Q&A on Islam

Ode to a Grasshopper · Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:03 am

Originally posted by CM
Grasshopper no problem, also just a point, muslims (this is a generalization) don't get upset when people ask questions about our religion. Since very few out of the islamic world understand it, we feel more than happy to explain everything. Also if you start on religion and explanation get ready to drink alot of tea and sit for a couple of hours minimum.

That's what I thought, hence the rolleyes (re. my aunt and uncle). My aunt and uncle are kinda weird though. I might post some of the stories if we get a period without any good threads.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:06 am

Ah come on post them now!

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:09 am

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
.....if we get a period without any good threads.

Since Sleepy already complained about the lack of good Threads - c'mon, speak up...

No worries,

Beldin

EDIT: But you should start a new thread for this...

CM · Post by CM » Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:14 am

Originally posted by Beldin

EDIT: But you should start a new thread for this...

No really??
Wouldn't have guessed that!

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:25 am

I have heard that Christian's diverge from Islam in their interpretation of Mohammed/Christ/Trinity etc. Islamics claim that Jesus was just a prophet and Mohammed is the true son of God, is that right or am i getting confused.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:32 am

Incorrect sleep.
We believe there is only one God, with a singular idenity.
Not the three i believe you have in christainity.
Still have to re-read SS's reply in the thread by M'n'm to understand that fully.
There is only one God, and one singular image of him or her.
Though we attribute 99 qualities to Allah, it is all towards one identity.
So there is concept of trinity and holy spirit in Islam.

Hazrat Mohammad (SAW) is not the son of God.
We believe no prophet can be the son of Allah, as Allah is the one and only.
If Hazrat Mohammad (SAW) or Hazrat Jesus were sons of God, they would be demi-gods, and thus God would not be a singular entity.
Hazart Mohammad (SAW) was a normal man in the sense that he lived for 40 years before he became a prophet of God.
He was as human as you and I.
He just was a very morally righteous etc. person.
Thus he was choosen to be a Prophet.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:47 am

Originally posted by CM
Incorrect sleep.

Why am i not surprised

We believe there is only one God, with a singular idenity.
Not the three i believe you have in christainity.
Still have to re-read SS's reply in the thread by M'n'm to understand that fully.
There is only one God, and one singular image of him or her.
Though we attribute 99 qualities to Allah, it is all towards one identity.
So there is concept of trinity and holy spirit in Islam.

I'll give you quick run-down as i understand it:

There is God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they are all the same entity split into three....that is about all i understand

There are numerous text's on this subject.

Hazrat Mohammad (SAW) is not the son of God.
We believe no prophet can be the son of Allah, as Allah is the one and only.
If Hazrat Mohammad (SAW) or Hazrat Jesus were sons of God, they would be demi-gods, and thus God would not be a singular entity.
Hazart Mohammad (SAW) was a normal man in the sense that he lived for 40 years before he became a prophet of God.
He was as human as you and I.
He just was a very morally righteous etc. person.
Thus he was choosen to be a Prophet.

That makes sense. God represents a singular entity that is him and not definable?

Jace · Post by **Jace** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:52 am

@CM,

What does Hazrat mean - is it the same as Prophet?
And when you mention Mohammad it is as Hazrat Mohammad (SAW), what does (SAW) mean and why is it after Mohammad's name and not after any other Prophet?

Ode to a Grasshopper · Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:59 am

Okay, I've posted the first of the stories here.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Apr 18, 2002 6:36 am

No problemo sleepy, yes so there is no concept of 3 different identities of Allah in Islam.
And correct he/she/it is singular entity and unidentifiable or definable.
Actually the world Allah in Arabic doesn't have a translation into english.
Allah the word implies no gender, like God or Goddess does.
I hard a very interest lecture by a South African in the UK, on just the world Allah and how it is undefinable.
i will try to get the text on line if i can find it.

Jace.
Hazrat mean prophet, it is Arabic.
SAW translated means Peace Be Upon Him.
We use this specifically for Hazrat Mohammad (SAW) if i recall correctly.
We use a seperate notation for the rest of the prophets, which I can't recall.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 7:42 am

Can I offer a few points...? Without in anyway meaning to speak for anybody on any side, being a member of neither, that is:

Christianity does not automatically involve the worship of a a God who is Three-in-One. The Trinity concept (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) evolved during the second century CE (though there's a potentail mention of it in the remarks of Justin the Martyr, in the latter part of the 1st century--I can get this out and post it if anybody wants). Trinitarianism was one of the main points of dispute among the Christians of that period, who also argued intensely (and in armed conflict) over whether Jesus was God, Man, Man/God, a new prophet to replace Moses, a new prophet to supplement Moses, a solar deity, God assuming a false seeming of human form, etc. They argued over how their God was structured, how their God's influence was felt in the universe, etc. Even synods held to discuss these points could turn into pitched battles over a single word's definition. John Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology covers the basics, if you really want to read about the major doctrinal stuff.

The Orthodox branch won out by gaining the support of the Roman Empire, thus becoming its official religion; it subsequently became the Holy Roman Empire. Athanasius wrote and received Orthodox approval for the bishops for his now-famous Credo, which freezes in place the beliefs of Orthodoxy concerning the Trinity, the Man-God being of Jesus, etc. (I can post this, too, if you'd like.) Despite the militancy of the Roman Catholic faith that evolved (and the lesser militaristic profile but equal dogmatism of the Eastern Orthodox faith--these being the two main branches of Orthodoxy that split when one of the Orthodox archbishops declared himself a more-than-archbishop, a Pope), the dogma as set down was not universally accepted. Periodically, "heresies" appeared in small and large communities that were dealt with usually by imprisonment and occasionally, by the destruction of the entire community--the Albigensians of the nation of Languedoc (now the southern third of France) being a classic historic example.

But during the Renaissance, the disagreements finally exploded into view, and the RCC could no longer contain them. Of the various Protestant churches that appeared as challenges to the RCC in Western Europe, only the most conservative hew to the Trinity. Quite a few either minimized the concept, or declared themselves Unitarian (not in the modern sense of the Unitarian Church, which is something else), believers in a single God.

Islam is, as I understand it, a Unitarian form of Monotheism. It rejects Trinitarianism, Transubstantiation (the transformation of the bread and wine at the Last Supper into the actual flesh and blood of Christ, which forms the main ritual at many RCC and conservative Protestant services), and considers Jesus to be a prophet on the level of Moses, but no higher. So is Muhomed, except that he brings the final word of God, and is the last and greatest of Prophets. Islam also utterly rejects images of God, angels, saintly worshippers, etc, as idolatry, a main point of contention with the Eastern Orthodox Church, for whom images were and remain extremely important.

Whew.

Please excuse the extreme simplicity with which I've presented views above, especially as they relate to your respective religions. I'm just trying to facilitate communication with a few facts, which I hope I've accurately presented. I intend no libel upon anybody's views, God, Goddess, multitude of Gods, or anything else. Carry on.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 8:14 am

Originally posted by fable
Transubstantiation (the transformation of the bread and wine at the Last Supper into the actual flesh and blood of Christ, which forms the main ritual at many RCC and conservative Protestant services)

Just for clarity, I think the Catholic Church is the only one that believes in the "Transubstantiation" thing. While the rest of us do take Communion, we do not believe it turns into actual flesh and blood; we believe it represents the flesh and blood of Christ.

Also, a little note that people might find interesting. IIRC, the phrase "Hocus Pocus" comes from what the Priest says that invokes the Transubstantiation. I do not recall exactly what the priest says, though.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Apr 18, 2002 8:42 am

Thanks for the info you two, i will comment on your questions/statements on monday fable as i have to head to class soon.
Anyway good day to you all.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 8:55 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

Just for clarity, I think the Catholic Church is the only one that believes in the "Transubstantiation" thing. While the rest of us do take Communion, we do not believe it turns into actual flesh and blood; we believe it represents the flesh and blood of Christ.

Good point. Luther (who has been credited with starting the Protestant movement) was unwilling to be reconciled with the RCC over the word "transubstantiation." I'm not sure, though, what the position of the Anglican Church is on the matter. The Eastern Orthodox Church definitely believes that transubstantiation is a miracle that takes place during the service.

Interestingly, transubstantiation has proven to be one of the biggest stumbling blocks the RCC has faced over the years in its converting work abroad. The idea of "eating one's God" immediately repelled many followers of Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, etc, and still does. The RCC cannot claim, as Protestants do, that it is strictly symbolic. The fact that the body of their God is a noumenal one made flesh (or physical) is an explanation that just can't work its way past the shock.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 11:30 am

Originally posted by CM
Thanks for the info you two, i will comment on your questions/statements on monday fable as i have to head to class soon.
Anyway good day to you all.

Thank you, @CM, for keeping a level head and dealing so well with so many different questions about your religion.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 3:29 pm

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn

Also, a little note that people might find interesting. IIRC, the phrase "Hocus Pocus" comes from what the Priest says that invokes the Transubstantiation. I do not recall exactly what the priest says, though.

HOCUS-POCUS
Meaningless talk or activity designed to distract attention.

It is known that the word appeared in the seventeenth century as a mock-Latin formula or incantation used by conjurors. What that formula was and where it came from is less certain.

Thomas Ady wrote in his book of 1655, A Candle in the Dark; or, a Treatise Concerning the Nature of Witches and Witchcraft: "I will speak of one man ... that went about in King James his time ... who called himself, The Kings Majesties most excellent Hocus Pocus, and so was called, because that at the playing of every Trick, he used to say, Hocus pocus, tontus talontus, vade celeriter jubeo, a dark composure of words, to blinde the eyes of the beholders, to make his Trick pass the more currantly without discovery".

Many people today believe that the phrase originated in a corrupted form of the words of the consecration of the host in the old Latin mass: hoc est (enim) corpus (meum), "this is my body", an idea that was first aired by John Tillotson, who was Archbishop of Canterbury between 1691 and 1694. But as this was part of an anti-Catholic sermon, it may be taken with a fair-sized pinch of salt. Another possibility, suggested in current Oxford dictionaries, is the nonsense Latin phrase "hax pax max Deus adimax".

Whatever the source, hocus-pocus was at first a general name for jugglers and conjurers and then - later in the seventeenth century - it became a term for a trick or deception. It's also the source of another common English word, since at the end of the following century it was contracted to make hoax.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 3:39 pm

Originally posted by fable

Thank you, @CM, for keeping a level head and dealing so well with so many different questions about your religion.

I agree with this sentiment, it has been very admirable of Fas to provide his time

It has also been somewhat of an educational experience

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:35 pm

A question for CM:

I don't see much similarity between Islam and Christianity. However, I see a great deal of similarity between Judaism and Islam. Both seem to have a similar concept of god. Both are legalistic. Both use a lunar calendar. Same worship day (Friday). It's interesting. Do muslims notice this similarity as well?

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 18, 2002 7:48 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
A question for CM:

I don't see much similarity between Islam and Christianity. However, I see a great deal of similarity between Judaism and Islam. Both seem to have a similar concept of god. Both are legalistic. Both use a lunar calendar. Same worship day (Friday). It's interesting. Do muslims notice this similarity as well?

Muslims worship Friday, but Jews worship on Saturday. Because of the way Jews "structure" a 24 hour period, though, it begins on what we would call Friday night. Otherwise, yeah, I do agree: they are quite similar in many respects. For what my it's worth, I put it down to the religions being very close to their Semitic roots, while Christianity over time received a great deal of its imput from a variety of other nations, most notably Greece, Byzantium, Rome, Britain and St Petersburg.

CM · Post by CM » Mon Apr 22, 2002 1:10 am

Voodoo, yes there are many similarities.
Historically speaking the Jews and Muslims have gotten on a lot better than with the Christians.
During the 500 years when Jews were expelled from every single European nation, a great majority moved to the Islamic world, where they became advisors to the Ottoman Khalfat.
I have a book at home which speaks about the various diasporas and their history, i will get the book tomorrow and post the name and some excerpts.
But it is very fasinating, how (compared to now) the jewish and muslim communities lived in peace and harmony.

Though muslims have been warned before hand by the Prophet and actions during his times not to trust the jewish people.
An example would be an assassination attempt on the Prophet's (SAW) life when he was in Medina.
His tribe - had not converted at the time - decided to kill him for the umpteenth time, and the jewish "tribes" in the city decided that it would be best if they helped out.
To cut a long story short, the jews played both sides of the game and ended up losing on both sides.
There are various other examples through scriptures and sayings that say to guard against the jews.
That is the cultural and historical perspective.

Religion wise Islam and Judaism are very similar.
That is noted by many muslims, that we both don't eat pork, follow similar doctrines.
Actually I read somewhere - i think the IHT - that the Torah and Quran are extremely similar in their teachings, but i wouldn't know for sure.
Now your question is a rather large one, what specifically would you like to know about the similarities and differences?

Fable, Yes Islam is that big fancy words you used!

Hazart Mohammad (SAW) is the last prophet, but we don't believe he is the greatest.
He wasn't given miracle powers like Hazart Moses or Jesus, or other special gifts.
He was like an ordinary man except that he was a prophet.
Now that statement is an oxymoron, but you know what i mean.

Yes we reject any pictures of Allah, any of the Prophets or of angels and other other-wordly beings.
However you can easily take a picture of a normal human being.

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

Just to add, Islam is a way of life, thus i am more than willing to comment on culture, practices, form of government, political structure as well as social aspects.
You do not need to limit your self to just questions of the religious nature.
Feel free to ask about anything within the political framework of the islamic world, or of the social kind.
I bet all of you are itching to ask about the suicide bombers and the way the religion sees the issue and say organizations like Al-Qaeda.
But feel it wouldn't be PC.
I will answer any and all questions.
I don't care about being PC.