So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here.

[spankythehippo]

AFAIK most Christians believe Christ was born in the spring. Christmas just replaced whatever pagan festival took place around that time because it was convenient. The original Christian sabbath was on Saturday, and then was moved to Sunday. The tradition of giving gifts on Christmas is more of a recent practice.

Yeah. Mithras' day.

Also, Mithras is an Iranian god, so I have a hard time believing that he was worshiped on "Sunday" or that the headquarters of his religion was in Rome.

No. Mithras is the Roman sun god. Mithra is the Persian god. Mithras is the Roman adaptation of Mithra.

[Tuuvi]

Yeah. Mithras' day.

Ok. A quick skim of wikipedia tells me that I was wrong about Christ being born in the spring. But what it does tell me is that the December 25th date wasn't chosen until the 4th or 5th century, and that the original date of Christmas in Eastern Christianity was January 7th. Yes I know, it's Wikipedia, but I think Wikipedia is still fairly reliable for basic facts.

No. Mithras is the Roman sun god. Mithra is the Persian god. Mithras is the Roman adaptation of Mithra.

Ok I was wrong about that as well but Mithras worship didn't come into practice in Rome until the late 1st century AD, well after the establishment of Christianity.

[spankythehippo]

Ok. A quick skim of wikipedia tells me that I was wrong about Christ being born in the spring. But what it does tell me is that the December 25th date wasn't chosen until the 4th or 5th century, and that the original date of Christmas in Eastern Christianity was January 7th. Yes I know, it's Wikipedia, but I think Wikipedia is still fairly reliable for basic facts.
Ok I was wrong about that as well but Mithras worship didn't come into practice in Rome until the late 1st century AD, well after the establishment of Christianity.

Yeah. Exactly. Christmas day wasn't established until centuries after Christ's death.

[Tuuvi]

lol well I guess that means we're misunderstanding each other, or the facts, or something. All I was trying to say is that I disagree with your assessment that Christmas is a plagiarism of Mithras' day.

[Sigurd]

Christianity is one of my favorites, because so many Christians like to act like The Bible is god's own text. I bring up the Council of Nicaea to point out that The Bible is most certainly a product of man-made revision and editing. 99 times out of 100, that leads to some kind of insulting tirade about how I'm wrong.

Right... You need to stop bringing up Nicaea when talking about the creation of the Bible. Somehow this has become "the event" to mention when talking about the agreed upon compilation of the Canon. That particular council did nothing towards establishing a canon of scripture. They settled the celebration of Easter and handled the heretic Arius and began the process of establishing the doctrine of the Trinity (Which was a direct result of putting down the ideas of Arius. That a smaller group with equally weird ideas, won this debate is a discussion for later).
edit: Bah.. Philipus beat me to it...

Ok. A quick skim of Wikipedia tells me that I was wrong about Christ being born in the spring.

You aren't wrong m8... I could have written that Christ wasn't born during spring in a Wikipedia article and the world would believe it. Most likely the Jesus written about in the New Testament was born during early spring, somewhere around April. It was also convenient for Christianity to absorb mid winter celebrations like Yule.
It's kinda funny that my native word for Christmas is Jul.. which is even worse than x-mas in a modern Christian perspective (yeah.. I know the old tradition concerning this).

As a response to the OP:
Yes, it is a plausible theory and most certainly applicable to most religions, as the logic result of even considering that there is a God, the shear number of religions dictates that some of them, if not most, would be false. And if there are false religions, there would be some agenda behind them.

If we even remotely consider that this world we live on was somehow made under the influence of a Deity, and that there is an agenda behind it. Let's say that we are godly offspring that are to be tested and someday return to this Deity as deity-graduates. This Deity would have put out a training course and given instructions... to .. let's call them prophets. These prophets recorded these instructions and created schools (churches). Most likely this would have happened at a very early stage.. to get this .. agenda.. on track from the beginning.
Yes.. I am talking about a "religion" of Adam (or someone just like him).
Now this would have been the pure religion, the one that would turn man to Deity offspring and a future with Deity.
But because of man's inherent nature of anarchy and wanting to do their own "thing", this pure religion became diluted and many warped versions spread over the continents.
If this is so... there should be a core in them all, which is similar if not identical. I am gonna stop that particular chain of thought here.

Then if we consider the Judeo - Christian particular.
We should all be familiar with its basics. Maybe Moses (the first recorder that we know of) was the originator. But he incorporated stuff that preceded him. Stuff that might have been familiar to the Israelites that were in Egypt. OK maybe there was a guy called Abram and Isaac and Jacob and that they moved to Egypt due to famine. Maybe they had the genealogy with them back to this first man.. called ADAM (A name which incidentally is older that the Judeo - Christian religious roots). Who knows... the ancients was very persistent when it came to family history.
So.. the deity involved with making this planet was someone called Yahweh/Christ and he established a "method" of returning to the Heavens where once we lived (why did we leave in the first place?).
We know the history of said religion... and scrolling down to around present day we find ourselves with quite a few variations of that original Abrahamic religion. Not only Christianity has its roots there, but Judaism (with its several variations) and Islam (with its variations). I am taking Islam into this for the mere fact that Muhammad got instructions from an Angel called ... Gabriel (yeah.. how inventive was that?).

We cannot escape the claim, in this discussion, from a more modern version of this old method of establishing a religion. The claim of Joseph Smith, the founder of a religion that the next president of the mightiest nation subscribes to.
Yes.. this puts the OP to naught (if it is true).

So this kid prays about which church he should join and lo and behold he is visited. Not only by God (singular), but God and his Son (the holy ghost must have been there too). Three distinct entities. Later he is visited by an angel. Not Gabriel this time, but a former American native prophet that lived 1400 years prior to that event, giving directions to a record of the Judeo - Christian religion that the natives of the the Americas lived by. Is that the end of it?
Nope... he is visited by John the Baptist (given authority to baptize), Peter, James and John (yep, the top three Apostles).. and more... Moses, Elijah and a return of Yahweh to bless the first temple, and apparently many more.
Jesus Christ established his church among the native Americans and called 12 apostles among them too. Three of which was granted the same boon that John the beloved was granted - to tarry on the earth until the official return of the Son in glory which is THE event in the Judeo - Christian religion. Yes these three was seen (three men with extraordinary powers) several times in the early history of that church. Not presenting themselves as to who they were, but things like... "My father told me to plant the crops, but I had to go and get the prophet and his wife, how will I be able to do both?" whereupon three men came and with great skill and speed planted the crops for them without being asked. They never introduced themselves, but the speculation is clear.

Much controversy... and all of this is greatly attacked by many.. since the very day this began. But none of the church "fathers" has confessed. Even under torture and grave danger, mobs destroying their settlements, killing their men and raping their women did this religion crumble. Witnesses that later was hostile to the church never denied the testimonies of seeing and angel and holding the ancient record. They would rather restate them.
No attack on this religion has made the house of cards fold.
I have read much of the anti-Mormon stuff, but none of it is too convincing and much if not all is dishonest and based on either projection, outright lies or straw-men.
This religion sticks out like a sore thumb in this discussion.

[Hax]

25th of December was a Holy Day attributed to Sol Invictus, not Mithras.

I think that might be the case. I vaguely remember the whole crucifixion being completely different, if not, non-existent, to the folklore in Christianity.

No, I believe the common idea is that he (Jesus/Isa; note that there is no real difference between the two. It's just a name; there are no real connotations. However, Arab Christians use a different name for Jesus, "Yasu") got switched out at the last moment with a common criminal. Make of it what you will.

I do have to have breakfast now, but I have my own theories concerning the rise of Islam; I'll do that in a couple of minutes.

[The Stranger]

breakfast now? good idea... you must be a student! ill go get mine!

[Hax]

That's right, I only slept for three hours the night before and I had dinner and drinks with some lecturers and professors afterwards, so I got up around 1:00 PM.

In any case, talking about Islam, and more specifically, its origins and the way it came into existence. Of course, professing that it "came into existence" is a form of heresy in its own right as Islam is, according to its own believers, "the original religion of Abraham". Regardless, it's worth taking a look at its history, its practices and its particularities. There are many interesting things within Islam that can be traced to pre-Islamic roots, be they Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian or "pagan".

We know several things about Islam (or at least, we're pretty sure we do);
1) Muhammad started preaching his message in Mecca around the year 600; according to Islamic tradition, he first spread the religion within his close family, before moving out to spread the religion in public around 610; after severe persecution, he and his followers (the so-called muhajirun) moved to Mecca.
2) Prophets in Judaism and Christianity are also acknowledged by Islam
3) Concerning rituals; the central "point" of Islam is the Ka‘aba, located in Mecca; there is a Holy Month in which Muslims should fast (including abstination from other sorts of "wrong" behaviour; sexual promiscuity, lying, getting angry, etc.); every Muslim is obliged to make a Pilgrimage to Mecca in his lifetime; every Muslim is obliged to pay the Zakat (alms tax); every Muslim has to pray five times a day.

So when you take a look at points one to three, there are several footnotes to be made, which in my opinion, are pretty interesting.

Point 1: Muhammad preached his message around the year 600; he moved to Medina after persecution with a small group of follower

For a first glance, this seems pretty straightforward; nobody denies that Muhammad did indeed preach a message of radical monotheism around the start of the 7th century. However, with critical analysis; two things are going to stand out:

1) The discrepancy between the verses revealed in Mecca and the later verses revealed in Medina; when he was still living in Mecca, Muhammad actively tried to harmonise the different traditions into a new, single religion; verses such as "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) or "The People of the Scripture" (2:62, 3:113) (including the relatively little-known "Sabians"; a group of moon-worshipers of a sort in Iraq). However, when he got to Medina, where he was the political leader with heavy responsibilities, the tone of the verses shifted:

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end.

Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similitude. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners[...]

If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.

The word the Qur‘an uses here is "munafiquna" which is usually translated as "hypocrites"; I don't think it refers to non-believers (kafirun) but rather to Muslim apostates who reverted to pagan traditions. In any case, that's not the issue here:

It's evident that the Meccan verses diverge so much from the Medinan verses; it also explains the shift of Muhammad from a religious prophet to a politico-religious statesman.

==============================

Point 2: Prophets of Judaism and Christianity are acknowledged by Islam

The religious argument here being that Islam is the logical conclusion of Judaism and Christianity, and is such, is mandated by God and is also an excellent political tool to use when engaging (on a religious level) with Jews and Christians; how could Muhammad have known about all these religious figures being the illiterate merchant he was; this would only have been possible through divine power.

However, there are a few things that are also commonly accepted about Muhammad's life (besides, there are serious doubts on whether Muhammad was illiterate at all; it's not very likely that a merchant of his caliber and prestige was unable to read or write even the most basic things).

1) He had been in direct contact with a Christian monk (his wife Khadija's cousin, if I recall correctly)
2) In his travels to Syria in his youth, he was said to have discussed religion and spirituality with Christians and Jews there.

It's clear that Muhammad had at least some basic knowledge about how Judaism and Christianity functione; and when the hijra (exodus to Medina) came around, he was able to politicise this knowledge by pointing towards Islam as the logical conclusion of Judaism and Christianity and by pointing towards Jews and Christians as forsaking God by ignoring his message.

And later on, when Mecca was taken over by the Muslims and other tribes flocked to Muhammad, the acknowledgement of the Jewish and Christian prophets (especially by putting Jesus/Isa‘ in a rather elevated position), Arab Christian tribes must have felt more comfortable. In fact, some of those Arab Christian tribes did not initally convert to Islam.

==========================================
Point three: Rituals

This is a subject that intrigues me the most; I spoke at length about this with my professors of Islamology and Literature and it hasn't ceased to be interesting to me. So this'll basically be about the Five Pillars of Islam:

1) There is no God but God and Muhammad is His Prophet (and Shi‘ites additionally say; "and Ali is the viceroy of God")

This was the WHAM moment, basically; for Pagan Arabs this was a radical shift towards pure, uncompromising monotheism. There are some doubts about when exactly this was formulated (the whole Satanic Verses thing sprung from this), but I think that by the time there was no doubt about it. This was radical. I can't possibly stress that enough.

2) Salat; praying five times a day.

I've caught some flak for saying this earlier in a more private environment, but the point remains. This might have been influenced by Zoroastrianism (bolded by me):

and it [veneration of the divinities of natural phenonema] is a duty incumbent on its adherents to offer reverence to the Sun Yazad together with Mithra by recitation of the Khoridd and Mihr Niydyes three times a day (at the sunrise, noon and sunset prayers)

In fact, there are five times of prayer in Zoroastranism; however, this is something I don't really know too much about, so I'm not (yet) willing to say that Zoroastrian rituals definitely influenced Islam. It's an interesting similarity though.

3) Ramadan

Periods of fasting and non-violence have been known throughout Bedouin and pagan Arab practice; there were holy places associated with Gods where warfare was forbidden; markets sprung up around these places and they quickly grew into sizeable towns and hotspots for people to come trade goods and information.

4) Zakat/alms tax

This is something I don't know too much about; however, I know that Arab culture was dominated by the idea of the tribe and the clan; physical and economic security was dependent on your clan. Deviant behaviour would likely result in death. I'm not too sure about this, but the instution of the zakat might very well have been a way of replacing the dependence of the believers on the clan, and rather to the umma (community) as a whole. In my opinion, this was a way of trying to demonopolise the position of the tribe in relationship with the individual believer.

5) Hajj/pilgrimage

As in the case of the Ramadan, pilgrimages to Holy places existed long before the coming of Islam in the Hijaz; the Ka‘aba in Mecca was surrounded by a haram (holy spot) in which many different kinds of Gods and demi-gods were revered. After Muhammad took Mecca, the haram was "purified" and the worship of idols was banned. In any case, the hajj is one of those things that most definitely has a pre-Islamic founding.


A final note on Arab identity
When we spoke in our History classes about the existence of Islam and its success in destroying the Sassanid Empire and bringing the Byzantine Empire to its knees, there were basically two things that were important:
1) The recent Sassanid-Byzantine wars, that left both empires immensely weak
2) The fact the Arab tribes were united for the first time.

While the first subject is something that should not be discussed here as it has had no real influence on the formation of Islam, the second point is important. The concept of a shared Arab identity did not exist until that point; I'm not too sure if the rise of Islam was the affirmation or the cause of the idea of Arab identity, but the idea of the Arabs as forming a single group probably was a reaction to the presence of Persian colonies in southern Arabia. Apart from that; anything goes.


In any case, I'm not yet a professional scholar, I don't speak Arabic fluently and I only started my academic career half a year ago; I'm not at all a good authority, let alone an authority at all on the origins of Islam; I just hope to have sparked some interest, because this is a subject that still requires serious research.