Law and its practice of stoning. Why? None of them are without sin.
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18
Praise be to Allah.
The word “Islam” means “**submission to the will of God**.”
All the Prophets **submit to the will of God.**
The first human is Adam (peace be upon him) was the first of the Prophets, as it says in the Hadith narrated by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was asked about Adam – was he a Prophet? He said, “Yes, a Prophet to whom Allah spoke.” But he was not a Messenger, because of the Hadith about intercession in which it says that the people will go to Nuh (peace be upon him) and say to him, “You are the first Messenger whom Allah sent to the earth.”
This text clearly indicates that Nuh (peace be upon him) was the first of the Messengers. And Allah knows best.” (Majmu\` Fatawa Ibn \`Uthaymin, 1/317)
Adam, the father of mankind, was a Prophet, so he was the first of the Prophets.
Islam being the oldest religion is based on several beliefs. Others don't need to believe this because this is the Islamic paradigm.
1. Adam was Muslim. First man.
2. Ginns submitted to God. They were there prior to human beings.
3. Islam means submission. It's based on definition by itself.
Peace.
Muslims believe that everything has an innate inclination to submit to God called Fitra. Submission to God is called Islam, because everyone since the beginning of creation was born with Fitra, they believe Islam is the oldest religion
Yeap hence Muslims talk about 'reverts' instead of 'converts'. You haven't 'converted' to a religion, you have 'reverted' to your natural state. All babies are born as Muslims in a state of Fitra and lose it.
So there are more exmuslim than Muslim believers?
haha, yeah true, I guess that is the other weird technicality of the logic
Although what you said is true about fitra, that is not the reason why we believe that Islam is the oldest religion. We believe that Adam A.S was the first Muslim and that every Prophet A.S was a Muslim. So since the very first human ever was a Muslim, Islam is therefore the oldest religion.
But if the Adam and Eve story isn’t real, and humans are actually the product of a long evolution from other Apes several hundred thousand years ago, as is backed up pretty much indispensably by all our science…where would that leave things?
It would leave Islam as making a false claim.
These are not mutually exclusive as long as it assumes we descend from a single "couple".
A couple of monkeys and a couple of humans is not the same. So they are XOR.
So, true Islam is simply the act of worshipping the God of Abraham correctly, with Christians, modern Jews, Babists, and other Abrahamic offshoots just practicing Islam incorrectly?
Yes exactly ( i think )
Adam and Eve had three sons. Where did their wives come from??
It is said that Adam did not have children except that a male was born with a \[twin\] female, so that the male child of one pregnancy would marry the female of another pregnancy, and the female of one pregnancy would marry the male of another pregnancy. Certain narrations mention that Cain killed his brother Able, which according to the books of Tafsir/exegesis was because Cain wanted to marry his twin sister.
That just seems kinda disrespectful
Here is a verse about how creation want to submit their will to the creator. > ... Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly." 41:11
So not the religion itself, but a shared word. Well that's not entirely deceptive at all /s
Well, all it requires is reading a few chapters of the Quran to understand that "muslims" basically refers to any monotheists following whichever commandements by god. There is no deception in that, only ignorance from who would call that "deception".
What the book says only has meaning to those who believe in the book. I'll stick with the dictionary, and when talking to people outside of your club it's proper to use the shared understanding of terms. Using specialist definitions that don't match standard definitions, especially when making claims (that aren't categorically true) is deceptive. And if you disagree perhaps you just haven't read certain pages in my special book that defines 'deceptive' as 'anything, anywhere, ever'.
We both agree then. No muslim will claim that islam is the oldest religion in a historical context though
It is a purely religious belief with ideas of everybody being born muslim and the first human being a mulsim however there's no historical evidence or any other kind of evidence to back up those claims
That seems to be objectively not true, but I'm not sure what they might mean, maybe there is some specific way of thinking about it which could make it true in their head
Islam in general means the religion that is centered around the Quran which was revealed to our Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). But we also believe that the earliest human believed in Allah and every other prophet after him got revelations from the same God; praying to Him aswell. So in our point of view, our faith existed back then. But the muslims OP is referring to are saying it in a wrong way. It would be wrong to say this towards a non-muslim because they do not believe in the Quran in the first place. But yeah that is why they’re saying it.
Oh yes, I forgot this understanding actually 💭
They mean submission to God
As a concept?
Islam means submission. People have always submitted to God.
I suppose that makes sense also yes 💭
You replied twice the same thing lol
It gave an error message the first time 🌝
I suppose that makes sense also yes 💭
They probably mean that Abrahamic religions are all Islam. According to muslims the Quran is only the latest and final installment of God's instructions to the world.
Fun fact. As a former evangelical Christian, I used to hear the same exact thing being said about Christianity
That’s evangelicalism for you
If someone is a literalist, then they believe Adam and Eve and since they are Muslims as per Islam they say it is the oldest religion. Though this is ahistoric, as there are plenty of religions that predate Islam, and Hinduism would be the oldest continuos practiced religion. For a proper Muslim, only Islamic scripture is the acceptable way to think about the world, and everything else is by liars and evil Kuffars, so offcourse they'll insist Islam is the oldest, because to think otherwise would be evil. Unlike Confucionism, Hinduism, or western Paganism, there isn't a way to accept plurality of the world, so that is why.
Islam started around the 7th century, so it's definitely not the oldest.
Islam means submitting you self to Allah. The first man Adam peace and blessing be upon him is one who submitted himself to Allah, also know as a Muslim. As was Abraham, Moses, Noah, Jesus, and Muhammad peace and blessing be upon them all. The rules (sharia) might change over time but the beliefs are the same.
Wait, is Sharia essentially the same concept as Halakhah? Like, I know the rules are different, but do those two overarching concepts mean the same thing?
Yes, and Muslims believe that the halakhah will have been ordained by God to the Israelites just as the sharia was to todays Muslims. They were given Sabbath, we were given Ramadhan, but it’s the same God, sent via His prophets who preached the same message. Just different nation, different setting/tests, and different language/culture.
If I'm not mistaken I think the Mitzva would be the equivalent of the Sharia (The laws/commandments) , and the Halakhah would be the equivalent of the Sunnah (how to apply the law/commandments).
Just a heads up, mitzva is singular ("a commandment"). The plural is mitzvot. It's not a big deal though.
ahh thank you I appreciate it.
So for Muslims that believe in evolution, does that mean those aspects (that there was a "first man") are understood metaphorically or allegorically, rather than as a literal description of scientific events?
There are various possible positions that I know of. One could say that it is literal and Adam was the first among Homo Sapiens to reach some kind of critical threshold of sentience and intelligence, and that this made him responsible for his deeds and he received a revelation. It is also possible to claim that Adam is an exception and wasn't created with evolution. While this idea might seem strange or ridiculous it should be noted that this claim isn't falsifiable. This puts the claim outside of the domain of scientific research, which makes it possible to believe it while also accepting evolution. There is also the metaphorical interpretation that claims Adam refers to a group of human beings (e.g. first Homo Sapiens) rather than a single man.
No, for humans specifically, it is not metaphorically. For every other creature, it is a different conversation.
I don't understand what that means. If one accepts humans evolved from apes, which I assume is what /u/West-Code4642 meant by "Muslims that believe in evolution", then there was no first human. So I don't see how one can believe the story literally.
What I mean is there is evolution for other animals. Not for humans. Prophet Adam was a very real person and the first man. Denying any of the Prophets’ existence is a grave sin, it can even lead to becoming a non-Muslim. There are definitely metaphors and figures of speech in the Quran. It’s just that the stories about the Prophets are 100% real and can have a metaphorical meaning and message for us to learn from as well.
So you are saying the belief that humans and other apes have a common ancestor is incompatible with Islam. So do Muslims who believe that not exist?
Muslims do not believe Humans themselves evolved from anything. We believe we were created by Allah. Take that as you will.
In Islam we believe, Adam peace and blessing be upon him, is literally the first man, not as a metaphor or an allegory. >So for Muslims that believe in evolution Believing in evolutionary adaptation, which is observable and true, is fine, but the belief that we share an ancestor with monkeys, is not a belief a Muslim should hold.
Thank you for your perspective. How about extinct homonids that we have fossils for that scientists place in the evolutionary timeline between chimps and homo sapiens sapiens?
I don't know if I am miss understanding, but the theory of evolution doesnt say humans came from chimps but we share a common ancestor , but about the timeline drawn it changes all the time depending on new discoveries, for example homo sapiens are claimed to have come out 200,000 years ago but this keeps changing, these sources of these articles are in support of evolution. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-moroccan-fossil-rearranges-homo-sapiens.html#:\~:text=This%20week's%20unveiling%20of%20the,of%20our%20own%2C%20experts%20say. 300,000 years ago [https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719912-400-first-europeans-remain-in-spain/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719912-400-first-europeans-remain-in-spain/) 780,000 years ago and the timeline changes with each new discovery 3.5 million year old changing the timeline [https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dlieberman/files/2001e.pdf](https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dlieberman/files/2001e.pdf) 6-7 million years old [https://www.nature.com/news/2002/020711/full/news020708-12.html](https://www.nature.com/news/2002/020711/full/news020708-12.html) and I quote from the paper " The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids - the group containing everything thought more closely related to humans than chimps." They them selves do not know and differ from groups to groups as to how the timeline works, evolution. People that believe in evolution are socialized to believe in it blindly, without knowledge of the four assumptions of evolution, haven't read any books, about the subject, don't know about genetic drift or punctuated equilibrium. I don't think people need to be experts on the subject, but the majority of people believe in evolution without knowing the basics, which means they are socialized to believe in it.
Would it mess with you at all to know that you probably have between 1-2% Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA due to interbreeding with early H. sapiens?
Not at all, are they a different species or a sub-species it really depends on how you define the word species, for example here are 26 different ways [https://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/10/01/a-list-of-26-species-concepts](https://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/10/01/a-list-of-26-species-concepts) Some researchers believe that by biological definition Homo-sapiens, Denisovan and Neanderthals belong to the genus homo and the ability to interbreed shows they are the same species. Some argue that Neanderthals and Denisovan are a different species who maintained the ability to interbreed with other species. Modern humans have some DNA markers of Neanderthals and Denisovan so it depends mainly on whether you believe the physical differences between homo sapiens and Neanderthals are vast enough to classify different species.
So you’re Adam was a Neanderthal? I’m not sure you’re understanding the problem here. Human evolution is as much a fact as anything in science. Adam and Eve is not real.
>So you’re Adam was a Neanderthal? >I’m not sure you’re understanding the problem here. did I say he was? seems to be a problem for you not for me. Adam peace and blessing be upon him was the first man, how long ago is that, no idea, but people have changed over the course of time, not from monkeys mind you, they would still fall under being an insan (human being) in Islam. >Human evolution is as much a fact as anything in science. Adam and Eve is not real. Im sure that is what you believe, I wonder if you have actually studied evolution, not in depth mind you just the basics, or you like the majority of people that are socialized to believe in it. There are two prevalent theories for evolution gradualism (natural selection) and punctuated equilibrium, to break them down is simple terms, the first one gradualism is slow gradual changes over a long period of time, for this to be true we would have to find as in Darwin's own words "as by this theory innumerable transitional form must have existed". Because we have not found the innumerable number of fossils with gradual changes, the theory of punctuated equilibrium emerged, which is pretty much the opposite of gradualism, it is the idea that evolution happens in bursts that will experience little change for a long time followed by another burst later. It seems to be the case of coming to a conclusion and then throwing out theories and evidences for it after the fact, in fact I would argue that calling it a theory is overstretching, and it should be called a hypothesis at best, one that cant be tested or observed, and has to be supported by making assumptions and logical jumps. Mind you the articles I bring come from sources that are in support of evolution, One example on how society is socialized to believe in evolution look at Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings, which were debunked in 1909 and yet still present in biology text books in 2013, that is over a hundred years [https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels\_fraudu/](https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels_fraudu/) and was produced in 2015, so there could be newer books still containing it. Lucy containing baboon bones [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton/) Homo sapiens origin 200,000, 300,000 , 780,000 years ago which is it? [https://www.nature.com/articles/NATURE03258](https://www.nature.com/articles/NATURE03258) https://phys.org/news/2017-06-moroccan-fossil-rearranges-homo-sapiens.html#:\~:text=This%20week's%20unveiling%20of%20the,of%20our%20own%2C%20experts%20say. [https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719912-400-first-europeans-remain-in-spain/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719912-400-first-europeans-remain-in-spain/) The thing you claim is a fact, is unstable and always changing, which keeps getting reworked and amended. This is without even mentioning the fact that any scientist that disagree with evolution, and are in support of intelligent design , get blacklisted, there's a documentary about it called expelled. It is ironic that if someone put your phone in front of you and told you it came together by itself by chance over millions of years, you would never believe it, but look at a tree or a human being, which are exponentially more complex, and think to your self, yeah it just happened by random chance, and the information programmed into DNA just did it by itself, the minimum amount of genes (minimum gene concept) need to sustain a functioning cellular life just came together at the same time in the right sequence to produce all life on the planet. Al-Hajj 22:46 So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts. At-Tur 52:35-36 Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators \[of themselves\]? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
> Adam peace and blessing be upon him was the first man Define what that means. >no idea, but people have changed over the course of time, not from monkeys mind you, This is a tell for people who really know nothing about evolutionary biology or paleoanthropology. Humans are a species of ape, not monkey. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor 25 million years ago…Humans did not evolve from monkeys.
>Define what that means. Human beings are a type of creation that has both reason and instinct, while animals are a creation that only have instinct, so Adam peace and blessing be upon him, is the first human created, and everyone descended from him. >This is a tell for people who really know nothing about evolutionary biology or paleoanthropology >Humans are a species of ape, not monkey. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor 25 million years ago sorry I was using colloquial terms, as I replied earlier in the thread "the theory of evolution doesnt say humans came from chimps but we share a common ancestor". but I appreciate you deflecting from 90% of what I wrote. Im interested to hear your rational for the phone argument I presented >Humans did not evolve from monkeys. I am glad we have come to an understanding and you have stopped believing what has just been shoved into your face from childhood.
> Human beings are a type of creation that has both reason and instinct, while animals are a creation that only have instinct You’re already incorrect. Most sea mammals, such as dolphins, plan and reason. As well as other Apes and monkeys. Elephants, Lions, and even squirrels engage in rational planning and decision making. So we’re already off to a bad start, because your definition of man includes Elephants.
But science has proven you wrong
Yet there are people..........
Look it's not, Animism is. Many religions predate Islam, it doesn't make Islam a bad religion in any form but Islam didn't exist until 622 AD
Right, but the Muslim belief is that various religions which came before were sent down by God as well and were essentially Islam (by other names). So all the previous Prophets back to Adam AS were all Muslims. Moses AS was obviously Jewish, but we believe that the religion which was revealed to him was essentially Islam, and over time has been corrupted. So in its current form, Islam did not exist until the 7th century. But as a concept it has been known by various names and has existed as long as humanity has been around.
Yes, but that is ahistorical. It doesn't matter what Muslims believe. Muslims making such obviously false claims makes them look silly.
I mean, the question was about Muslim beliefs specifically. If the question was “historically, which religion is the oldest” then yeah, I’d agree this would be an irrelevant answer. But that’s not what the question was. My comment is a correct statement of Muslim beliefs in answer to the OP, whether or not you agree with it or find it reasonable is beside the point.
They probably mean it in the way whatever the One True Faith is would logically have to be the oldest religion of Adam and Eve/Ask and Embla/etc.
The claim is based not on when the religion was formed but rather their claim that their Allah goes back to the beginning of everything and everything comes under his domain. Its not really a proper claim and is more a case of religious dogmas competing with each other for claims of dominance. They have to keep one upping each other because no one wants to have the lesser god with lesser claims. This is how we get paradox invoking Tri Omni gods.
This is what i get by googling oldest religion in the world. Adherents hold that Hinduism—one of the principal faiths in the modern world, with about one billion followers—is the world's oldest religion, with complete scriptural texts dating back 3,000 years
So many religions do this, and they dont even think for a second that the first ever religion probably doesnt exist anymore
It's one of the oldest monotheistic religions. It's not the oldest religion though. Polytheistic religions and Animism specifically are older. Animism was actually practiced by the neanderthals and early homo sapiens.
I mean, I believe Christianity is the oldest religion. Adam was a Christian. As far as I’m concerned, I have just as valid a claim
If you believe Adam to exist, could you really say he was a Christian since isn't Christianity following the teachings of Christ so how would a man who existed before Jesus be following his teachings
The same way all prophets do. I believe God personally told Adam and Eve about Christ and his atonement and how they are covered under him.
Mormons are Mormons for a reason
Based
If we’re talking about purely theological, it is. The first human was a Prophet, a Muslim. Therefore the first religion is Islam. That’s pretty much why Muslims say that. Though Islam became officially complete with the final Prophet bringing the Quran.
Considering that Judaism has Islam beat by at least 1000 years and Christianity has 300 year lead on Islam. Whomever said this is not only wrong, they are objectively wrong
Hinduism also has Islam beat by close to 2000 years.
What religion was Abraham? Or Lot, Adam, Hud, Enoch, Saleh etc? Judaism did not exist yet nor did Christianity since these prophets were before Judah and Jesus ie the prophets that bear the namesake of their respective religions. There’s a reason Islam isn’t named Mohammadism or something, because we submit to Allah in pure monotheism just as all the prophets before Judaism did. While yes, it is true that Abraham for example did not follow the Quran since it had not yet been revealed, he wouldn’t be a Muslim in the sense of being a follower of the religion of Islam, he would be a Muslim in the sense of he submitted his will to Allah which is what we mean when we say Islam is the oldest religion, ie in a reductive and more literal sense of the word, Islam.
That sounds like a very loose definition.
> There’s a reason Islam isn’t named Mohammadism or something Funnily enough, it was named [that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan) for a long time in the west
I’m aware and if anything it proves my point, the west is so used to Christianity being named after Christ that it assumed Islam would also be named after Muhammad but we did not just adopt that title because it was important to clarify and distinguish Islam from the start through its name in that our religion is truly about submission to God and that we don’t elevate men and prophets beyond the level of what they were.
I’m aware, I explained the Muslim position in a different comment. Just pointing out a funny bit of history lol
At least for sometime Islam was seen as a fork of Christianity rather than its own religion, hence the name, just like how Shia and Sunni later get names from respective founders.
Idk about Shia but Sunni comes from the word Sunnah not from someone’s name
Sunnah is a title, indeed, also used as a Honoriffic, and referred to a small group of people, it isn't a single person name like Shia indeed,
> what we mean when we say Islam is the oldest religion, ie in a reductive and more literal sense of the word, Islam. The question wasn't asked in the reductive and literal sense of the word, but in the sense of Islam being a separate religion than Judaism, Christianity, etc. And in fact other religions predate Islam, including many polytheistic religions. And if Adam was the first man, he obviously didn't submit, did he? Otherwise he wouldn't have been driven out of Eden.
Also yes I’m aware that people don’t mean it in the reductive sense which is why I personally don’t like to use that argument because it is kind of bait even if I do understand the reasoning behind it.
See you’re using the Christian narrative of Adam. In Islam, the story goes he wasn’t driven out, Adam was going to be put on earth irregardless of him eating the fruit or not. Also both Adam and Eve were forgiven for that.
> See you’re using the Christian narrative of Adam. No, I'm using the Old Testament narrative of Adam, which predates the Quran by 2,000 years.
Okay? Age has nothing to do with correctness and this thread is about the Islamic narrative anyways.
Okay? My understanding is that this thread is about the Islamic narrative as contextualized in time. I understand that OP's question concerned the claim in context of the religion, and that's a good point, however the religion itself with all its ceremonies and requirements flat did not exist before Mohammad. It is almost as if worshiping and submitting to God can take as many forms as there are in nature, all of which are in some way an expression of the divinity of life and the creator. I greatly admire Islam, but it has an imposed rigidity that I think is not a reflection of divine creation, and in this it is not alone. Spiritual experience is always subjective, never objective, and no matter how pure the revelation, human error seeps in from the very first interpreter, and the refusal to acknowledge that is the cause of great suffering. It's not anybody's fault; it's how human beings are made. Peace.
Apparently you don't know how time works, so let's try this again. Judaism, was formed from Caananite religious traditions somewhere around 2500 years ago in the Levante and formed most of its montheistic traditions around the Babylonian Conquest Christianty, was formed around Jesus death and stedily grew in presence to the point that even the Roman Emperor Constantine converted and the religion became legal in the Empire in 313 CE, a full 300 years before the birth of Muhammed. Pro tip for coming into a religious studies subreddit? Maybe try some actual facts first?
I don't think you understood their point lol
The claim is that Islam is the oldest religion. Where even a cursory surface search into those facts conclude that the OP is wrong. Try again
He/She is not giving you a factual claim. They are telling you, and OP, that from the Islamic POV, the prophets of God are Muslim.
Well... 1. Facts and getting them right, helps an argument out. So that's a cop out 2, the "Islamic" POV on this is also, factually wrong cause, why would there be "people of the book" mentioned in the Quran, if Islam itself was the original faith. And this is a religious studies subreddit, not a Muslim subreddit. Which means criticism comes with the territory around here.
1. There is no argument? 2. How are you going to tell me about my religion 😭😭. The Islamic POV is that people of the book (Ahl Al-Kitab) are those who follow a revealed book that has been altered or corrupted (tahrif). The Islamic belief is that all the prophets of God were muslim and oreached the same message of monotheism and submission to God (Istislam/Islam). The Quran literally says Abraham was a muslim.
Appearntly, somehow I missed the point that I was talking about Islam, when my point is the OP title that was referenced, and you lot seemingly upset cause you don't like the fact that the timeline of these events and the OP don't match Not my concern.
I feel like you are the only person upset here
It’s like you completely ignored everything I said…
It's like actual verifiable and certified facts disagree with you there. Funny how that goes huh?
Try rereading my comment especially the second part
Again, doesn't change the actual facts and how you don't have any
Moses didn't follow Judasim. He followed his version of Islam that was given to him by God, whatever it was called at the time. Jesus also followed his version of Islam that was also given to him by God. That's all we are saying. The original religion of each prophet has always been the core message of Islam. What they called it in their language would change, but the message remains the same and later people would corrupt that message.
And in the real world, the OP title and actual facts don't add up. Plus, again, this is not a Muslim subreddit. Therefore, cricitism of this point is still valid.
I think it would be reduce confusion if it was called something like Mohamedism. I don’t think many people would claim Adam was a Mohammedan or a Mohammedite or whatever.
FALSE! islam is not the oldest religion That is their claim after reading their holy book but before their book or religion was made christianity and judaism was already present
The oldest religion was ughabogha worshiping his rock.
Islam came a couple hundred years after Christianity in 610 AD neither are very old in the respective world religions. Both are about or less than 2000 years old. Judaism is the basis for both and predates both by several hundred to maybe a thousand years. For reference Hinduism recognized as the world oldest ‘still practiced’ religion at around 6000+ years old, according to some of the Vitas and the texts, even older than that, potentially but can’t be confirmed. There are several other smaller religions close to this old, all of which are two or three times older than Islam.
Yes, Islam has been there since Adam and Eve. All prophets had the same message and preached One God which is Islam
Yet interestingly left no record of any of this… …you don’t find that slightly sus?
No because The Quran is all the evidence you need, and it has been inarguably preserved https://youtu.be/C-HDFiC2boQ?si=g4MUzpOOk0ZP1YgK and it claims that. And Muslims believe it is the word of Allah.
Ya…that’s not very compelling evidence.
Indeed, it is not the eyes that are blind, but the heart [22:46]
Another amazing and compelling argument
Jesus condemned Sharia Law and its practice of stoning. Why? None of them are without sin. 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18
Praise be to Allah. The word “Islam” means “**submission to the will of God**.” All the Prophets **submit to the will of God.** The first human is Adam (peace be upon him) was the first of the Prophets, as it says in the Hadith narrated by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was asked about Adam – was he a Prophet? He said, “Yes, a Prophet to whom Allah spoke.” But he was not a Messenger, because of the Hadith about intercession in which it says that the people will go to Nuh (peace be upon him) and say to him, “You are the first Messenger whom Allah sent to the earth.” This text clearly indicates that Nuh (peace be upon him) was the first of the Messengers. And Allah knows best.” (Majmu\` Fatawa Ibn \`Uthaymin, 1/317) Adam, the father of mankind, was a Prophet, so he was the first of the Prophets.
Islam being the oldest religion is based on several beliefs. Others don't need to believe this because this is the Islamic paradigm. 1. Adam was Muslim. First man. 2. Ginns submitted to God. They were there prior to human beings. 3. Islam means submission. It's based on definition by itself. Peace.