Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Islam: Religion or Political Tool
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Truthisnotrelitive View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 13-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32 		  Quote Truthisnotrelitive Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Islam: Religion or Political Tool
    Posted: 28-Dec-2008 at 01:27
i hear what you are saying, Al-Jasass, and indeed, as i have said before, my knolwedge is limited. i understand that the name Allah comes from El, the "cheif diety of the semetic peoples" and whose name is the name of the god of the hebrews. i accept that. i'm not questioning the origin of the name. Musilms belive Allah is the god from the bible, YHWH - period. i get it.

what i am questioning is whethew Allah shares the same personality and charicter traits as the god of the bible (eg. the way they interact with humans, their fudermental agendas, how they judge, are they three or one?). it's a complicated question that you can't answer in four and a half lines. now if these details on the charicter of Allah and the God of the Bible are not exactly the same, then we have to assume that the Koran is one of the following.
1 a new revalation of one of the multi-facets of the Divine(YHWH)
2 YHWH has undergone a personality change (impssible acording to hebrrew scripture) and has informed mankind of this through a new holy book.
3 the koran in not inspired by YHWH and is a distortion of old and new testment doctrine and theology.

these are the possible logical outcomes of inconsitancy between the Koran and the bible.

then the next question preseenting it'self is what is the answer. 1,2 or 3? and what do they imply?

inorder to answer this question, one must assuem that the Divine does have a charicter and personality. even if you're an atheist, you'll need to pretend that god does exsist to answer this question (even if he is an imaginary charicter). analize him as he is a character from, say, Shakespear.

BTW: i never said that islam did not fit the definition of religion i gave. i said to the contrary that it did. i sugest you read more carfully.


Edited by Truthisnotrelitive - 28-Dec-2008 at 01:32
a man sees as he wishes
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987 		  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Dec-2008 at 04:25
Truthisnotrelitive,

Why don't you try learning more about it from Islamic sources? Those who are too negative about the religion will not give you a fair description of it. You will discover that the core is the same. I learned a lot from our copy of Islam for the Complete Idiot, which was written by an American Muslim, if I remember correctly. You may find it at your library.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Dec-2008 at 04:28
Or the several people here that have posted some valuable posts over the years on the subject Embarrassed
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091 		  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Dec-2008 at 07:04
There is certainly a lot to answer, and I will just as certainly omit something. My most humble apologies for the oversight/s that is/are bound to occur. I will note that I plan on rolling the whole topic of "Whether or not we worship the same God," in an Abrahamic context, into a separate thread, as I feel the immensity and intensity for the topic warrants it. Anyway, here goes.
 
First and foremost, I owe an apology to Al Jassas, once again. I know that you forgive my mistake, as you have indicated, and I thank you for that. Still, if I am going to try to be a "moderator", it is inexcusable that I should be so careless; mea culpa.
 
Originally posted by Al_Jassas

I think you misunderstood me Ako.

I didn't write it because denying and/or mocking the nativity story, the Islamic version that is which is similar in many senses to the christian one, is blasphamy in Islam and of course an insult and I don't want to be blasphamous.
 
Anyway what I wrote is an example on how some people, like the writer above, deliberately distort the boundaries of insult and criticism and use it to support their argument. I haven't read his book nor any of his writings but I can guess that the cartoon incident and the dutch film among others are what the guy considers legitimate criticism in his piece above which is of course not, these were insults pure and simple.
 
I suggested by my writing above that I doubted that he will show the same compose and scholarship if someone used the "Danish method" with the nativity story.
 
I will edit the last sentece in the previous post so stop things from getting out of hand.
 
I hope I haven't hurt anyone on the eve of the celebration of this great event and if so I am sorry.
 
That said, if my complete and utter idiocy and misunderstanding didn't offend you, I fail to see how your innocent comment could have offended anyone else. I understand that you were speaking ironically, and your response was quite to the point. I feel I owe you an apology. I was being a bit overly-dramatic, in the interest of pursuing a rhetorical point. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I thought you were being bigoted. I have known you for several years, and am quite sure that this is not the case. Anyway, you have my most abject apologies.
 
I certainly take your point regarding hypocrisy. If one uses a method in criticizing another's religion, he'd best be able to apply it to his own and come up with a defense. I do not know how Ravi Zacharias would feel about this. From what I've read, he's quite intelligent, but also quite enamored with a certain brand of apologetics which I find a bit too simplistic. Anyway, I crave your forgiveness for not realizing that your post -- however inappropriate I, in my insignificance, may have found it -- was simply illustrating a point that was elicited by the initial question. Your sincerity of concern for the concerns of my co-religionists does you more credit than I could ever recognize. It was only my own hypocrisy showing through. Mea culpa.
 
Originally posted by es_bih

Or the several people here that have posted some valuable posts over the years on the subject Embarrassed
 
Forgive me, for I could very well be wrong, for my opinion, you see, is based on my demonstrably false memory -- and you, of all of my friends, will be familiar with how suspect my memory is. LOL Still, I don't happen to recall any time in which I heard all of the questions surrounding the topic addressed sufficiently. This could be a result of my own ignorance, although I think it was actually the result of a failure of communication. I will note that I did abandon the thread dealing with Violence in Christianity and Islam after it failed to address the questions posed in the initial post within the context I outlined. I am unaware of any other threads that deal with topics of this nature, but if you happen to recall some, please provide the links and we may take up the questions there.
 
To gcle_2003:
 
Forgive me, but I needed a bit more room, and a separate sub-heading to deal with some of the questions you have raised.
 
Originally posted by gcle_2003

Not really. If the values taught by Jesus, Mohammed et all are accepted as valid, the occurrence of the miracles can go out the window. In fact (I could be wrong somewhere) the stories of the miracles were not taûght by the leaders themselves: we only have them in the words of their followers.
 
So what the question then becomes (if one want to ask) is: what is the purpose of the stories of the miracles. It's not difficult to answer that.
 
Well, first I would say that it is difficult to answer that, and i believe you would agree if I set the context properly. When I say that they served a catechetical function, I mean both a catechetical function in the sense of what we should do (practical ethics), and a catechetical function as far as what has been done (prophectic tradition). I would tie the catechetical function to both a system in which we may understand our actions now as well as to a validation of the foundation for that system. In other words, I view "fulfillment" as a method of validating prophecy. I know you may not agree, but it might help you to understand -- since I did a poor job before -- where I am coming from. Outside of this clarified understanding, I would agree with your criticism.
 
I couldn't follow either Hugo's or your point here. That's not a criticism, it's an admission. Ermm
 
Well, I believe -- and hugo may correct me if I am wrong -- that he was asserting that many religions have a basically valid system of ethical and moral teaching derived from a common divine source. And I would assume -- again, correct me -- that he views miracles as a means of validating those teachings. That said, I believe that miracles, as I explained above, also fit into a wider context, and it is for this reason that I subscribe more to the teachings of Saint Justin Martyr regarding the Logos, than to the more widely held syncretic philosophy of the modern/postmodern era. If you need further clarification, let me know; I have been accused of many things, but never of having made anything clear. Wink
 
But consubstantiality is not an ethical issue, which is what Hugo was talking about. As a non-Christian, non-Muslim I find it difficult to know what a Christian or Muslim would find unacceptable about the other's ethical position, espeially since it doesn't seem to be terribly clear, judging from the varying answers one gets.
 
From my perspective of course the unacceptable ethical principle of both religions is that service to God is more important than service to humanity. 
 
On the 'same god' issue it seems to me the issue is only of the definition of sameness. Are you perceiving the same entity in different ways, or are you perceiving different entities? An unanswerable question. Any monotheist be definition considers his God to be the only God. So if someone else is also a monotheist he also must be worshipping the same God, because there is only one, no? But if one thinks, say, that God is male and another thinks God is female, then one of them would be wrong but the other right about the same God.
 
I hope that demonstrates my conviction that the question is a pointless one. Sleepy
 
But he did not preface it in a way that would indicate that he was discussing ethical issues. Even then, I would have a few qualms, albeit minor. But without the preface, the statement stands: "I can't think of one issue that I can dislike about Islam as a religion."
 
I simply picked the most evident point that any Christian would debate -- the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. I certainly don't think this question is unanswerable. There are myriad analogies that would serve to further illustrate the point, and that could provide a great deal of fodder for discussion -- some which would indicate that I am mistaken in my analysis of the differences, but the majority, I believe, that would validate the differences that I believe to exist. Still, when it is phrased as simply and clearly as it was, I fail to see how one couldn't be clear that there is a difference.
 
The "sameness" issue, I believe, is something that has not been discussed -- or that has been discussed, at best, inadequately -- and I plan to rectify this in the near future. I don't think that the question is pointless if it is properly pursued.
 
Ask two different people to describe Brad Pitt and you'll get different answers but they are still describing the same Brad Pitt. (At least that's a monopittist view.)
 
I don't see how a monotheist could say other monotheists are worshipping different gods.
 
It all comes down to how specific or general we wish to get. If I worshiped the "flying spaghetti monster" and someone else worshiped the "flying ravioli moster" we would still be worshiping one deity each. Still, if we disagreed with regard to the aspects of this deity, and if these disagreements were incapable of resolution, then it would be difficult to say that we worshiped the same God. The problem, for the modern reader, is the postmodern context, in which we have relativised the divinity into a place of inconsequence. Once this context is justly forsaken, these differences become of the greatest importance.
 
Note: the question in the title of the thread is of course based on a false dichotomy. Something can be both a religion and a political tool.
 
Agreed.
 
Originally posted by hugoestr

Hi, Akolouthos,

Yes, I was addressing the statement made by the cited author. We assume that the original poster must agree somewhat with the author, but he or she didn't really make any statements on it.
 
Which is why I would have been interested in hearing your analysis before you started posting in the thread, or why I would have preferred that the author of the thread clarified precisely what he was asking. Without that I can only speculate as to how you understand it.
 
Now let's discuss the second comment that you made, about what is the purpose of miracles. As a believer of a faith, miracles provide confirmation for the divinity or godly connection of the belief. However, this only work if one believes in the religion. That is why I find that there is no point in discussing miracles as proof of divine correctness.
 
Whether you wish to discuss it or not, this is one of the purposes that almost every religion I have encountered ascribes to miracles. I'm simply accepting the context that we are all presented with, without drawing conclusions -- I believe that the conclusions follow upon a further step of analysis.
 
You are right about the third comment. That was a very poorly made sentence Let me try it again: If a teaching from a religion can be true regardless of their claim of spiritual inspiration, then those are the teachings inspired by God. For example, the golden rule appears in most religions. I would say that this is a teaching that is inspired by God.
 
I think you would do well to review the concept of the spermatic Logos as outlined by Saint Justin Martyr. Saints Clement of Alexandria and Basil the Great also dealt with the same topics, and their works are readily available in translation. This is the Christian understanding of universal divine revelation. I think this would help you to understand the idea of many different religious persuasions accepting the same basic teachings. Outside of this context -- which was firmly established in the infancy of Christianity -- acceptance of other religious teaching is hard to distinguish from relativism or syncretism. Inside of the context, it fits with the rest of the Christian worldview. What makes me a bit worried is the fact that I believe that you might be reading a bit too much postmodern relativism into an area of doctrinal study that has been woefully neglected in recent years.
 
As for my statement on Islam, I believe that I was talking about the same things that you find admirable, focusing on the ethical elements of the religion

The consubstantiality of the Father and the Son is a great example to illustrate what I was trying to say. Assume that this is not true, just for a moment. Does this really invalidates the ethical teachings of Jesus and the whole of Christian thought? I don't believe so. The teachings are correct regardless of the specific nature of God, don't you agree
 
If Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is not consubstantial with the Father, it invalidates everything about Him. Not because the teachings themselves would be invalid, but because He, himself, pronounced this as the authority by which he taught -- and, if you will recall, the Jews acknowledged this. The fact that God exists in a consubstantial Trinity of three persons is a non-negotiable tenet of the Christian faith; anyone who does not believe it simply isn't Christian. This is the sense in which I stated that we "worship different gods." You simply cannot focus solely on the ethical aspects of religion and ignore the dogmatic aspects, although this has become rather popular of late; they are inseparable, and, indeed, build upon one another.
 
Originally posted by Leonidas

 As far as i am concerned the God of the OT is different to the one in the NT and i could argue within the OT. So lets slice up the abrahamic religions and see what components/combination we have.  its never simple.
 
But we cannot, for it is one single tradition of revelation. Marcion certainly wished to do this, but it was rejected, for the fathers recognized the purposes of God that were realized within the divine economy related to different historical situations. If we divorced the situations from their contexts, we might be able to separate them, but I would be loathe to use an exegetical methodology that did not fit my historical training. The Old Covenant Scriptures are meant to be read, within a Christian context, as tutors for those recieving the Christ; that is to say that they all point to the Christ. If one reads the commentaries of the fathers on any passage from the Old Testament, it becomes clear that there is one Spirit at work. If you wish, we could discuss individual passages in a separate thread, If this sounds like an interesting idea, send me a PM, and we can start one. Smile
 
Originally posted by Bulldog

Why is it absolute rubbish?
I think Hugoestre makes a good point, most religions have a higher power, the higher power created us all so logically a good human is more important than being part of Religion X or Religion Y and their man made hierarchial systems of power and traditions.
 
See my responses to gcle_2003 and hugoestr above.
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 28-Dec-2008 at 07:25
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 00:53
Originally posted by Cyrus

A Teacher Teaches Students a Lesson, Christians have focused on Teacher, Jews on Students and I hope at least Muslims on Lesson.

Wow! What a fantastic quote!
Inshallah we focus on the Lesson, but I do think there are far too many who focus on their Madhab or the length of their beard. ("We couldn't figue out what he was going on about so instead we'll just have the same kind of facial hair and hope that some of his baraka rubs off")
Originally posted by Cyrus

You also know that the only Persian word for "God" is "Goda" which has been mentioned in the most ancient Persian texts.

What about Khudah? That is Farsi isn't it?
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091 		  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 03:15
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Originally posted by Cyrus

A Teacher Teaches Students a Lesson, Christians have focused on Teacher, Jews on Students and I hope at least Muslims on Lesson.

Wow! What a fantastic quote!
Inshallah we focus on the Lesson, but I do think there are far too many who focus on their Madhab or the length of their beard. ("We couldn't figue out what he was going on about so instead we'll just have the same kind of facial hair and hope that some of his baraka rubs off")

It is an interesting quote, but I think it could be misleading. I would note that we certainly focus first on the Teacher, and then on His lesson. I don't believe, looking at things from our point of view, that this presents a problem. From our perspective, it is who Christ Is, that focuses us on His message. We generally view Truth in terms of the Person Christ, rather than in terms of His message. Just wanted to clarify.
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 01-Jan-2009 at 20:04
Back to Top
Truthisnotrelitive View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 13-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32 		  Quote Truthisnotrelitive Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2009 at 07:52
i second that.

and that ties in with what was discussed earlier. abserlute truth is dependant on a definition for reality which is constant , reguardless of perspective. that constant is the nature of God revealed through his son.

as Jesus said "if you've seen me, then you seen the father". (excuse the paraphrase)
a man sees as he wishes
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.