Compareing Islam and Christainty

[Esther462]

I have to do a discussion for my English key Skill qualification at college and I've decided to discus the basic principles of Christianity and Islam and discus the similarity and differences between the 2 faiths. The reason why I chooses this as I was Christian and now I've converted to Islam.

I know something’s about the faiths and I've been researching it as well. Can any one help me with this? :D
I need help with finding scripture to back up my points for in Islam. Simple scripture and references so I can look it up myself too. Christians can add to points and biblical references too.
I need to gather some information so that I am prepared for the discussion which is either going to happen before the New Year or after the New Year. I don't know when. :?

[Grace Seeker]

So, Esther, reading between the lines, you are not a native English speaker???
Is that correct?


May I ask, what is your native tongue?
Of what nationality are you?
Have you moved permamently to the UK? Or just for university education?
What denomination of Christian were you before you became Islam?



As to your own subject for your discussion, are you just wanting to do a comparison/contrast sort of speech to simply inform the listener with some basic information presented in an objective way, or are you wishing to make some sort of persuasive speech (presumably in favor of Islam)?

[Esther462]

So, Esther, reading between the lines, you are not a native English speaker???
Is that correct?


May I ask, what is your native tongue?
Of what nationality are you?
Have you moved permamently to the UK? Or just for university education?
What denomination of Christian were you before you became Islam?



As to your own subject for your discussion, are you just wanting to do a comparison/contrast sort of speech to simply inform the listener with some basic information presented in an objective way, or are you wishing to make some sort of persuasive speech (presumably in favor of Islam)?

I was born in the UK and lived there all my life and English is the only lang I can speack, read and write properly. I know a little French and a little Arabic but I can't read or write the langs.

I was an Evangelicl Christain before I became Muslim.

The discussion I'm doing is to get people views on the basic of the 2 faiths and to help explain the faith of Islam better to my fellow students as it feels I'm the only Muslim in the college. It is going to be intresting on what they know about the 2 faiths. It is going to be a short discussion to complet 1 unit of my English key Skill qualification.

[snakelegs]

offhand, i can't give you exact verses and such.
some important differences
islam has no concept of original sin
eve does not take the blame for the apple
and of course, the most obvious - jesus was not god or the son of god but a prophet (though a very beloved one)
jesus did not die on the cross

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Afifa]

^^ nd jus to add to that...the belief is that allah raised jesus/isa to the heavans and sent another man that looked like him down ..hu was killed on the cross nd before the day of judgemnet he will come down to the earth and fight the dajjal nd will blow the horn on the day of judgement :smile:

['Abd al-Baari]

:sl:

and blow the horn on the day of Judgment?

Isnt the the job of Israafeel?

[Afifa]

:sl:

and blow the horn on the day of Judgment?

Isnt the the job of Israafeel?

oops yh...sorry got confused :embarrass

[Grace Seeker]

^^ nd jus to add to that...the belief is that allah raised jesus/isa to the heavans and sent another man that looked like him down ..hu was killed on the cross nd before the day of judgemnet he will come down to the earth and fight the dajjal nd will blow the horn on the day of judgement :smile:

And those teachings of a subsitute dying on the cross in Jesus' place you can find in the teachings of the Ahmadi and in other books, but not in the Qur'an or the hadeeth of the prophet (pbuh). The Qur'an simply says that they thought they killed Jesus, but they did not. It does not explain what actually happened.

[edil]

Islam is based on two things the quran and the sunnah. If something is not talked about in the quran the hadith goes in details about it and vice versa.

[Grace Seeker]

Islam is based on two things the quran and the sunnah. If something is not talked about in the quran the hadith goes in details about it and vice versa.

I don't know if this was a general statement directed to the OP. If so, then fine. Disregard this post that follows.


But I also thought that maybe this was a more specifc comment in response to what I had said:

And those teachings of a subsitute dying on the cross in Jesus' place you can find in the teachings of the Ahmadi and in other books, but not in the Qur'an or the hadeeth of the prophet (pbuh). The Qur'an simply says that they thought they killed Jesus, but they did not. It does not explain what actually happened.

This is what I was taught on this very forum, when I was responding to some misinformation presented by other Muslims in this regard just exactly the same information presented above. They quoted me the exact passages that I paraphrased above. Now, if you have more to add to that particular part of the conversation, I would be very happy to see it, but please quote the relevant passages as well. Thank-you.

[YusufNoor]

I have to do a discussion for my English key Skill qualification at college and I've decided to discus the basic principles of Christianity and Islam and discus the similarity and differences between the 2 faiths. The reason why I chooses this as I was Christian and now I've converted to Islam.

I know something’s about the faiths and I've been researching it as well. Can any one help me with this? :D
I need help with finding scripture to back up my points for in Islam. Simple scripture and references so I can look it up myself too. Christians can add to points and biblical references too.
I need to gather some information so that I am prepared for the discussion which is either going to happen before the New Year or after the New Year. I don't know when. :?

:sl:

May Allah Subnannahu Wa Ta Aala assist you and reward you.

your chosen task is NOT as easy as you may have thought! in terms of Ibadah we are ALOT closer to Judaism than to "Christianity", where we are supposed to parallel the Christians is in terms of how we treat our fellow man.that however seems to come more from the sunnah than the Qur'an although it's not absent from the Qur'an.

one area where we DO agree with "Christianity" is that we are both awaiting the return of Isa ibn Mariam/Jesus(alaihe Salaam); and because of that i would direct you to search out posts by our brother "Easa" Al Habeshi, who studies this more than the rest of us. click on his name and go to his stat area, where it says "find more post by"clik it.

you can also check out this hadeeth site:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...t/profbio.html

also, if you continue to look at the life of the Prophet, Sallalahu Alaihe wa Salaam, you will see alot of the teachings of Jesus put into practice especially but not limited to the Makkan phase of his life. here's an audio set of lectures that brother Qatada once posted:

http://www.pleasantviewschool.com/me...t%20%28pbuh%29

you can also check out some lectures by Anwar Al-Awlaki, especially the 2 "Life of the Prophet, Salaalahu Alaihe wa Salaa", sets:

http://islambase.co.uk/index.php?opt...=57&Itemid=181

i hope this helps some...

:w:

[Joe98]

Comparing Islam and Christianity……

FIRSTLY
= = = = = =

According to Islam, their holy book has never changed. It is best understood in it’s original Arabic and Muslim scholars learn Arabic so they can best explain it to their local people. As a result all Muslims should have the same understanding of Islam.

According to Islam, the Christian holy book has changed and been corrupted over time. This would account for the Christians lack of understanding of the correct message from God.


SECONDLY
= = = = = = =

There was a movie named “The last temptation of Christ” which upset Christians. About the same time an author Salman Rushdie upset Muslims.

Christians, of the changed holy book, with the incorrect message from God, held signs in the air which said “Ban the movie”.

Some Muslims, with the unchanged holy book, held signs saying “Kill Salman Rushdie” and some debated whether death is the correct punishment.


THIRDLY
= = = = = =

A few years ago there was an artwork named “Christ in Piss” which upset Christians and recently there was a teddy bear named Mohammad which upset Muslims.

Again we see that Christians do not understand god’s message when a group of united Christians carried signs in an attempt to close the art gallery. Whereas some Muslims wanted the teacher killed and some debated whether it was the correct punishment

Clearly Muslims understand god’s message through their uncorrupted book whereas Christians are in doubt as to the true message.

-

[Grace Seeker]

Yusuf is right, this might be a bigger task than you think. It sounds more like a doctral disseration than the relatively short assignment you have, and even then it is certainly too broad. However, if I may, I would like to suggest one approach you could take to the topic.



There are a lot of theological points and subpoints that one could get caught up in within both Christianity and Islam: lenghth of hair, place of music, authority within the family. Really, these are details that don't tell us much about the particular faiths. I don't presuppose how to tell you the best way to approach Islam, but I might with regard to Christianity.

The major issues of the Christian faith, those things on which nearly all Christians can agree (versus those things that Christians argue amongst themselves over) where questions that the church had to face and address in its earliest days: Who is Jesus? What is to be the relationship between the Church and the Jewish faith in which it was born? How does one find salvation? What are to be the scriptures of the Church?

Most of these things were worked out through early ecumenical councils. These councils are still seen as being foundational to the faith of the Church even today. If you are wanting to do some serious study you might take a look at these early councils, their decisions, and the creeds they formulated stating the essentials of the Christian faith and then compare this to the same process in Islam.


If you want to do just a quick look, you might take the approach I do with my confirmation kids. We just take a look at the Apostles' Creed --legitimate not because it was actually written by the apostles, but was a creed used by the church which it felt reflected the overall teaching of the apostles.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

I asterisked (*) the word catholic because many people misunderstand its meaning. It is not referring to the Roman Catholic Church. It is a word that simply means "universal". Those who placed it in the creed did so because they were wanting to say that there was just one Church (think Ummah) even if it appeared scattered around the world and even if there were minor differences in it from one place to another. We still hold that there is just one Church, even as we admit to being fractionalized into thousands of different denominations.

I'll try to reply later with some ideas as to how to dissect the creed if you think it would be of any help to you.

[Grace Seeker]

Here is the way Martin Luther commented on the Apostles' Creed. He wrote this for parents to aid them in explaining it to their children at home.

I. The First Article: On Creation
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

Q. What does this mean?

A. I believe that God created me, along with all creatures. God gave to me: body and soul, eyes, ears and all the other parts of my body, my mind and all my senses and preserves them as well. God gives me clothing and shoes, food and drink, house and land, spouse and children, fields, animals, and all I own. Every day God abundantly provides everything I need to nourish this body and life. God protects me against all danger, shields and defends me from all evil. God does all this because of pure, fatherly, and divine goodness and mercy, not because I've earned it or deserved it. For all of this, I must thank, praise, serve,and obey God. Yes, this is true!

II. The Second Article: On Redemption
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

Q. What does this mean?

A. I believe that Jesus Christ is truly God, born of the Father in eternity and also truly human, born of the Virgin Mary. Christ is my Lord! Christ redeemed me, a lost and condemned person, bought and won me from all sins, death, and the authority of the Devil. It did not cost him gold or silver, but his holy, precious blood, his innocent body -- his death! Because of this, I am Christ's very own, will live under Christ in his kingdom and serve Christ righteously, innocently and blessedly forever, just as Christ is risen from death, lives and reigns forever. Yes, this is true!

III. The Third Article: On Becoming Holy (Sanctification)
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

Q. What does this mean?

A. I believe that I cannot come to my Lord Jesus Christ by my own intellegence or power. But the Holy Spirit called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with her gifts, made me holy and kept me in the true faith, just as she calls, gathers together, enlightens and makes holy the whole Church on earth and keeps it with Jesus in the one, true faith. In this Church, she generously forgives each day every sin committed by me and by every believer. On the last day, she will raise me and all the dead from the grave. She will give eternal life to me and to all who believe in Christ. Yes, this is true!

What I might suggest is that you compare and contrast each of these points with Islamic teaching.

For instance you might begin with the statement that in Islam there is no God but Allah. Be sure to clarify that Allah is just the Arabic term for God, so that your fellow English-speaking classmates understand that all you are saying is that there is no God but God. And then talk about how in Islam you therefore could not break a creed into three parts as if breaking apart the unity of the one God.

After that note that in Islam Allah/God is still the creator of everything, almighty, all knowing. You might then indicate something of the 99 names for God, but indicate that rather than going through them all at this time that you will wait and make mention of some of the relevant ones as they compare with the remained of the Apostles' Creed.

In talking more about Allah as creator you might mention some of the differences and similarities between the Muslim and Christian views with regard to creation. I think if I were you that I would include the openness that Islam has with respect to scientific understandings of creation, and that in Christianity there is a mixed bag with some fundamentalists insisting on a literal 6-day creation model and a young earth. Whereas others take a much less literal approach to the scriptures and are quite comfortable with the Darwinian concepts of evolution. (You might want to do a fact check on this, but I believe that Darwin himself once considered studying for the ministry, and never once considered his theories to be a slap in the face of God.)

In talking about the second article of the Apostles' Creed, note some of the similarities such as the belief in Jesus' virgin birth, the view that Jesus lived a sinless life and was a teacher of God's righteousness. Do not call Jesus a Christian prophet. To Christians that would actually be an insult to lower Jesus' status as such. Whereas to Muslims it is an insult to God to consider Jesus as more than a prophet. Most people who have not discussed this before would get lost in talking about the hypostatic union by which Christians understand Christ to be both fully God and fully man without any loss of either nature in the comingling of the two natures in one person. But if you're game for it, this would be the place to discuss that and set it as diametertically opposed to Islam's understanding that Allah does not have partners.

In talking about the last article there are a number of things you could address. For Islam the Holy Spirit is the angel Jibreel. Christians understand Gabriel to be an angel, but angels are creatures created by God, whereas the Holy Spirit most certainly is not for the Holy is God himself. The concept of the Ummah in Islam and the idealized concept of the Church as the body of Christ are relatively similar. However it appears that Muslims are more capable of actualizing their ideal in the real world than are Christians for Christians have broken into thousands of denominations while the splintering of Islam is not near as extreme. On the other hand, there appears to be more violence between different Islamic groups than between differeing Christians factions. But that might be more linked with the present day, for historically when groups like the anabaptists first emerged other Christian groups would punish them by drowning (a rather sadistic response to the idea that anabaptist literally means another baptism, which they thought should be by immersion as an adult rather than sprinkling as an infant). On the last three points both Islam and Christianity agree with the overall concepts but different in how these things are achieved.

Well, I don't want to write your whole paper for you. But maybe that gives you some ideas as to one way to go about it.

[pbhowmik]

And those teachings of a subsitute dying on the cross in Jesus' place you can find in the teachings of the Ahmadi and in other books, but not in the Qur'an or the hadeeth of the prophet (pbuh). The Qur'an simply says that they thought they killed Jesus, but they did not. It does not explain what actually happened.

The Quran says that Jesus will die and rise again. Then again I don't know why we hear it says he didn't die. Is someone contradicting the Quran? I don't know man, something look fishy. Let's see what the Quran says: "He [Jesus] said: 'I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!' Such was Jesus the son of Mary. It is a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is" (19:30-35).

[Grace Seeker]

The Quran says that Jesus will die and rise again. Then again I don't know why we hear it says he didn't die. Is someone contradicting the Quran?

You tell me. I was paraphrasing it before. Now here is an interpretation of it in English:

[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

Far be it from me to actually promote Islam, but I will also will not slander it nor intentionally be deceptive about it. I was merely trying to help our sister by correcting misinformation about Muslim beliefs that another Muslim had provided to her:

Originally Posted by x-Afifa-x
^^ nd jus to add to that...the belief is that allah raised jesus/isa to the heavans and sent another man that looked like him down ..hu was killed on the cross nd before the day of judgemnet he will come down to the earth and fight the dajjal nd will blow the horn on the day of judgement

If she is going to try to compare/contrast Islam and Christianity, I want her to have them both right not just my religion.

[MustafaMc]

Following are some of my thoughts contrasting Islam in green font and Christianity in blue font. I took the liberty to speak for Protestant Christianity in USA. Those who recognize errors will kindly correct me.

God

Allah - the One and only God. Has no sons, no daughters, no father, no mother, no equal, no partner, none comparable to Him. Known by His 99 names and attributes: the Merciful, the Beneficient, the Creator, the Holy, the Truth, the All-Knowing, the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing, etc

One, but with three manifestations or persons (Trinity): Father - object of worship in the Lord's prayer, the One that Jesus prayed to in the Garden & said this is my Son at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration, Son - Jesus, son of Virgin Mary, God with us, 100% human yet 100% God, Holy Spirit indwelling of God in born-again Christians, on Day of Pentecost Jesus' disciples were 1st to be filled with

Jesus

One of the most honored and respected Prophets and Messenders of Allah. Born to the virgin, Mary. Allah said "Be!" and he was createdwithin Mary's womb. No more than a Servant of Allah. Was raised to Heaven without dying.

The only begotten Son of God and yet fully God. Born to the Virgin Mary. God became incarnate within Mary's womb. Lived a perfect life, died on the cross as an eternal sacrifice to redeem humans from their sin and was resurrected from the dead before ascending to Heaven.

Muhammad

The final Prophet and Messenger of Allah. Established Islam as the way of life in accordance with Allah's Will. Over period of 23 years received the Quran as revelation from Allah through the Angel Jibra'il. His life is the pattern for Muslim's life and their worship of Allah.

A false prophet that misleads people away from accepting the Gospel - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God, as the only means for salvation.

Divine focus

Allah - Muslims have no mental image

Predominantly, God in form of Jesus

Human focus

The life example and teachings of Muhammad. His death is of no importance other than the end of revelation.

The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God. His teachings are of secondary importance

Original sin

No, each person is born in a pure state with accountability for sins commited starting at puberty.

Yes, the sin of Adam is passed on to all descendents. Redemption only through the blood of Jesus.

Satan

Shaytan - a jinn who disobeyed Allah's command to prostrate before Adam. Strives to mislead humans to join him in Hell.

A fallen angel. The one, in form of a serpent, who tempted Eve to eat of Forbbidden Tree.

Salvation from Hellfire

Based on belief in Allah and ascribing no partners to Him. Allah judges one's deeds, words, worship, & sins in the balance according to His scale. Some Muslims will spend some time in Hell. Muslims strive to live sinless and worshipful lives, but ultimately rely upon the Mercy of Allah. No Muslim will claim to know he is "saved" from the Hellfire.

Based on acceptance of Jesus as one's personal Lord and Saviour through believing that he was the Son of God and that he died on the cross for their sins. Foregone conclusion they are saved.

Prescribed personal worship

5 daily prayers in Arabic & according to sunnah (tradition) of Muhammad, fasting during day of month of Ramadaan, 2.5% charity tax, pilgrimage to Mecca

None

Congregational worship

Friday for sermon and ritual prayer. Encouraged to meet for 5 daily prayers in masjid.

Sunday before noon for song, prayer, a sermon, tithe and fellowship. Also, Sunday and Wednesday night for more of same.

Dietary restrictions

No pork, carion, blood, alcohol

None

Male circumcision

Yes

No

[Grace Seeker]

Following are some of my thoughts contrasting Islam in green font and Christianity in blue font. I took the liberty to speak for Protestant Christianity in USA. Those who recognize errors will kindly correct me.

I see only a few minor changes I would make. Mostly in word choice. I am just going to post my additional comments in red alongside what Mustafa's has already written. Perhaps Jayda may care to give the Catholic view, as mine is mainline protestant.


God

Allah - the One and only God. Has no sons, no daughters, no father, no mother, no equal, no partner, none comparable to Him. Known by His 99 names and attributes: the Merciful, the Beneficient, the Creator, the Holy, the Truth, the All-Knowing, the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing, etc

One, but with three manifestations or persons (Trinity): Father - object of worship in the Lord's prayer, the One that Jesus prayed to in the Garden & said this is my Son at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration, Son - Jesus, son of Virgin Mary, God with us, 100% human yet 100% God, Holy Spirit indwelling of God in born-again Christians, on Day of Pentecost Jesus' disciples were 1st to be filled with

One God who exists in three co-eternal persons (not manifestations, that implies modalism -- though I have actually erred and used that word myself at times), yet is only one being. The Father is the source of all being including his own being and that of the Son, but he does not preceed the Son for the Father could not exist as a Father unless he were a Father to the Son. The Spirit proceeds from both the Son and the Father as the Son proceeds from the Father. The Father is the subject (not object) of worship in the Lord's prayer, and Jesus prayed to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. The Father declared of Jesus "This is my son." at Jesus' baptism and again on the Mount of Transfiguration.


Jesus

One of the most honored and respected Prophets and Messenders of Allah. Born to the virgin, Mary. Allah said "Be!" and he was createdwithin Mary's womb. No more than a Servant of Allah. Was raised to Heaven without dying.

The only begotten Son of God and yet fully God. Born to the Virgin Mary. God became incarnate within Mary's womb. Lived a perfect life, died on the cross as an eternal sacrifice to redeem humans from their sin and was resurrected from the dead before ascending to Heaven.

The only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through the Son all things were made that have been made (or will be made). For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the virgin Mary and was made man. He was complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin. He is one and the same Christ (i.e. Messiah), Son and Lord, recognized in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death on the cross and was buried; on the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended to heave. He is seated at the right hand of the Father, he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.


Holy Spirit

An angel created by Allah and named Jibra'il. A messenger who told Mary that she would give birth to Isa and who communicated the Qur'an to Prophet Muhammad.

Himself God, no connection to the angel Gabriel at all. The Lord the giver of life who is co-eternal with and proceeds from both the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He convicts people of sin and guides them to righteousness. Through His presence in our lives we have fellowship with God and with one another.



Muhammad

The final Prophet and Messenger of Allah. Established Islam as the way of life in accordance with Allah's Will. Over period of 23 years received the Quran as revelation from Allah through the Angel Jibra'il. His life is the pattern for Muslim's life and their worship of Allah.

A false prophet that misleads people away from accepting the Gospel - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God, as the only means for salvation.

A person that lived in the 7th century AD, who founded a new religion that borrows from certain aspects of both the Christian and Jewish faiths while rejecting those essentials which are most important to our beliefs and practice to produce something that is is entirely unique and not derivative from the other faiths in the Abrahamic tradition.


Divine focus

Allah - Muslims have no mental image

Predominantly, God in form of Jesus

Communion with God through Jesus Christ


Human focus

The life example and teachings of Muhammad. His death is of no importance other than the end of revelation.

The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God. His teachings are of secondary importance

Not sure what is meant by human focus. But I agree with the statement of what is of primary and what is of secondary importance.


Original sin

No, each person is born in a pure state with accountability for sins commited starting at puberty.

Yes, the sin of Adam is passed on to all descendents. Redemption only through the blood of Jesus.

Yes, the disobedience of Adam resulted in a lost of fellowship with God that cannot be restored by any effort on mankind's part, thus all human beings who lived subsequent to Adam inherited the depravity that were the consequences of his sinful actions.


Satan

Shaytan - a jinn who disobeyed Allah's command to prostrate before Adam. Strives to mislead humans to join him in Hell.

A fallen angel. The one, in form of a serpent, who tempted Eve to eat of Forbbidden Tree.

The tempter, deceiver who tries to tempt men to assert their own free will to be sovereign in their lives rather than submit to God's will for them. He is the accuser that tells people they are not good enough for God.


Salvation from Hellfire

Based on belief in Allah and ascribing no partners to Him. Allah judges one's deeds, words, worship, & sins in the balance according to His scale. Some Muslims will spend some time in Hell. Muslims strive to live sinless and worshipful lives, but ultimately rely upon the Mercy of Allah. No Muslim will claim to know he is "saved" from the Hellfire.

Based on acceptance of Jesus as one's personal Lord and Saviour through believing that he was the Son of God and that he died on the cross for their sins. Foregone conclusion they are saved.

Obtainable only as an act of God's grace. Christians believe in the promise of God, that will impute the righteousness of Jesus who had no sin to those who have no righteousness because of their sin. We know of no other way to heaven and fully rely on God to accomplish this for us in the work of Christ Jesus.



Prescribed personal worship

5 daily prayers in Arabic & according to sunnah (tradition) of Muhammad, fasting during day of month of Ramadaan, 2.5% charity tax, pilgrimage to Mecca

None

1. To love God, neighbor, one another and one's enemies as Christ loved.
2. To practice the means of grace: prayer, fasting, repentance, and partaking of the sacraments.
3. And to do good works as an offering of thanksgiving for the gift of new life received from Christ.
(Mustafa, One of the few your really missed.)


Congregational worship

Friday for sermon and ritual prayer. Encouraged to meet for 5 daily prayers in masjid.

Sunday before noon for song, prayer, a sermon, tithe and fellowship. Also, Sunday and Wednesday night for more of same.

No specified time. Simply the injunction not to forsake assembling together. Most general pattern is Sunday morning. But many take advantage of additional offerings that may be virtually any day of the week. For some those are their primary service, for others they are secondary services.


Dietary restrictions

No pork, carion, blood, alcohol

None

None


Male circumcision

Yes

No

No. No actually required for religious reasons. But in practice it remains more common than not, and most think it is for religious reason; but in reality it is a cultural belief, not something taught by the church. (At least that is the phenomena in the USA, whether that is true in the rest of the world, I don't know.)

[MustafaMc]

GraceSeeker,

Thank you for your comperhensive and accurate input from a Christian perspective. I am certain there are Muslims who could do the same for what I wrote about Islam.

Regarding "prescribed personal worship", I had in mind ritualized worship that is routinely practiced by most adherents of a faith on a personal one-to-one aspect with God. One issue is that there is such deviation among the denominations of Protestant Christianity that one can't make broad statements. The Church of Christ held communion every Sunday and they assigned a more important role for baptism (forgiveness of sins) than the Baptist church I grew up in. ...but then again these are more congregational.

Regarding "human focus" I was referring to the human being that is the focal point for the religion. A big difference that I see between Islam and Christianity is that the human focus in Islam is on Muhammad's (saaws) life and teachings as the perfect example for our own lives; whereas, in Christianity the focus is on Jesus' (as) being God, living a perfect human life and his death on the cross as the means for salvation.

[Grace Seeker]

GraceSeeker,

Thank you for your comperhensive and accurate input from a Christian perspective. I am certain there are Muslims who could do the same for what I wrote about Islam.

Regarding "prescribed personal worship", I had in mind ritualized worship that is routinely practiced by most adherents of a faith on a personal one-to-one aspect with God. One issue is that there is such deviation among the denominations of Protestant Christianity that one can't make broad statements. The Church of Christ held communion every Sunday and they assigned a more important role for baptism (forgiveness of sins) than the Baptist church I grew up in. ...but then again these are more congregational.

Regarding "human focus" I was referring to the human being that is the focal point for the religion. A big difference that I see between Islam and Christianity is that the human focus in Islam is on Muhammad's (saaws) life and teachings as the perfect example for our own lives; whereas, in Christianity the focus is on Jesus' (as) being God, living a perfect human life and his death on the cross as the means for salvation.

Ah, yes, then I'm not sure that I would say that Christianity has a human focus. If anything my comment about having communion with God (between the believer and God that is) through Jesus Christ might fit there. And our divine focus is simply on the greatness of God who is worthy of worship.

And as you said, with so many denominations and even within a denomination there are many different stylizations with regard to the form of worship, both personal and corporate. Probably the most common form of personal worship are prayers at rising from bed, at meals, and on going to bed. Interesting to note that where people are diligent in these things (and regular in eating 3 meals a day) that Christians would typically have 5 prayers a day as well.

[mariam.]

peace be upon you all:

we always talk about differences .. why we don't talk about similarity?

let's read togather this verses from Quran, New Testament and Old testament:

Quran

Your God is One God. There is no god but Him… (Qur'an, 2:163)

… "He is God, Absolute Oneness." (Qur'an, 112:1)

New Testament

... The Lord our God, the Lord is One. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength… You are right in saying that God is One, and there is no other but Him. (Mark 12:29, 30, 32)

Old Testament

"There is no one like You, O Lord, and there is no God but You." (1 Chronicles 17:20)

You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides Him, there is no other. (Deuteronomy 4:35)

___________________________________

Quran

Say: "People of the Book! Come to a proposition that is the same for us and you-that we should worship none but God, not associate any partners with Him, and not take one another as lords besides God..." (Qur'an, 3:64)

New Testament

It is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only." (Matthew 4:10)

Old Testament

But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you, and go off to serve other deities and worship them, then I will uproot Israel from my land... (2 Chronicles 7:19-20)

__________________________________

Quran

... [They] do not kill anyone God has made inviolate, except with the right to do so, and do not fornicate; anyone who does that will receive an evil punishment. (Qur'an, 25:68)

New Testament

... "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother." (Mark 10:19)

Old Testament

You shall not kill. (Exodus 20:13)

O city that brings on herself doom by shedding blood in her midst and defiles herself by making idols, you have become guilty because of the blood you have shed. (Ezekiel 22:3-4)

... There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land. There is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed. Because of this the land mourns... (Hosea 4:1-3)

__________________________________

Quran

Never say about anything: "I am doing that tomorrow" without adding "if God wills." Remember your Lord when you forget, and say: "Hopefully my Lord will guide me to something closer to right guidance than this." (Qur'an, 18:23-24)

New Testament

Now listen, you who say: "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say: "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that." (James 4:13-15)


I chose some of these verses .. but you can read them all from here

I hope this help you "God willing" :)
peace

[MustafaMc]

Ah, yes, then I'm not sure that I would say that Christianity has a human focus.

Was Jesus (as) born of a woman? Did he have a head, a body, 2 arms and 2 legs? Did he eat, drink and did he not relieve himself of bodily waste? Was the blood that (Christians believe) flowed from his body on the cross red?

You may claim that Jesus (as) is more than human, but I think we can agree that he is at least a human. What about the 100% human and 100% God concept? There is also no doubt that Jesus is the focal point for the Christian faith.

[Grace Seeker]

Was Jesus (as) born of a woman? Did he have a head, a body, 2 arms and 2 legs? Did he eat, drink and did he not relieve himself of bodily waste? Was the blood that (Christians believe) flowed from his body on the cross red?

You may claim that Jesus (as) is more than human, but I think we can agree that he is at least a human. What about the 100% human and 100% God concept? There is also no doubt that Jesus is the focal point for the Christian faith.

Peace Mustafa. This is where my theological training causes me to get pickier about things than most would be. All that you say about the Christian understanding of Jesus is true. However, our focal point is not just Jesus the person, be it to think of him as human or divine or both, rather it is his work on the cross. So, our focus is even more on God's grace that Jesus was the agent of than on Jesus himself. In the broad sweep of things we ask the question, "What do you do with Jesus?" to determine whether a particular set of beliefs are Christian or not. But not all groups that lift up Jesus are Christian. Those that find their focus on his teachings, his model life, even his divinity apart from his redemptive sacrifice (i.e. the gnostics) are not considered Christian. That's why I said I'm not sure that we have a human focus. It is the work of Chrsit that is our focus, that implies the person of Christ that you so well related. But the focus is actually on the work itself. Does that make any sense?

(If it doesn't that's fine, I suspect that most adult Sunday school classes would need that idea repeated a few times before they got the gist of it as well.)

[MustafaMc]

However, our focal point is not just Jesus the person, be it to think of him as human or divine or both, rather it is his work on the cross. So, our focus is even more on God's grace that Jesus was the agent of than on Jesus himself.

I see that we agree on this point and differ on the semantics. It seems to me that the human suffering on the cross felt a separation from the Father with his cry of anguish. I remember as a Christian that what you spoke of was the most vivid visual image that I had of "God". As a Muslim, I no longer have a mental image of the One that I pray to.

What you wrote seems another way (albeit more elegant) of saying what I initially said:
The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God. His teachings are of secondary importance

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Here's an interesting link sis :)

http://www.islamicboard.com/dawah/33...ips-ideas.html

[Talha777]

One God who exists in three co-eternal persons (not manifestations, that implies modalism -- though I have actually erred and used that word myself at times), yet is only one being. The Father is the source of all being including his own being and that of the Son, but he does not preceed the Son for the Father could not exist as a Father unless he were a Father to the Son. The Spirit proceeds from both the Son and the Father as the Son proceeds from the Father. The Father is the subject (not object) of worship in the Lord's prayer, and Jesus prayed to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. The Father declared of Jesus "This is my son." at Jesus' baptism and again on the Mount of Transfiguration.

:?

Oh man. I think we should keep it simple and straightforward:

ONE GOD (NO DISTINCT PERSONS). NO SONS. NO FATHERS. ETERNAL (NO BIRTHDAYS). INDEPENDENT (NO MY WILL YOUR WILL) NO COMPARISON.

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him
(Al Ikhlas 112:1-4)

[Grace Seeker]

:?

Oh man. I think we should keep it simple and straightforward:

ONE GOD (NO DISTINCT PERSONS). NO SONS. NO FATHERS. ETERNAL (NO BIRTHDAYS). INDEPENDENT (NO MY WILL YOUR WILL) NO COMPARISON.

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him
(Al Ikhlas 112:1-4)

I agree that concept is easier. However, I have to deal with what I understand to be true, not just what I wish was true. Hence, I must use different language to describe God than you do.

[Qingu]

:?

Oh man. I think we should keep it simple and straightforward:

ONE GOD (NO DISTINCT PERSONS). NO SONS. NO FATHERS. ETERNAL (NO BIRTHDAYS). INDEPENDENT (NO MY WILL YOUR WILL) NO COMPARISON.

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him
(Al Ikhlas 112:1-4)

You know, I don't think any monotheistic religion is that simple, including Islam.

Monotheists like to claim they only believe in one god (or one god in three parts, like the Trinity). But in actuality these religions contain a huge number of supernatural beings—djinn, angels, demons. God is simply the most powerful supernatural being who controls all the others.

In older religions, there was always a king god who controlled all the other gods. Zeus, for example, was more powerful than all the other gods put together. Marduk absorbed the names and powers of 50 or something other deities after he created the world. Older religions would certainly consider angels and jinn as "gods," since a god is simply a supernatural being with impressive and superhuman powers (also, they tend to be invisible).

Ancient Judaism isn't even monotheistic. The Bible appears to acknowledge the existence of other gods in certain parts. It merely asserts that Yahweh is more powerful than all these other gods, and later it relegates them to the status of "angels" in Yahweh's "heavenly court." Again, this is not particularly different from Marduk and his court of subservient deities.

The only substantive difference I see between Islam's "monotheism" and Greek/Babylonian "polytheism" is that Allah created and is comparably more powerful than all of the other "gods" in Islam—the jinn, angels, and flying magical donkeys.

[MustafaMc]

Monotheists like to claim they only believe in one god (or one god in three parts, like the Trinity). But in actuality these religions contain a huge number of supernatural beings—djinn, angels, demons. God is simply the most powerful supernatural being who controls all the others.

In older religions, there was always a king god who controlled all the other gods. Zeus, for example, was more powerful than all the other gods put together. Marduk absorbed the names and powers of 50 or something other deities after he created the world. Older religions would certainly consider angels and jinn as "gods," since a god is simply a supernatural being with impressive and superhuman powers (also, they tend to be invisible).

The only substantive difference I see between Islam's "monotheism" and Greek/Babylonian "polytheism" is that Allah created and is comparably more powerful than all of the other "gods" in Islam—the jinn, angels, and flying magical donkeys.

I disagree with you. The beings that you listed were created by Allah and they are not worshipped by Muslims, Christians or Jews. The One and only God (not the most powerful one as you say) is the one that I, as a Muslim, worship. Definition #1 below is consistent with Allah. The jinn and angels do not even fit in definition #2 because they do not require human worship.

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary
Main Entry: god
1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler

[truemuslim]

Assalamu Alaikum, here is what i found about islam and christianity. EDIT: Removed Link (anti-Islamic site) take a look:D

[Qingu]

I disagree with you. The beings that you listed were created by Allah and they are not worshipped by Muslims, Christians or Jews.

Many polytheist gods were created by other beings, and many polytheist gods were not worshipped by anyone. Brahma, the Hindu god of creation (which is conceived differently from Islamic creation) is not worshipped by anyone. There are all manner of minor gods and spirits that aren't worshipped by anyone in polytheistic traditions.

The One and only God (not the most powerful one as you say) is the one that I, as a Muslim, worship. Definition #1 below is consistent with Allah. The jinn and angels do not even fit in definition #2 because they do not require human worship.

Sorry, I've found that dictionary definitions don't really cut it for religious discussions.

Where is the line between a god and a non-god? Is a god simply any supernatural being who is also worshipped? Does the fact that a supernatural being is worshipped change its nature?

[Grace Seeker]

Truemuslim, that was very generous of you to post from a Christian site. You may wish to run what it says about Islam by a few well-informed of your Muslim brothers. As the people posting are not themselves Muslims, they may have unintentionaly mis-stated some Islamic views.

Also, even if the views on this comparison page are correct, and would help the sister with her research, it may be that some will object to a link to a website that has as its ultimate goal to promote Christianity and on other pages may dispute Islamic beliefs.


May, I suggest to any mod that is reading this, should you find it necessary to eliminate the links, that instead of deleting TrueMuslim's post in its entirety, that you read the selected page and copy the table in to replace his post, and thus eliminate any undesired links, but preserving what might be valuable information appropriate to this thread. (Just a thought.)

[Grace Seeker]

Where is the line between a god and a non-god? Is a god simply any supernatural being who is also worshipped? Does the fact that a supernatural being is worshipped change its nature?

For me, a god is anyone, any thing, even any idea that is worshipped or made supremely important in one's life. Thus it could be very natural things like money, jobs, sports, celebrities, fame; even decidely good things (but not in what for me would be appropriate priority) like family, love, friendship.

When I read a story wherein one person is said of their beloved to worship the ground he/she walks on, I perceive that individual to have created a god out of the other individual. Perhaps atheists are sometimes so in love with their own sense of logic that it becomes their god????

[Qingu]

For me, a god is anyone, any thing, even any idea that is worshipped or made supremely important in one's life. Thus it could be very natural things like money, jobs, sports, celebrities, fame; even decidely good things (but not in what for me would be appropriate priority) like family, love, friendship.

When I read a story wherein one person is said of their beloved to worship the ground he/she walks on, I perceive that individual to have created a god out of the other individual. Perhaps atheists are sometimes so in love with their own sense of logic that it becomes their god????

Ha. By your definition, my cat is a god.

Of course, he does have magical powers. :)

[Grace Seeker]

Ha. By your definition, my cat is a god.

You said it. I didn't.

[NoName55]

Assalamu Alaikum, here is what i found about islam and christianity. http://www.****.org/islam/grid.htm take a look:D

I wish we had more honest, upfront enemies than foolish or deceitful friends wa salam

[Grace Seeker]

Truemuslim, that was very generous of you to post from a Christian site. You may wish to run what it says about Islam by a few well-informed of your Muslim brothers. As the people posting are not themselves Muslims, they may have unintentionaly mis-stated some Islamic views.

Also, even if the views on this comparison page are correct, and would help the sister with her research, it may be that some will object to a link to a website that has as its ultimate goal to promote Christianity and on other pages may dispute Islamic beliefs.


May, I suggest to any mod that is reading this, should you find it necessary to eliminate the links, that instead of deleting TrueMuslim's post in its entirety, that you read the selected page and copy the table in to replace his post, and thus eliminate any undesired links, but preserving what might be valuable information appropriate to this thread. (Just a thought.)

Well, as I suspected, the site was deleted as being "anti-Islamic", however, I do think that the specific content TrueMuslim was trying to link to is appropriate for this thread and might be helpful to our sister Esther462.

This information is provided by a group known as Christian Apologetics Research and Ministry; I give them credit for the work, but no link is being provided in this post. They have a definite Christian agenda, but I believe have tried to be fair in their description of Islam. As MustafaMc invited Christians to correct him, so I invite Muslims to correct this information or misinformation, as the case may be. I have tried to set this up according to the same manner as the previous posts using green for Islamic ideas and blue for Christian concepts.



Afterlife

There is an afterlife (75:12) experienced as either an ideal life of Paradise (29:64), for faithful Muslims or Hell for those who are not.

Christians will be with the Lord in heaven (Phil. 1:21-24), in our resurrected bodies (1 Cor. 15:50-58). Non-Christians will be cast into hell forever (Matt. 25:46).



Angels

Created beings without free will that serve God. Angels were created from light.

Created beings, non-human, some of which, fell into sin and became evil. They are very powerful. The unfallen angels carry out the will of God.



Atonement

There is no atonement work in Islam other than a sincere confession of sin and repentance by the sinner.

The sacrifice of Christ on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) whereby His blood becomes the sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God (1 John 2:2) from the sinner when the sinner receives (John 1:12), by faith (Rom. 5:1), the work of Christ on the cross.



Bible

Respected word of the prophets but the Bible has been corrupted through the centuries and is only correct in so far as it agrees with the Koran.

The inspired and inerrant word of God in the original manuscripts (2 Tim. 3:16).



Crucifixion

Jesus did not die on the cross. Instead, God allowed Judas to look like Jesus and he was crucified instead.

The place where Jesus atoned for the sins of the world. It is only through this sacrifice that anyone can be saved from the wrath of God (1 Pet. 2:24).



Devil

Iblis, a fallen jinn. Jinn are not angels nor men, but created beings with free wills. Jinn were created from fire, (2:268; 114:1-6).

A fallen Angel who opposes God in all ways. He also seeks to destroy humanity (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:13-15).



God

God is known as Allah. Allah is one person, a strict unity. There is no other God in existence. He is the creator of the universe (3:191), sovereign over all (6:61-62).

God is a trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not three gods in one god, nor is it one person who took three forms. Trinitarianism is strictly monotheistic. There is no other God in existence.



Heaven (Paradise)

Paradise to Muslims, a place of unimaginable bliss (32:17), a garden with trees and food (13:35;15:45-48) where the desires of faithful Muslims are met, (3:133; 9:38; 13:35; 39:34; 43:71; 53:13-15).

The place where God dwells. Heaven is the eventual home of the Christians who are saved by God's grace. It is heaven because it is where God is and Christians will enjoy eternal Fellowship with Him.



Hell

Hell is a place of eternal punishment and torment (14:17; 25:65; 39:26), in fire (104:6-7) for those who are not Muslims (3:131) as well as those who were and whose works and faith were not sufficient (14:17; 25:65; 104:6-7).

A place of torment in fire out of the presence of God. There is no escape from Hell (Matt. 25:46).




Holy Spirit

The arch-angel Gabriel who delivered the words of the Koran to Muhammad.

Third person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is fully God in nature.




Jesus

A very great prophet, second only to Muhammad. Jesus is not the son of God (9:30) and certainly is not divine (5:17, 75)) and he was not crucified (4:157).

Second person of the Trinity. He is the word who became flesh (John 1:1, 14). He is both God and man (Col. 2:9).



Judgment Day

Occurs on the day of resurrection where God will judge all people. Muslims go to paradise (3:142, 183-185, 198). All others to hell (3:196-197). Judgment is based on a person's deeds (5:9; 42:26; 8:29).

Occurs on the day of resurrection (John 12;48) where God will judge all people. Christians go to heaven. All others to hell (Matt. 25:46).



Koran

The final revelation of God to all of mankind given through the archangel Gabriel to Muhammad over a 23 year period. It is without error and guarded from error by Allah.

The The work of Muhammad. It is not inspired, nor is it scripture. There is no verification for its accurate transmission from the originals.




Man

Not made in the image of God (42:11). Man is made out of the dust of the earth (23:12) and Allah breathed life into man (32:9; 15:29).

Made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). This does not mean that God has a body, but that man is made like God in abilities (reason, faith, love, etc.).



Muhammad

The last and greatest of all prophets of Allah whose Qur'an is the greatest of all inspired books.

A non-inspired man born in 570 in Mecca who started the Islamic religion.



Original Sin

There is no original sin. All people are sinless until they rebel against God. They do not have sinful natures.

[color]This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-23). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3).



Resurrection

Bodily resurrection, some to heaven, some to hell (3:77; 15:25;75:36-40; 22:6).

Bodily resurrection of all people, non-Christians to dam*nation and Christians are resurrected to eternal life (1 Cor. 15:50-58).




Salvation

Forgiveness of sins is obtained by Allah's grace without a mediator. The Muslim must believe Allah exists, believe in the fundamental doctrines of Islam, believe that Muhammad is his prophet, and follow the commands of Allah given in the Koran.

A free gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9) to the person who trusts in Christ and His sacrifice on the cross. He is our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). No works are sufficient in any way to merit salvation since our works are all unacceptable to God (Isaiah 64:6).




Son of God

Where the term is used, it is assumed one must mean a literal son of God. Therefore, as Allah can have no associates, Jesus cannot be the son of Allah, and the use of it to describe Jesus is a corruption of the Bible.

A term used to designate that Jesus is divine though he is not the literal son of God in a physical sense (John 5:18).



Word

Allah's command of existence which resulted in Jesus being formed in the womb of Mary.

The "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God...and the word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1, 14).

[snakelegs]

maybe a muslim can address this. i have questions about a couple of things on the list.
i know islam believes that jesus did not die, but i didn't know that it was judas specifically, who replaced him.
also re: hell. my understanding is that sinful muslims do not go to hell for eternity. they are punished for a certain period of time, and then they go to heaven.
and i'm confused about the entry under "holy spirit". i never heard jibreel defined as holy spirit.

[NoName55]

Well, as I suspected, the site was deleted as being "anti-Islamic", however, I do think that the specific content TrueMuslim was trying to link to is appropriate for this thread and might be helpful to our sister Esther462.

This information is provided by a group known as Christian Apologetics Research and Ministry; I give them credit for the work, but no link is being provided in this post. They have a definite Christian agenda, but I believe have tried to be fair in their description of Islam. As MustafaMc invited Christians to correct him, so I invite Muslims to correct this information or misinformation, as the case may be. I have tried to set this up according to the same manner as the previous posts using green for Islamic ideas and blue for Christian concepts.



Afterlife >> NOT quite so! distortion

There is an afterlife (75:12) experienced as either an ideal life of Paradise (29:64), for faithful Muslims or Hell for those who are not.

Christians will be with the Lord in heaven (Phil. 1:21-24), in our resurrected bodies (1 Cor. 15:50-58). Non-Christians will be cast into hell forever (Matt. 25:46).



Angels

Created beings without free will that serve God. Angels were created from light.

Created beings, non-human, some of which, fell into sin and became evil. They are very powerful. The unfallen angels carry out the will of God.



Atonement

There is no atonement work in Islam other than a sincere confession of sin and repentance by the sinner.

The sacrifice of Christ on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) whereby His blood becomes the sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God (1 John 2:2) from the sinner when the sinner receives (John 1:12), by faith (Rom. 5:1), the work of Christ on the cross.



Bible

[color-seagreen]Respected word of the prophets but the Bible has been corrupted through the centuries and is only correct in so far as it agrees with the Koran.

The inspired and inerrant word of God in the original manuscripts (2 Tim. 3:16).



Crucifixion >> NOT quite so! distortion

Jesus did not die on the cross. Instead, God allowed Judas to look like Jesus and he was crucified instead.

The place where Jesus atoned for the sins of the world. It is only through this sacrifice that anyone can be saved from the wrath of God (1 Pet. 2:24).



Devil

Iblis, a fallen jinn. Jinn are not angels nor men, but created beings with free wills. Jinn were created from fire, (2:268; 114:1-6).

A fallen Angel who opposes God in all ways. He also seeks to destroy humanity (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:13-15).



God

God is known as Allah. Allah is one person, a strict unity. There is no other God in existence. He is the creator of the universe (3:191), sovereign over all (6:61-62).

God is a trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not three gods in one god, nor is it one person who took three forms. Trinitarianism is strictly monotheistic. There is no other God in existence.



Heaven (Paradise)

Paradise to Muslims, a place of unimaginable bliss (32:17), a garden with trees and food (13:35;15:45-48) where the desires of faithful Muslims are met, (3:133; 9:38; 13:35; 39:34; 43:71; 53:13-15).

The place where God dwells. Heaven is the eventual home of the Christians who are saved by God's grace. It is heaven because it is where God is and Christians will enjoy eternal Fellowship with Him.



Hell >> NOT quite so! distortion

Hell is a place of eternal punishment and torment (14:17; 25:65; 39:26), in fire (104:6-7) for those who are not Muslims (3:131) as well as those who were and whose works and faith were not sufficient (14:17; 25:65; 104:6-7).

A place of torment in fire out of the presence of God. There is no escape from Hell (Matt. 25:46).




Holy Spirit >> BIG lie or a typo

A very great prophet, second only to Muhammad. Jesus is not the son of God (9:30) and certainly is not divine (5:17, 75)) and he was not crucified (4:157).

Third person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is fully God in nature. The arch-angel Gabriel who delivered the words of the Koran to Muhammad.
Jesus Second person of the Trinity. He is the word who became flesh (John 1:1, 14). He is both God and man (Col. 2:9).



Judgment Day NOT quite so! distortion

Occurs on the day of resurrection where God will judge all people. Muslims go to paradise (3:142, 183-185, 198). All others to hell (3:196-197). Judgment is based on a person's deeds (5:9; 42:26; 8:29).

Occurs on the day of resurrection (John 12;48) where God will judge all people. Christians go to heaven. All others to hell (Matt. 25:46).



Koran

The final revelation of God to all of mankind given through the archangel Gabriel to Muhammad over a 23 year period. It is without error and guarded from error by Allah.

The The work of Muhammad. It is not inspired, nor is it scripture. There is no verification for its accurate transmission from the originals.




Man

Not made in the image of God (42:11). Man is made out of the dust of the earth (23:12) and Allah breathed life into man (32:9; 15:29).

Made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). This does not mean that God has a body, but that man is made like God in abilities (reason, faith, love, etc.).



Muhammad

The last and greatest of all prophets of Allah whose Qur'an is the greatest of all inspired books.

A non-inspired man born in 570 in Mecca who started the Islamic religion.



Original Sin

There is no original sin. All people are sinless until they rebel against God. They do not have sinful natures.

[color]This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-23). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3).



Resurrection

Bodily resurrection, some to heaven, some to hell (3:77; 15:25;75:36-40; 22:6).

Bodily resurrection of all people, non-Christians to dam*nation and Christians are resurrected to eternal life (1 Cor. 15:50-58).




Salvation

Forgiveness of sins is obtained by Allah's grace without a mediator. The Muslim must believe Allah exists, believe in the fundamental doctrines of Islam, believe that Muhammad is his prophet, and follow the commands of Allah given in the Koran.

A free gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9) to the person who trusts in Christ and His sacrifice on the cross. He is our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). No works are sufficient in any way to merit salvation since our works are all unacceptable to God (Isaiah 64:6).




Son of God

Where the term is used, it is assumed one must mean a literal son of God. Therefore, as Allah can have no associates, Jesus cannot be the son of Allah, and the use of it to describe Jesus is a corruption of the Bible.

A term used to designate that Jesus is divine though he is not the literal son of God in a physical sense (John 5:18).



Word NOT quite so! distortion

Allah's command of existence which resulted in Jesus being formed in the womb of Mary.

The "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God...and the word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1, 14).

I've marked in red what I know t be inaccurate after a quick glance

[NoName55]

maybe a muslim can address this. i have questions about a couple of things on the list.
i know islam believes that jesus did not die, but i didn't know that it was judas specifically, who replaced him.
also re: hell. my understanding is that sinful Muslims do not go to hell for eternity. they are punished for a certain period of time, and then they go to heaven.
and i'm confused about the entry under "holy spirit". i never heard jibreel defined as holy spirit.

ruh al ameen is Hazrat Jibrael

and people who got "message" of Islam thru western and/or eastern anti-Islam media or websites and rejected it, cant be classed as kuffaar and will be tested on judgment day.

and having a Muslim name is no guarantee of Paradise!

[snakelegs]

if you have gotten information about islam from a reliable source, and neither accept it or reject it - are you kaffir or not?
maybe you could write the correct islamic position on the thingie that grace seeker posted?
thanks.

[NoName55]

if you have gotten information about islam from a reliable source, and neither accept it or reject it - are you kaffir or not?
maybe you could write the correct Islamic position on the thingie that grace seeker posted?
thanks.

there is hope, even up to your Last breath that you will accept it.

Only people I am prepared to call or declare kuffaar are those who actively seek to distort and destroy Islam, be they non-Muslim outsiders or goofies from within our ranks

maybe you could write the correct Islamic position on the thingie that grace seeker posted?

no, because of lack of real moderating team, about a dozen goofy mullahs and non-Muslims will gang up on me and I will end up with infractions as usual (one real moderator for this size of membership is not good enough)

[snakelegs]

sadly, you are probably right. still, it would be handy. oh well.

[MustafaMc]

A few comments below. Note the comparisons for Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Atonement

There is no atonement work in Islam other than a sincere confession of sin and repentance by the sinner.
Not exactly true. Although one can't bear the burdens (sins) of another, throughout the Qur'an and hadith there is atonement for one's sins by that person doing additional acts of worship or charity.
Abu-Dawood hadith 1014 On the days of the conquest of Mecca, when Mecca was captured, Fatimah came and sat on the left side of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him), and Umm Hani was on his right side. A slave-girl brought a vessel which contained some drink; she gave it to him and he drank of it. He then gave it to Umm Hani who drank of it. She said: Apostle of Allah, I have broken my fast; I was fasting. He said to her: Were you making atonement for something? She replied: No. He said: Then it does not harm you if it was voluntary (fast).

Crucifixion

Jesus did not die on the cross. Instead, God allowed Judas to look like Jesus and he was crucified instead.
There is absolutely no evidence that Judas was substituted for Jesus (as) 4:157 commentary in the Asad translation "...none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur'an or in the authentic Traditions..."

Hell

Hell is a place of eternal punishment and torment (14:17; 25:65; 39:26), in fire (104:6-7) for those who are not Muslims (3:131) as well as those who were and whose works and faith were not sufficient (14:17; 25:65; 104:6-7).
Even those Muslims who are sent to Hell will be brought out after a time, if they had faith in Allah.

Jesus
correction in GraceSeeker's post:
A very great prophet, second only to Muhammad. Jesus is not the son of God (9:30) and certainly is not divine (5:17, 75) and he was not crucified (4:157).

Second person of the Trinity. He is the word who became flesh (John 1:1, 14). He is both God and man (Col. 2:9).

Holy Spirit

The arch-angel Gabriel who delivered the words of the Koran to Muhammad.

Third person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is fully God in nature. The arch-angel Gabriel who delivered the words of the Koran to Muhammad.
Jesus Second person of the Trinity. He is the word who became flesh (John 1:1, 14). He is both God and man (Col. 2:9).

Judgment Day

Occurs on the day of resurrection where God will judge all people. Muslims go to paradise (3:142, 183-185, 198). All others to hell (3:196-197). Judgment is based on a person's deeds (5:9; 42:26; 8:29).
Also, purity of intentions and the Mercy of Allah to forgive. The heaviest deed of all is testimony of "There is no deity to be worshipped other than Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger and Servant"

Muhammad

The last and greatest of all prophets of Allah whose Qur'an is the greatest of all inspired books.
...better wording: The seal of the prophets who established Islam as the proper way of life that is according to the Will of Allah. The Qur'an was revealed through him over a period of 23 years. The Qur'an is the enduring miracle of Muhammad.

Salvation

Forgiveness of sins is obtained by Allah's grace without a mediator. The Muslim must believe Allah exists, believe in the fundamental doctrines of Islam, believe that Muhammad is his prophet, and follow the commands of Allah given in the Koran and as exemplified through the Sunnah of Muhammad.

Word

Allah's command of existence which resulted in Jesus being formed in the womb of Mary.
16:40 And Our word unto a thing, when We intend it, is only that We say unto it: Be! and it is.
3:45 (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).
3:59 Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.

[MustafaMc]

if you have gotten information about islam from a reliable source, and neither accept it or reject it - are you kaffir or not?
maybe you could write the correct islamic position on the thingie that grace seeker posted?
thanks.

I personally don't believe that it is possible to neither accept nor reject the message of Islam. If one hears the message and does not act upon it, by default that person is rejecting the message and not applying it to his life. However, faith is a matter of the heart that only Allah can judge.

[NoName55]

I personally don't believe that it is possible to neither accept nor reject the message of Islam. If one hears the message and does not act upon it, by default that person is rejecting the message and not applying it to his life. However, faith is a matter of the heart that only Allah can judge.

can you explain:

why Allah chose to class people as

Muslim
ahl-e-kitaab
Moshrik
monaafiq
kafir
and etcetra etcetra

instead of just Muslims and kuffaar?

[snakelegs]

now - that's an interesting question! i'd like to know too. do you know the answer?

[NoName55]

now - that's an interesting question! i'd like to know too. do you know the answer?

I'll wait until few web scholars have replied first

salam

[MustafaMc]

can you explain:

why Allah chose to class people as

Muslim
ahl-e-kitaab
Moshrik
monaafiq
kafir
and etcetra etcetra

instead of just Muslims and kuffaar?

This sounds like a baited question to me, but how should anyone to pretend to know why Allah choses to do anything?

We are certainly not in the place to point at this person and say, "I am sure this person will go to Paradise." or to point to another and say, "This other person is going to Hell!"

We don't know what anyone's (including our own) final state will be upon his death. The only judgement that matters is Allah's on Judgement Day. I hold out hope for the reversion of many non-Muslims on this forum and all of my living family.

[NoName55]

I am confused now about which is the correct position:

a) http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post883462
b)http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post883609

[MustafaMc]

I am confused now about which is the correct position:

a) http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post883462
b)http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post883609

Post#1
I personally don't believe that it is possible to neither accept nor reject the message of Islam. If one hears the message and does not act upon it, by default that person is rejecting the message and not applying it to his life. However, faith is a matter of the heart that only Allah can judge.

Post#2
This sounds like a baited question to me, but how should anyone to pretend to know why Allah choses to do anything?

We are certainly not in the place to point at this person and say, "I am sure this person will go to Paradise." or to point to another and say, "This other person is going to Hell!"

We don't know what anyone's (including our own) final state will be upon his death. The only judgement that matters is Allah's on Judgement Day. I hold out hope for the reversion of many non-Muslims on this forum and all of my living family.

Why do I sense that you are toying with me like a cat and a mouse? Why don't you come out and say what you are hinting about? You obviously disagree with something that I wrote.

I see no inconsistency in what I wrote. If one hears the message of Islam and does not act upon it, then clearly he is not a Muslim. However, there may be faith in someone's heart and he may revert before it is too late. Think of Prophet Muhammad (saaws) trying to get his Uncle Abu Talib to say the shahada while on his death bed.

[Resigned]

can you explain:

why Allah chose to class people as

Muslim
ahl-e-kitaab
Moshrik
monaafiq
kafir
and etcetra etcetra

instead of just Muslims and kuffaar?

It’s really too bad, isn’t it? Allah has placed people into nicely compartmentalized labels yet we don’t know why.

Unfortunately, you have created for yourselves a genuinely unsolvable dilemma. Muslims claim there is a source material that lays out the belief system. They claim this source material has a level of functionality that supports that belief system as well.

Don’t you find it odd that the "author" of that support system (a god or god(s)) has not allowed his message to be clearly understood? Further, “he” has not endowed anyone with the knowledge to effectively understand that support system as laid out and claimed by the source material. The believer then further complicates matters by suggesting that there are various complex methods by which one can read and interpret this source material.

Then the believer proceeds even further. He/she states that the god has a vested interest in human salvation, and through this book makes that word of salvation known, and yet... according to you there are varying degrees by which this knowledge may or may not be interpreted or even discovered.

In other words, the message of the book is a cold, unalterable law: Ye must believeth this, or be ****ed – Believe this, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – marshmallow in Hell.

Then the book itself ranges from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and humans are then asked to pick and choose which aspects are literal and which are not.

You don’t quite get that same message from the Iliad, do you? It's intended as a fictional retelling, and few people debate its relative accuracy. But plenty of people think holy books and Korans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and those opinions cross over into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against this incredibly important book. “Holy books”, you argue, "get a pass".

[Grace Seeker]

Well, tackling two or three concepts from several of the past posts. But first, an apology to all who might have been confused by the post I tried to copy from C.A.R.M. -- I made a mistake in the copying process and had some of the information for the Holy Spirit and Jesus juxtaposed with one another. I think I have corrected that now, but it probably led to some confusion for some.


Reading the quesiton NoName55 put to MustafaMc, I have to say that I don't see any significant differences between those two posts. In fact, I would say something very similar myself, but with respect to Christianity rather than Islam.

I believe that the scriptures make it clear that Jesus is the only way to life with God. I believe they make it clear that all who come to Jesus will be granted salvation and new life in him. But I do not think (and many Christians will argue against this with me) that that automatically means that all others are therefore condemned. When I read that one has life in Jesus' name, I do not therefore infer that one that does not claim the name of Jesus in his/her life is therefore left to die apart from Christ. Rather, I see the scriptures as being silent. And if they are silent and say nothing, then how can I say anything that they have not said. Given that Jesus' sacrifice makes a universal offering of salvation available to any who would accept it, I will not disqualify anyone just because they have not yet accepted it. Time and again one hears the story of those vwho reject Jesus throughout their life only to come to him on some dark day later in life. I think that it is only death that shuts the door on our ability to choose. And further, who is to say that God in his great and abudant mercy does not share this offering even with those who do not recognize that it is Jesus who has offered it. In Romans 2, Paul writes about how God writes his law on our hearts, so that even those who live apart from the law may respond to it. If this is true with the law, how much more might this be true with regard to God's grace. As I have carried my sleeping child from the car to her bed at night, though she is completely unaware of the means by which she arrived there. So might Jesus carry those who do not recognize him for who he is to paradise because he knows that they do place their faith and hope in him, even though they do not realize that it is him in whom they have placed such trust and mistakenly call him by some other name. I am not going to limit God. Rather, like Mustafa said, "faith is a matter of the heart that only God can judge."

I believe, again as scripture says:

"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "

So, I guess I don't think that there are any nice compartmentalized categories. We humans like them. We look for them. And when they aren't obvious, we try to come up with some system ourselves. Indeed, there are whole fields of study called systemized theology. These things do have their place and can be of some help, but let us not mistake the systems that are only our interpretation of the way things work, for the actual work of God itself. They are not one and the same. We paint a picture of what we see. God is the true creator of what is. There is a difference.

But as for reading the Holy Book, no, it doesn't get a pass. It is best read like any other book. But, at least in the case of the Bible, is not just one book, but a library of books. There is poetry and imagery; there is narrative and history; there is metaphor and word play; there is fact and there is even fiction. And one needs to read it aware that any one of these is possible. The trick is to not take a part literally that is intended to be taken figuratively, nor a part figuratively that is intended to be taken literally, and then knowing which is which and how to tell the difference. For the last, my best suggestion is to let the Holy Spirit be your guide, and don't be afraid of admitting you might have been wrong the first time, if the Holy Spirit takes you back to the passage a second time and you see in it something different than you did the first time around, for like much of the rest of literature, it is often written at many different levels and we see more and deeper truths when we return to it repeatedly and we become more sensitive to understanding the Holy Spirit's leadngs.

[Grace Seeker]

One other comparison, not so much between Christianity and Islam, but between Christianity and Judaism, but something that I think Isalm shares with Judaism and where they both contrast with Christianity.


The LAW [of Moses] says: If you are good, then God will be gracious to you.

The GOSPEL says: You are a sinner, but God is gracious.

Christians do not believe that our work has any merit to win God's favor or approval. We don't believe in a Santa Claus-type of God who is checking his list to find out "who is naughty or nice." We understand that when compared to God's standard of righteousness that we all deserve coal in our stockings. But despite this, that it is God who is good for goodnesses' sake. And that is who we put our hope in. Once we've experienced that, we are motivated to do good works, not to earn God's favor, but out of thanksgiving for having already received and experienced his unmerited favor in our lives.

[snakelegs]

I personally don't believe that it is possible to neither accept nor reject the message of Islam. If one hears the message and does not act upon it, by default that person is rejecting the message and not applying it to his life. However, faith is a matter of the heart that only Allah can judge.

i disagree. a person can be learning about islam with an open mind. he does not deny or negate it or say it is false, yet he doesn't accept it either.
there is a grey place...not all is black and white.

[snakelegs]

One other comparison, not so much between Christianity and Islam, but between Christianity and Judaism, but something that I think Isalm share with Judaism and where they both contrast with Christianity.


The LAW says: If you are good, then God will be gracious to you.

The GOSPEL says: You are a sinner, but God is gracious.

Christians do not believe that our work has any merit to win God's favor or approval. We don't believe in a Santa Claus-type of God who is checking his list to find out "who is naughty or nice." We understand that when compared to God's standard of righteousness that we all deserve coal in our stockings. But despite this, that it is God who is good for goodnesses' sake. And that is who we put our hope in. Once we've experienced that, we are motivated to do good works, not to earn God's favor, but out of thanksgiving for having already received and experienced his unmerited favor in our lives.

yes, that is a major difference. both judaism and islam believe that what you do does matter and is not separate from what you believe.

[NoName55]

I suspect some people are blending Paulism, Shiaism and pesonal opinion, and calling that hotchpotch Islam.

[MustafaMc]

One other comparison, not so much between Christianity and Islam, but between Christianity and Judaism, but something that I think Isalm share with Judaism and where they both contrast with Christianity.


The LAW says: If you are good, then God will be gracious to you.

The GOSPEL says: You are a sinner, but God is gracious.

Christians do not believe that our work has any merit to win God's favor or approval. We don't believe in a Santa Claus-type of God who is checking his list to find out "who is naughty or nice." We understand that when compared to God's standard of righteousness that we all deserve coal in our stockings. But despite this, that it is God who is good for goodnesses' sake. And that is who we put our hope in. Once we've experienced that, we are motivated to do good works, not to earn God's favor, but out of thanksgiving for having already received and experienced his unmerited favor in our lives.

Yes, Islam is more strictly monotheistic (from our perspective) and ritualistic than Christianity and it is more comparable to Judaism in these respects. However, I would have to disagree with "The LAW says: If you are good, then God will be gracious to you." In Islam, the intention determines the merit of the deed. There are those who will have been very pious in the eyes of others, but will come up short because they were being so "pious" in order to be praised by men and to be known as a pious person.

Yes, our deeds and words will have merit AND demerit before Allah on Judgement Day; however, our intentions are of paramaount importance. Who can judge another's, even his own, heart and intentions? I rely upon my testimony that "There is no god worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger and Servant". I strive to follow the Sunnah of Muhammad (saaws) as the pattern for my life even though I know that I come up short. I trust in the Mercy of Allah to forgive me and to make up for my shortfalls. My faith is in Allah - not in my deeds. I pray, fast, and give charity in order to be obedient to Allah's commands.

[Grace Seeker]

yes, that is a major difference. both judaism and islam believe that what you do does matter and is not separate from what you believe.

I think that all three say that what you do DOES matter. While, for the Christian, one's own works don't earn you a spot in heaven; yet still, in the normal course of life, faith without works is understood to be meaningless. So it is that Jesus' own metaphor for the final judgment was a parable of separating sheep from goats based on how they had lived their lives in relation to providing forthe needs of "the least of these".

Thus, one would not deny the validity of deathbed confessions of faith. But is one lived a long life and never gave evidence of that faith in how one lived, it would seem reasonable that one might have to answer for the lack of fruit and question whether, to use another of Jesus' metaphors, one were really attached to the vine.

[MustafaMc]

i disagree. a person can be learning about islam with an open mind. he does not deny or negate it or say it is false, yet he doesn't accept it either.
there is a grey place...not all is black and white.

OK, I will grant that there are some who are honestly trying to learn. I was in that state of learning myself for a few weeks over Christmas break 26 years ago before Allah had mercy on me and guided me to Islam. From our perspective guidance comes but from Allah. If someone knows about the Message of Islam and he doesn't recite the shahada before his death, then I would not want to be in that person's shoes (so to speak, as we will all be naked) on that Day.

[snakelegs]

I think that all three say that what you do DOES matter. While, for the Christian, one's own works don't earn you a spot in heaven; yet still, in the normal course of life, faith without works is understood to be meaningless. So it is that Jesus' own metaphor for the final judgment was a parable of separating sheep from goats based on how they had lived their lives in relation to providing forthe needs of "the least of these".

Thus, one would not deny the validity of deathbed confessions of faith. But is one lived a long life and never gave evidence of that faith in how one lived, it would seem reasonable that one might have to answer for the lack of fruit and question whether, to use another of Jesus' metaphors, one were really attached to the vine.

i guess i misunderstood. i thought that christians believe that faith alone guarantees you a spot in heaven. in any case, i think it's correct to say that there is more emphasis on faith than on works, whereas in islam and judaism both are required. (actually judaism is slightly different yet, but that's off topic).
there are laws governing the way muslims and jews live their life, down to the smallest act. i don't think there is an equivalent in christianity.
i think this is an important difference between the 2 faiths. and of course, christians have to have an atonement for original sin - that's another big difference i see.


mustafa

OK, I will grant that there are some who are honestly trying to learn. I was in that state of learning myself for a few weeks over Christmas break 26 years ago before Allah had mercy on me and guided me to Islam. From our perspective guidance comes but from Allah. If someone knows about the Message of Islam and he doesn't recite the shahada before his death, then I would not want to be in that person's shoes (so to speak, as we will all be naked) on that Day.

.

ok, i understand what you're saying.

[Talha777]

I think the essential difference between Islam and Christianity is the subject of tawheed (Oneness) of God. Tawheed is not just believing God is One, but acting upon that belief, by rejecting all false gods and idols, rejecting all intermediaries between man and God (such as priests), not taking any lords or minor "gods" beside Allah. This is how Islam is pure monotheism, all other religion I'm afraid deviates from this pure monotheism. The Christians say they believe in one God (heck even the Hindus claim to believe in one god who is anything and everything). All religions like to portray themselves as believing in one God. But Islam and only Islam stays true to this concept and its implications. In Christianity they say they have a triune god, One God but three distinct persons. This of course is limiting God and not befitting of His sacredness. At least Hindus believe One God with millions maybe infinite distinct persons. Hinduism in my opinion is a little more consistent with its beliefs that christianity. What is the essential difference between christian concept of God and hindu concept, if christians believe in only One god, im afraid Hindus are right to say they too believe in only one God.

Someone in this thread said all religions deviate from pure monotheism, including Islam. This person said in Islam we believe in minor gods like jinns and angels. This is completely false. Jinns and Angels are not divine, they do not possess any of the exclusive qualities which define who God is. Jinn and Angels like we human beings have no power or authority of their own, whatever power they possess is what Allah has given them, and so He can easily remove such power from them. This is why we Muslims say Alhamdulillah, All Praise is to Allah, not to anyone else. No one else deserves any credit besides Allah and this is the essence of tawheed (oneness of God).

Here is a list of differences between Christian and Islamic concept of God

ISLAMIC: Allah is One, no distinct persons, no competing wills, no traces of schizophrenia whatsoever

CHRISTIAN: God is triune, has three distinct persons who are equally God yet equally distinct from the other persons

ISLAMIC: Allah is Eternal, without beginning, without end, independent, no need for nourishment or sustainance

CHRISTIAN: God has beginning (John 1:1), God is subject to life and death (Jesus),

ISLAMIC: Allah is not begotten, nor He begets, such are attributes which negate divinity. Allah does not possess any quality or attribute which negate His Divinity. All of His attributes and qualities are fixed and eternal, and possessing these attributes alone is the definition of God.

CHRISTIAN: God can be born and possess any qualities without losing His Godhood, i.e. God can become a human being without losing His Godhood, God can become defficient in knowledge without losing His Godhood, God can become subject to sin and temptation without losing His Godhood

ISLAMIC: There is nothing like unto Allah, human being cannot visibly conceive of Him, He can only be known through His attributes and qualities, but He is above and beyond His creation

CHRISTIAN: God looks like a man, he has a body and private parts, he can come down to earth through the womb of a woman and mingle with his creation

You'll notice Islamic concept of God has no parallel, but Christian concept sounds a lot like hinduism or paganism. Christian concept of Jesus is very similar to Hindu concept of Krishna.

[snakelegs]

talha,

You'll notice Islamic concept of God has no parallel, but Christian concept sounds a lot like hinduism or paganism.

i know muslims do not agree, but jews would argue that their concept of god is parallel, and i would agree.

[Talha777]

i know muslims do not agree, but jews would argue that their concept of god is parallel, and i would agree.

Judaism is probably the closest, but even it has some deviations. Only Islam teaches a pure monotheistic concept of God which is called tawheed.

[Resigned]

You'll notice Islamic concept of God has no parallel, but Christian concept sounds a lot like hinduism or paganism. Christian concept of Jesus is very similar to Hindu concept of Krishna.

You'll notice also that islam has borrowed heavily from both Christianity and Judasim, both of which are much older faiths.

When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for.

However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.

Whilst we're waiting, let us contemplate the demographically validated scenario:

A relatively small percentage of humans do not concern themselves with matters of divinity, and a sizable minority deny the existence of all gods but one, a token, all-purpose, one-stop-shopping god of convenience . These folks come in different flavours, most conspicuously: Muslim, Christian, Jew.

They are inspired to spend a goodly amount of time and effort in sending one another to their respective makers. They voice the obligatory platitudes, but by their deeds shall ye know them.

Curiously, however, folks who have not allowed a monopolistic spirit realm to develop, notably the folks of India and China, largely polytheistic nations, are on the rise. By dint of population, growing wealth, and political influence, their ascendency portends an altered global mindset as all the gods shall be accorded a place in the ineluctable unfolding of human destiny.

Let us hope the tired, blood-drenched, monotheistic enclaves greet the arrival of the legions of deistic entities with relief and gratitude.

Polytheism is the irrefutable conclusion. Multiple, bustling deities - with a formidable union!

[Talha777]

You'll notice also that islam has borrowed heavily from both Christianity and Judasim, both of which are much older faiths.

Tell me the date judaism began and the date christianity began. I can tell you that Islam as a religion has always existed since God (Allah) has been sending prophets. The words judaism and christianity are not to be found anywhere in their respective scriptures. Islam is merely an Arabic word which the Quran uses to describe the true religion, which all the Prophets, including Moses and Jesus followed. True they may not have said our religion is called Islam, but Islam means submission, it defines the relationship between man and God, and the relationship between all the Prophets and their true followers with God was one of submission. In this way Islam is indeed the one and only true, universal religion. "Judaism" and "Christianity" are perversions of Islam. One religion does not recognize the Promised Messiah and the other makes the Promised Messiah into a deity. So the God of Islam (Allah) sent the Seal of Prophets to restore the religion of Islam and purify it from all the deviations and heresies of the christians and jews.

Curiously, however, folks who have not allowed a monopolistic spirit realm to develop, notably the folks of India and China, largely polytheistic nations, are on the rise. By dint of population, growing wealth, and political influence, their ascendency portends an altered global mindset as all the gods shall be accorded a place in the ineluctable unfolding of human destiny.

I see you realize how materialistic idolatry is. If success in this world, political and economic dominance are the halmark of the true religion, than perhaps Islam is false. But Islam teaches to give precedence to faith over all worldly affairs and cultivates in its followers the moral quality of zuhd which is other-worldliness. For the believers this world is a prison, but for the disbelievers who follow their desires and set up partners and equals with God, this world is their paradise.

Let us hope the tired, blood-drenched, monotheistic enclaves greet the arrival of the legions of deistic entities with relief and gratitude

I also see you like to promote false stereotypes. If polytheism is so spick and span and unviolent and unbloody, how do you account for the murderous campaign of Gujarat in 2002 when Hindu mobs of ordinary devout Hindus, not soldiers or terrorists, ordinary people, went on a killing frenzy, burning alive Muslims by the thousands, ripping open pregnant women, and tossing infants into a burning pyre? We Muslims never do such things. True we defend ourselves from aggression because we are not pacifists but we uphold justice, which is why Muslims are fighting the disbelievers in afghanistan, iraq, palestine, etc. But we are only fighting those who invade and started killing us first especially America.

[Resigned]

[QUOTE=Talha777;884487]
Tell me the date judaism began and the date christianity began. I can tell you that Islam as a religion has always existed since God (Allah) has been sending prophets. The words judaism and christianity are not to be found anywhere in their respective scriptures. Islam is merely an Arabic word which the Quran uses to describe the true religion, which all the Prophets, including Moses and Jesus followed. True they may not have said our religion is called Islam, but Islam means submission, it defines the relationship between man and God, and the relationship between all the Prophets and their true followers with God was one of submission. In this way Islam is indeed the one and only true, universal religion. "Judaism" and "Christianity" are perversions of Islam. One religion does not recognize the Promised Messiah and the other makes the Promised Messiah into a deity. So the God of Islam (Allah) sent the Seal of Prophets to restore the religion of Islam and purify it from all the deviations and heresies of the christians and jews.[/QUOTE[
Completely predictable, actually. This is just so much boilerplate reciting of clichés and slogans completely without substantiation or support.

Your claims are the claims of any number of zealots who use hate as a means of propagating their ideologies. Brave Islamist fighters are addressing this issue by the way. They're car bombing their fellow muslims in Iraq and elsewhere. This all makes perfect sense, right?

I see you realize how materialistic idolatry is. If success in this world, political and economic dominance are the halmark of the true religion, than perhaps Islam is false. But Islam teaches to give precedence to faith over all worldly affairs and cultivates in its followers the moral quality of zuhd which is other-worldliness. For the believers this world is a prison, but for the disbelievers who follow their desires and set up partners and equals with God, this world is their paradise.

Does that come with a jingle?

Apparently you have chosen to embrace the very materialism you claim to so despise by living in the West. It’s actually comical, Yours is a pathological manifestation of a gigantic need for attention that causes you to mount the battlements, waving a bloody shirt screaming at the top of their lungs “LOOK AT ME! I AM SUFFERING FOR MY BELIEFS”

And you do so by exploiting the advantages of the West. The very advantages simply not available in your islamist paradise.

I also see you like to promote false stereotypes. If polytheism is so spick and span and unviolent and unbloody, how do you account for the murderous campaign of Gujarat in 2002 when Hindu mobs of ordinary devout Hindus, not soldiers or terrorists, ordinary people, went on a killing frenzy, burning alive Muslims by the thousands, ripping open pregnant women, and tossing infants into a burning pyre? We Muslims never do such things. True we defend ourselves from aggression because we are not pacifists but we uphold justice, which is why Muslims are fighting the disbelievers in afghanistan, iraq, palestine, etc. But we are only fighting those who invade and started killing us first especially America.

More clichés and slogans. Honestly, is all this scripted?

We would have more respect for you and your ill thought out ranting if you supported your Islamic utopias by actually living in them and not waxing nostalgically about them from the lands that you have so much contempt for! Does the term Hypocrite mean anything to you?

By all means hate us, and what the West stands for, but by living here you only devalue your arguments!

[Talha777]

Let's get one thing straight my friend. The West is diseased and Islam is its cure. If you are living in an immoral environment you have two choices a) leave, or b) reform it. I have chosen the latter option.

[Resigned]

Let's get one thing straight my friend. The West is diseased and Islam is its cure. If you are living in an immoral environment you have two choices a) leave, or b) reform it. I have chosen the latter option.

How are we to believe that someone such as you is going to reform anything?

I don’t believe that misogynistic attitudes towards women, and an ideology of self hate is going to cure anything.

I will acknowledge that I prefer your honesty in being the openly hostile, jihad-proclaiming pious moslem that we in West call "radical" or "extremist," because I know where you stand. You're basically just a faithful moslem who employs taqiyya minimally and abides by the literal interpretation of the Koran and sunnah.

I'd just rather deal with unabashed fundamentalists like you, versus the "moderate" who ends up with the He was such a nice guy, I can't believe he'd do this! impromptu eulogy after murdering a bunch of infidels to please a deity. The former are easier to spot and imprison before they get their jihad on.

[Talha777]

My friend your ignorance is showing each time you post. I seriously recommend you read a book about Islam, better yet read the Holy Quran and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salaam) and see what this religion actually teaches, rather than confusing what a tiny fraction of Muslims do as Islam.

First you mentioned taqiya. Taqiya is a practice in Shi'aism, a dissident sect which only 10% of Muslims worldwide follow. Sunni Muslims do not practice taqiya, we must be 100% honest and truthful about our beliefs.

Second of all jihad is a religious duty to defend our religion, not just with the sword, but also with the tongue and the pen. And there is also the jihad against our own desires.

[Resigned]

My friend your ignorance is showing each time you post. I seriously recommend you read a book about Islam, better yet read the Holy Quran and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salaam) and see what this religion actually teaches, rather than confusing what a tiny fraction of Muslims do as Islam.

First you mentioned taqiya. Taqiya is a practice in Shi'aism, a dissident sect which only 10% of Muslims worldwide follow. Sunni Muslims do not practice taqiya, we must be 100% honest and truthful about our beliefs.

Second of all jihad is a religious duty to defend our religion, not just with the sword, but also with the tongue and the pen. And there is also the jihad against our own desires.

Ah. Here we have an instructive example of how to define a “Real Muslim”™

I’ll point out ahead of time that what follows is a perfectly circular argument, but here goes:

Anybody who disputes the Islamic dogma of a Real Muslim™is not themselves a Real Muslim™.

How do we know this?

Because a Real Muslim™ is anyone who does not dispute Islamic dogma.

How do we know this?

Because anybody who DOES dispute Islamic dogma is not a Real Muslim™

Therefore:

There are no Real Muslims™ that dispute any Islamic dogma.


A perfectly vicous circle.

How convenient.

[snakelegs]

How are we to believe that someone such as you is going to reform anything?

I don’t believe that misogynistic attitudes towards women, and an ideology of self hate is going to cure anything.

I will acknowledge that I prefer your honesty in being the openly hostile, jihad-proclaiming pious moslem that we in West call "radical" or "extremist," because I know where you stand. You're basically just a faithful moslem who employs taqiyya minimally and abides by the literal interpretation of the Koran and sunnah.

I'd just rather deal with unabashed fundamentalists like you, versus the "moderate" who ends up with the He was such a nice guy, I can't believe he'd do this! impromptu eulogy after murdering a bunch of infidels to please a deity. The former are easier to spot and imprison before they get their jihad on.

not sure what you're trying to say here. are you lumping all muslims together?

[Talha777]

He is only here to spew his venomous hatred for Muslims and our beliefs. these kind of people should be banned from the forum.

[Resigned]

He is only here to spew his venomous hatred for Muslims and our beliefs. these kind of people should be banned from the forum.

Gee whiz. Throwing the hatred for Muslims and our beliefs weasel, are we?

I'll invite anyone, moderator or otherwise, to read through the various threads and comment on who is spewing hatred.

[MustafaMc]

I will acknowledge that I prefer your honesty in being the openly hostile, jihad-proclaiming pious moslem that we in West call "radical" or "extremist," because I know where you stand. You're basically just a faithful moslem who employs taqiyya minimally and abides by the literal interpretation of the Koran and sunnah.

I'd just rather deal with unabashed fundamentalists like you, versus the "moderate" who ends up with the He was such a nice guy, I can't believe he'd do this! impromptu eulogy after murdering a bunch of infidels to please a deity. The former are easier to spot and imprison before they get their jihad on.

My, my, my ... you sound just like Jimmy Swaggert or any number of Muslim hating Christian evangelist or other talk show host like that Savage guy.

Now how in the world would you know what a "True Muslim" is? How many do you know?

If you knew anything of Islam, then you would know that a lot of what the West perceives as Islam is a modern day corruption by desparately oppressed people.

[Talha777]

My, my, my ... you sound just like Jimmy Swaggert

And like all the jimmy swaggarts of the world he will, insha Allah, be disgraced and humiliated.

[Resigned]

And like all the jimmy swaggarts of the world he will, insha Allah, be disgraced and humiliated.

Do think it promotes your religious faith to invoke the name of god in your petty attempts to spread your message of hate?

I've noticed your desperate attempts with the attendant lack of ability, talent, albeit apparent pleasure, at turning matters of religious faith into a juvenile exercise in vindictiveness.

[MustafaMc]

Wrong. I’m not Christian. Secondly, I hold no religious faith or politico-religious affiliation which explicitly sets forth that those who do not believe as I do are worthy only of hate and revulsion.

...but do you disagree that you sound as what I said?

Ah, yes. You've employed the "victim" moniker. Yes, exploiting the benefits of living in the West, I can understand what a victim you must be.

I am a Muslim American and I don't claim to be a victim. I was trying to get you to see that living in a refuge camp in Palestine after being kicked off of your land can make one do desparate things that are not in agreement with one's faith.

Yes, please explain your victimhood amidst the threats.

You obviously have no empathy for people in desparate circumstances.

[Keltoi]

...but do you disagree that you sound as what I said?
I am a Muslim American and I don't claim to be a victim. I was trying to get you to see that living in a refuge camp in Palestine after being kicked off of your land can make one do desparate things that are not in agreement with one's faith.

You obviously have no empathy for people in desparate circumstances.

I understand what you're saying, but why aren't thousands of Tibetans blowing themselves and other people up? Why don't Native Americans strap on bombs and blow up the local Wal-Mart? Pointing to injustice can only go so far. Do you believe suicide terrorism is strictly a by-product of oppression, or is there something within Islam(either politically or religiously) that promotes such actions?

[snakelegs]

repeating:

Originally Posted by Resigned
How are we to believe that someone such as you is going to reform anything?

I don’t believe that misogynistic attitudes towards women, and an ideology of self hate is going to cure anything.

I will acknowledge that I prefer your honesty in being the openly hostile, jihad-proclaiming pious moslem that we in West call "radical" or "extremist," because I know where you stand. You're basically just a faithful moslem who employs taqiyya minimally and abides by the literal interpretation of the Koran and sunnah.

I'd just rather deal with unabashed fundamentalists like you, versus the "moderate" who ends up with the He was such a nice guy, I can't believe he'd do this! impromptu eulogy after murdering a bunch of infidels to please a deity. The former are easier to spot and imprison before they get their jihad on.

not sure what you're trying to say here. are you lumping all muslims together?

[Grace Seeker]

I understand what you're saying, but why aren't thousands of Tibetans blowing themselves and other people up? Why don't Native Americans strap on bombs and blow up the local Wal-Mart? Pointing to injustice can only go so far. Do you believe suicide terrorism is strictly a by-product of oppression, or is there something within Islam(either politically or religiously) that promotes such actions?

Keltoi, first Tibetans have done some of those things in their fight with China.

Second, as far as I am concerned, if it was really about religion alone, then we would see a global proliferation of Muslims blowing themselves up not only in the middle east, but throughout the world. I have yet to meet a single American born Muslim who had an interest in this, and who did not think it was both utterly foolish and completely foreign to his/her understanding of Islam. The same could be said for Muslims I personally know in Turkey, but they do have to deal with the PKK who supposedly are Muslims as well and they have done some of these things.

But, I will go one step further and make what some will think is an outrageous suggestion, and that is should all the Muslims of the middle east suddenly become Christians overnight, that it would not change the incidents of bombings we see there. I think the roots of it are in the culture and the history of the land, more than they are in the religion of the people.

Now, I am no longer a religious bigot. Instead, I find myself to be an ethnic bigot.

[Qingu]

Keltoi, first Tibetans have done some of those things in their fight with China.

Grace, I have to disagree. There is simply nothing comparable in Tibet to the level of violence in Palestine or in other Muslim countries occupied by foreigners.

Second, as far as I am concerned, if it was really about religion alone, then we would see a global proliferation of Muslims blowing themselves up not only in the middle east, but throughout the world.

...........

Do you watch the news?

Yes, evil kufr biased Western media. Nevertheless, Muslims are blowing themselves up almost daily, in Iraq, in Israel, in Afghanistan, most recently in Algiers.

I have yet to meet a single American born Muslim who had an interest in this, and who did not think it was both utterly foolish and completely foreign to his/her understanding of Islam.

This is likely because American Muslims have integrated into Western society and morals more effectively than the vast majority of other Muslims in the world.

But, I will go one step further and make what some will think is an outrageous suggestion, and that is should all the Muslims of the middle east suddenly become Christians overnight, that it would not change the incidents of bombings we see there.

Perhaps not. Christians have the same death-obsession as Muslims. Like Muslims, the Bible promises eternal, unverifiable rewards for true believers who prove their faith. While there's not much in the New Testament to justify violence, the Old Testament is filled with commands to violence—it's the only religious text that actually commands ethnic cleansing. And indeed, Christians have historically killed just as much for Jesus as Muslims are currently killing for Allah.

I think the roots of it are in the culture and the history of the land, more than they are in the religion of the people.

First of all, I don't distinguish between religion and culture. Religion is cultural, it's not some free-floating entity.

Secondly, I think the roots of violence are very much in the religious texts of Muslims (and Christians and Jews). The Quran explicitly tells you to fight unbelievers until they submit to dhimmi status. It proudly promises that Muslims should, and will, rule the world. It repeatedly says unbelievers are liars, are evil, are worth less than nothing, and deserve to be tortured forever in hell while Muslims are up in heaven enjoying their flowing gardens after they die.

Is it any surprise that people who take this text seriously sometimes blow themselves up to kill unbelievers?

Now, I am no longer a religious bigot. Instead, I find myself to be an ethnic bigot.

I don't think there's anything bigoted about what you said. Criticizing a belief does not make you bigoted, whether it's a religious belief or a familial tradition, or both.

[Grace Seeker]

This is likely because American Muslims have integrated into Western society and morals more effectively than the vast majority of other Muslims in the world.

So, whether you realize it or not, you agree with me. If being "American" or "integrated into Western society and morals" is what keeps someone from blowing themselves up, but they can still be a Mulsim, then it isn't their religion, but the society in which they live that is the contributing factor in these actions of blowing one's self up.



It's called the scientific method, take two people of identical faith and put one in environment X and another in environment Y and observe their behavior. If they remain the same, we might be able to attribute that to having the same faith, and that it is dominant over the environment. If different, we have to look for other explanations beyond faith and to either the environment or individual human developemental differences.

In this case we have one group of Muslims blowing themselves up and another not. It appears to me that if Islam was the major determinate, then both groups would be blowing themselves up equally. As they are not, then there must be something else which is the key contributing factor.

I'm not saying that Islam has no impact, human motivation is a difficult thing to quantify, but simply being Islamic does not appear to be enough of a factor by itself. And we ought not to label it as such for we may then miss some of the other causes and thus not be prepared to address them in appropriate ways so as to prevent them.

[MustafaMc]

I understand what you're saying, but why aren't thousands of Tibetans blowing themselves and other people up? Why don't Native Americans strap on bombs and blow up the local Wal-Mart? Pointing to injustice can only go so far. Do you believe suicide terrorism is strictly a by-product of oppression, or is there something within Islam(either politically or religiously) that promotes such actions?

Thank you for understanding my point. My understanding of Buddhism is that it is a pacifist turn-the-cheek kind of religion as exemplified by the Dali Lama. The Native American of history has suffered as great an injustice as the Palestinians of today. Until they were pacified, they commited acts (massacres and scalpings) that we would consider terroristic.

I believe that neither suicide nor terrorism have a place in Islam. It is unacceptable to deliberately kill one's self in any circumstance; however, to go to a legitimate battleground and to fight to the death or victory is a different story. To indiscriminately kill women, children and other non-combatants is also unacceptable. I can think of no example where Muhammad (saaws) authorized the killing of women and chidren - actually, I am certain that he forbade it. The blowing up of public markets, buses, subways, and airplanes and flying airplanes into public buildings is completely unacceptable. Prophet Muhammad (saaws) also forbade the mutilation of the enemy soldiers as had been done to his Uncle Hamza. Therefore, the hanging of burned corpses at Fallujah and the dragging of dead soldiers behind a vehicle are un-Islamic acts.

I don't deny that some Muslims have done such as I have described, but it is not in accordance with Islam.

[Keltoi]

Thank you for understanding my point. My understanding of Buddhism is that it is a pacifist turn-the-cheek kind of religion as exemplified by the Dali Lama. The Native American of history has suffered as great an injustice as the Palestinians of today. Until they were pacified, they commited acts (massacres and scalpings) that we would consider terroristic.

I believe that neither suicide nor terrorism have a place in Islam. It is unacceptable to deliberately kill one's self in any circumstance; however, to go to a legitimate battleground and to fight to the death or victory is a different story. To indiscriminately kill women, children and other non-combatants is also unacceptable. I can think of no example where Muhammad (saaws) authorized the killing of women and chidren - actually, I am certain that he forbade it. The blowing up of public markets, buses, subways, and airplanes and flying airplanes into public buildings is completely unacceptable. Prophet Muhammad (saaws) also forbade the mutilation of the enemy soldiers as had been done to his Uncle Hamza. Therefore, the hanging of burned corpses at Fallujah and the dragging of dead soldiers behind a vehicle are un-Islamic acts.

I don't deny that some Muslims have done such as I have described, but it is not in accordance with Islam.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't trying to suggest suicide terrorism is in accordance with Islam in any way. I've learned enough about Islam to know better than that. The issue I was trying to raise, and perhaps did it badly, was where this suicide bombing phenomenon comes from. If we agree it isn't dictated by the Qu'ran, why are so many Muslims, many of whom have never lived in Palestine, so willing to blow themselves up to achieve the label "martyr"? Is this simply a product of bad religious guidance or are there really two Islams out there. Just from this board alone, I think it is evident that many young Muslims are a little confused about how they should feel about it. On one hand they will say suicide is against Islam, and on the other they will justify it.

I don't expect you to have the answer by the way...:D Just something I've pondered for awhile.

[Resigned]

...but do you disagree that you sound as what I said?

Yes, I disagree. The claim doesn’t apply for several reasons: 1) I preach no faith or ideology. Also, as I noted previously:

I hold no religious faith or politico-religious affiliation which explicitly sets forth that those who do not believe as I do are worthy only of hate and revulsion.

I am a Muslim American and I don't claim to be a victim. I was trying to get you to see that living in a refuge camp in Palestine after being kicked off of your land can make one do desparate things that are not in agreement with one's faith.

Firstly, I note that others have described that suicide bombing is not a universal response to the circumstances of the Palestinians.

There are the motivations other than land disputes that cause Palestinians to immolate themselves while purposefully slaughtering innocent women and children in a fireball of shrapnel. It’s not a simple matter of turf that causes a parent to happily strap a bomb vest on their child and send that youngster off to glorious martyrdom.

You seek to defer responsibility from those who chose a specific action, calculated to inflict as much damage and death as possible. It’s important to ask what motivates someone to fly a jetliner into a building and destroy themselves while attempting to maim or destroy innocent civilians. I suggest the answer to that question is:

1.) the religious convictions throbbing away and,

2.) Indoctrination in a belief that paradise awaits in the afterlife. The decision was taken consciously and with explicit calculation to bypass non-violence in their struggle. Many, many other peoples have desperate circumstances but do not resort to mass murder/suicide to try to alleviate them.

You obviously have no empathy for people in desparate circumstances.

Oh, I do. And the U.S. does, also. Here’s a take-home quiz for you. How much financial aid (in round numbers), has the U.S. donated to the Palestinians?

Part two of your quiz is this: When Palestinians danced in the streets and handed out candy to children at the news of 9-11, what message does that send?

Lastly, I couldn’t help but notice your silence as to the desperate measures that Christians, Jews and others faiths are presented with in Muslim majority nations. You make no mention of the policies of Muslim governments that explicitly discriminate against non-Muslims. Where is your rightcheous indignation at the policies of Muslim governments that are forcing out Christians in Palestine, in Egypt, in the KSA, in Algeria, in Malaysia? The list goes on but the points been made. Kindly list for me the Christian suicide bombers who have curried favor with their god by splodin’ in a bright orange flash?

I don't believe you want empathy, rather, you want excuses for hellacious behavior.

[Jayda]

Thank you for understanding my point. My understanding of Buddhism is that it is a pacifist turn-the-cheek kind of religion as exemplified by the Dali Lama. The Native American of history has suffered as great an injustice as the Palestinians of today. Until they were pacified, they commited acts (massacres and scalpings) that we would consider terroristic.

I believe that neither suicide nor terrorism have a place in Islam. It is unacceptable to deliberately kill one's self in any circumstance; however, to go to a legitimate battleground and to fight to the death or victory is a different story. To indiscriminately kill women, children and other non-combatants is also unacceptable. I can think of no example where Muhammad (saaws) authorized the killing of women and chidren - actually, I am certain that he forbade it. The blowing up of public markets, buses, subways, and airplanes and flying airplanes into public buildings is completely unacceptable. Prophet Muhammad (saaws) also forbade the mutilation of the enemy soldiers as had been done to his Uncle Hamza. Therefore, the hanging of burned corpses at Fallujah and the dragging of dead soldiers behind a vehicle are un-Islamic acts.

I don't deny that some Muslims have done such as I have described, but it is not in accordance with Islam.

hola MustafaMc,

i am becomming less certain of that (bold), for a number of reasons.

the first reason is that i think to a large extent terrorism is a matter of perspective and the result of our delusions about 'clean wars.' for example isn't this the same thing as this? in both cases their actions were punitive... and in both cases they acted without regard for the deaths of innocent civilians. so if their actions and intentions are the same... why do we call one example terrorism and another example something else?

and why do we insist that there are such things as clean wars... the idea that one could fight a war in civilian areas, with the chaos, explosions, weapons and hatred, and only the bad people will be harmed and nobody else; or that there are 'generous conquerors' seems to me inherently illogical... it seems to me like throwing a tomato into a blender and expecting the tomato to come out unscathed.

but we still have this delusion of a clear war today... where only soldiers die and the attacking army treats the civilians well... we live under the delusion of video game warfare today... where our technology for some reason gaurantees that only the bad people will be killed and for that reason it is okay to attack bad people when they are in cities or crowded streets or around civilians. but haven't we learned that this is not so? the united states bombed a remote location in pakistan to kill ayman al zawahiri, but in the end only killed women and children (source). so our idea of a clean war is largely myth... a myth that conceals the very unfortunate reality that we sometimes choose to kill innocent people in wars, and just because we have a nicer myth than they do does not mean our armed forces are committing acts of terrorism.

but it is not just modern examples, historically we create these myths as well. muslims tend to talk about mohamed and his successors as fighting these kinds of 'clean wars,' again where all the good people are spared and nobody but the bad people are harmed. and of course they (like we do) have their white washed history of events. but just like today it is impossible to completely silence the conquered.

like the reports which come in from Pakistan of families being killed in our airstrikes, we have local information from the people of this time living in the conditions of the wars muslims, like you Mustafa, now look back to as examples of righteous combat.

In the year 945, on Friday 7 February (634 ad) at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician bryrdn, whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.

In the year 947 (635—36ad), the Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it. The Arabs climbed the mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in the monasteries of Qedar and Bnata. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.

In January the people of Hims took the word for their lives and many villages were ravaged by the killing of the Arabs of Muhmd and many people were slain and taken prisoner from Galilee as far as Beth.

On the twenty-sixth of May the Saqilara went from the vicinity of Hims and the Romans chased them.

On the tenth of August the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus and there were killed many people, some ten thousand. And at the turn of the year the Romans came. On the twentieth of August in the year nine hundred and forty-seven there gathered in Gabitha a multitude of the Romans, and many people of the Romans were killed, some fifty thousand.

i think as our sense of war evolves perhaps we will lose this illusion that there is some war to fight a war without harming people who should not be harmed. it is good (i think) to see that we need to delude ourselves into believing that we do not commit acts of terrorism in the course of wars... because that shows we believe such things to be evil and we do not want to associate ourselves with evil things.

but on the cynical side i think intelligent tactitions understand the importance of terrorism in war... and while the general public wishes to live under the myth that there is terrorism and separate there is war, the wise tactition secretly knows just how related these things are. whether it is sun tzu, mohamed or our own american military commanders... we have statements and see the actions of their armies that confirm they value terror in warfare... as a useful tool and even (and especially) against civilian populations.

i think it is all really just one big jumble... some people are willing to become more depraved than others to achieve their military goals, but nobody really escapes the necessity of killing innocent people. when that happens it's a matter of perspective or spin... to the attacker it is a casualty of war or an unfortunate incident, to the person attacked it is an act of terrorism. either way until we stop perpetuating the myth that somewhere, somehow 'nice wars' have been or are being fought, we will continue to wrestle with defining elastic terms...

and as a consequence it is difficult for me to take seriously the claims of people who believe in the importance of war while they say they are against 'terrorist activities' which are really just a part of war.

que Dios te bendiga

[Keltoi]

Jayda, you make a good point as far as civilians being in the crossfire of most wars. There is no denying that. However, I believe we are talking about something quite different here. Forget about the word "terrorism" for the time being. Concentrate on the act itself.

Call it suicide bombing, homicide bombing, whatever.

The question raised is where does this come from? If the Qu'ran doesn't justify suicide murder, which I would hope we all agree it does not, why has this become such a "popular" act in many Muslim circles? You cannot simply point to Palestine, as suicide murder has become something of a global Muslim phenomenon. Obviously someone is teaching these people that suicide attacks on civilians equates to "martrydom".

Then you have the Muslim reactions to these events, which range from disgust to praise. Personally I have seen alot of confusion on this matter from Muslims. It's just something I can't quite get my head around.

[Jayda]

Jayda, you make a good point as far as civilians being in the crossfire of most wars. There is no denying that. However, I believe we are talking about something quite different here. Forget about the word "terrorism" for the time being. Concentrate on the act itself.

Call it suicide bombing, homicide bombing, whatever.

The question raised is where does this come from? If the Qu'ran doesn't justify suicide murder, which I would hope we all agree it does not, why has this become such a "popular" act in many Muslim circles? You cannot simply point to Palestine, as suicide murder has become something of a global Muslim phenomenon. Obviously someone is teaching these people that suicide attacks on civilians equates to "martrydom".

Then you have the Muslim reactions to these events, which range from disgust to praise. Personally I have seen alot of confusion on this matter from Muslims. It's just something I can't quite get my head around.

hola,

i'm going to betray my inner geek, but did you see the last episode of star trek voyager? captain janeway infects herself and then boards the borg space ship to spread the disease to them.

if you think about it... how many movies have we seen with such heroic endings? the hero bravely crashes their fighter into the enemy encampment to destroy everything, the hero marches into an insurmountable enemy crowd holding a live grenade... et cetera. more generally you have any number of variations of 'custers last stand,' where the heros decide to commit to a mission they know they will never survive. while they are not actively killing themselves like in the above examples, they are deliberately placing themselves in a suicidal situation... how is that different?

the only thing that justifies these suicidal acts of bravery is the intention... if the public judges that the intention is good then the act is brave... but if the public judges an intention to be evil then it is mania. what makes it any different with suicide bombers? i do not not know if you saw the taliban video that was posted here a little while ago but they had a suicide bomber in and among the taliban. they mentioned how he had chosen to do this, and they all viewed him reverently... the same reverence we have when we cheer on the brave hero of those movies. the only difference is the intent. the suicide bomber's intentions are only good to the like minded jihadis, our intentions are only good to americans and like minded countries.

you say suicide they say dying for a cause, and vice versa...

but from a third party perspective, i don't think the chinese or russians consider afghani terrorists or american soldiers who sacrifice under suicidal conditions very brave, regardless of how those terrorists or soldiers meet their ends. that is because the intention is meaningless to those countries. it's all subjective, whether suicide in this manner is 'moral.'

so i think with regards to your question the eye of the beholder is everything... if it is a muslim with heavy ties to the West they are probably going to believe this is not heroic but instead sinful. because the cause does not justify the action in their estimations... but if you ask a muslim sympathetic to suicide bombers they would probably consider their activities heroic, or at the very least not immoral.

obviously when it is civilians we are talking about it is more complicated... but even there i see subjectivity. when we bomb in cities it is to create shock and awe... when they bomb in cities it is to create terror. when civilians are killed to create shock and awe in cities then they were 'suspected terrorists' 'al qaida sympathisers' or 'unfortunate casualties' when they kill civilians to create terror in cities they are civilians, women and children etc. they do it with 'suicide bombers' or 'sacrificing heros under insurmountable odds' (depending upon your perspective) and we do it with airplanes... simply because we have them.

but what's the difference in the end? it seems to me almost completely a matter of subjectivity.

que Dios te bendiga

[Keltoi]

hola,

i'm going to betray my inner geek, but did you see the last episode of star trek voyager? captain janeway infects herself and then boards the borg space ship to spread the disease to them.

if you think about it... how many movies have we seen with such heroic endings? the hero bravely crashes their fighter into the enemy encampment to destroy everything, the hero marches into an insurmountable enemy crowd holding a live grenade... et cetera. more generally you have any number of variations of 'custers last stand,' where the heros decide to commit to a mission they know they will never survive. while they are not actively killing themselves like in the above examples, they are deliberately placing themselves in a suicidal situation... how is that different?

the only thing that justifies these suicidal acts of bravery is the intention... if the public judges that the intention is good then the act is brave... but if the public judges an intention to be evil then it is mania. what makes it any different with suicide bombers? i do not not know if you saw the taliban video that was posted here a little while ago but they had a suicide bomber in and among the taliban. they mentioned how he had chosen to do this, and they all viewed him reverently... the same reverence we have when we cheer on the brave hero of those movies. the only difference is the intent. the suicide bomber's intentions are only good to the like minded jihadis, our intentions are only good to americans and like minded countries.

you say suicide they say dying for a cause, and vice versa...

but from a third party perspective, i don't think the chinese or russians consider afghani terrorists or american soldiers who sacrifice under suicidal conditions very brave, regardless of how those terrorists or soldiers meet their ends. that is because the intention is meaningless to those countries. it's all subjective, whether suicide in this manner is 'moral.'

so i think with regards to your question the eye of the beholder is everything... if it is a muslim with heavy ties to the West they are probably going to believe this is not heroic but instead sinful. because the cause does not justify the action in their estimations... but if you ask a muslim sympathetic to suicide bombers they would probably consider their activities heroic, or at the very least not immoral.

obviously when it is civilians we are talking about it is more complicated... but even there i see subjectivity. when we bomb in cities it is to create shock and awe... when they bomb in cities it is to create terror. when civilians are killed to create shock and awe in cities then they were 'suspected terrorists' 'al qaida sympathisers' or 'unfortunate casualties' when they kill civilians to create terror in cities they are civilians, women and children etc. they do it with 'suicide bombers' or 'sacrificing heros under insurmountable odds' (depending upon your perspective) and we do it with airplanes... simply because we have them.

but what's the difference in the end? it seems to me almost completely a matter of subjectivity.

que Dios te bendiga

I'm afraid exploring moral relativism isn't the point either. What we are talking about is deeply mixed in with religion, i.e. Islam. As I've said before, I do not believe that Islam promotes suicide murder. However, there is no escaping the reality that these actions are intertwined with religious fervor. Simply stating that these things are a matter of "perspective" may sound logical if one has no moral fiber at all. If any military intentionally and actively engages in the murder of civilians, I will condemn it without pause or a "but monkey" justification. If some people believe that strapping on a bomb filled with nails and ball bearings and setting it off in a crowd of shoppers or teenagers is "heroic"....well, that says more about them than it does anything else. Is charging a machine gun nest with a hand grenade "heroic?" Possibly. However, that is a situation where both sides are actively and knowingly engaged in real time combat. They both know the stakes. Comparing this to the intentional murder of civilians is a fallacy.

In any event, this topic isn't about moral relativism or perspective. The original question was about suicide terrorism and its connection to Islam. Granted, the question isn't easily answered.

[Grace Seeker]

I'm afraid exploring moral relativism isn't the point either. What we are talking about is deeply mixed in with religion, i.e. Islam. As I've said before, I do not believe that Islam promotes suicide murder. However, there is no escaping the reality that these actions are intertwined with religious fervor. Simply stating that these things are a matter of "perspective" may sound logical if one has no moral fiber at all. If any military intentionally and actively engages in the murder of civilians, I will condemn it without pause or a "but monkey" justification. If some people believe that strapping on a bomb filled with nails and ball bearings and setting it off in a crowd of shoppers or teenagers is "heroic"....well, that says more about them than it does anything else. Is charging a machine gun nest with a hand grenade "heroic?" Possibly. However, that is a situation where both sides are actively and knowingly engaged in real time combat. They both know the stakes. Comparing this to the intentional murder of civilians is a fallacy.

In any event, this topic isn't about moral relativism or perspective. The original question was about suicide terrorism and its connection to Islam. Granted, the question isn't easily answered.

I disagree, Keltoi, and completely agree with Jayda on this one. Moral relativism is the whole point. Look back at Mustafa's post:

I believe that neither suicide nor terrorism have a place in Islam. It is unacceptable to deliberately kill one's self in any circumstance; however, to go to a legitimate battleground and to fight to the death or victory is a different story. To indiscriminately kill women, children and other non-combatants is also unacceptable. I can think of no example where Muhammad (saaws) authorized the killing of women and chidren - actually, I am certain that he forbade it.

Now some here have highlighted the first sentence: I believe that neither suicide nor terrorism have a place in Islam. The idea is to make this particular form of fighting the issue. But what if another person chooses to highlight the second sentence: It is unacceptable to deliberately kill one's self in any circumstance; HOWEVER, to go to a legitimate battleground and to fight to the death or victory is a different story.

This shifts the focus from the actual acts to determining what is a "legitimate" battleground vs and illegitimate one. And some have simply answered that, at least in their own mind, by saying we will not sit back and be content to have to fight defending our homeland from attackers, we will take the battle to the enemy wherever he is in the world. That is not just a paraphrase of what George W. Bush said post 9/11; I believe that is also what was in the mind of Osama binLaden pre 9/11, and in his mind the rational and justification for it. But as to which is right and which is wrong, the answers one finds to that question are entirely relative to how one sees the world and the wrongs that have been perpetrated in it across the course of our shared, but not common, history. And every single suicide/homicide bomber/freedom fighter makes that same determination in their own mind before strapping on the bombvest, just as every regular army soldier makes that same determination before putting on a standard issue uniform.

The point being, that before you attempt to answer a question about terrorism and its connection to Islam, you have to understand that many who commit what you and I might call acts of terror, don't see them as acts of terror at all, but simple defiance in the face of oppression and occupation, and therefore, in their mind, entirely justified. Hence, it isn't connected to Islam, but to one's life situation.

Anyone who says that the issue isn't relative, has just never had the experience of standing in the other person's shoes is all.

[Keltoi]

I disagree, Keltoi, and completely agree with Jayda on this one. Moral relativism is the whole point. Look back at Mustafa's post: Now some here have highlighted the first sentence: I believe that neither suicide nor terrorism have a place in Islam. The idea is to make this particular form of fighting the issue. But what if another person chooses to highlight the second sentence: It is unacceptable to deliberately kill one's self in any circumstance; HOWEVER, to go to a legitimate battleground and to fight to the death or victory is a different story.

This shifts the focus from the actual acts to determining what is a "legitimate" battleground vs and illegitimate one. And some have simply answered that, at least in their own mind, by saying we will not sit back and be content to have to fight defending our homeland from attackers, we will take the battle to the enemy wherever he is in the world. That is not just a paraphrase of what George W. Bush said post 9/11; I believe that is also what was in the mind of Osama binLaden pre 9/11, and in his mind the rational and justification for it. But as to which is right and which is wrong, the answers one finds to that question are entirely relative to how one sees the world and the wrongs that have been perpetrated in it across the course of our shared, but not common, history. And every single suicide/homicide bomber/freedom fighter makes that same determination in their own mind before strapping on the bombvest, just as every regular army soldier makes that same determination before putting on a standard issue uniform.

The point being, that before you attempt to answer a question about terrorism and its connection to Islam, you have to understand that many who commit what you and I might call acts of terror, don't see them as acts of terror at all, but simple defiance in the face of oppression and occupation, and therefore, in their mind, entirely justified. Hence, it isn't connected to Islam, but to one's life situation.

Anyone who says that the issue isn't relative, has just never had the experience of standing in the other person's shoes is all.

To tell you the truth, I'm quite shocked to see you embrace the idea of moral relativism on this issue. Strapping on a bomb with the sole intention of killing as many non-combatants as possible is not dictated by "perception". At least not in my world. I'm afraid I also don't buy into the argument that these actions are taking place outside of a religious context. Take a look at the number of suicide bombers and would-be suicide bombers who were born and raised in the West and had no personal connection to any form of oppression(if you want to use that as justification for murder). What is the tie that binds them together? Islam. As much as I want to make the point that I do not believe proper Islamic guidance justifies suicide terrorism, the reality still exists there is an obvious and blatant connection.

[Grace Seeker]

To tell you the truth, I'm quite shocked to see you embrace the idea of moral relativism on this issue. Strapping on a bomb with the sole intention of killing as many non-combatants as possible is not dictated by "perception". At least not in my world. I'm afraid I also don't buy into the argument that these actions are taking place outside of a religious context. Take a look at the number of suicide bombers and would-be suicide bombers who were born and raised in the West and had no personal connection to any form of oppression(if you want to use that as justification for murder). What is the tie that binds them together? Islam. As much as I want to make the point that I do not believe proper Islamic guidance justifies suicide terrorism, the reality still exists there is an obvious and blatant connection.

I don't agree that moral relativism is right.


I agree that what is going on is moral relativism. And I believe that it is what is being engaged in by everyone involved in the present set of conflicts: USA, Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi insurgents, Iranian infiltrators, CIA pot-stirrers, Taliban "freedom fighters", Al-Queda "terrorists", Palestian suicide bombers, Israeli soldiers, and presidential candidates.

[Jayda]

hola keltoi,

i don't think grace or i are moral relativists... my morals are based completely on my religion.

and i'm not some sort of monster... i just hate war, in general. i have nothing against the troops... i am quite fond of one in particular :) but i think that their belief they should kill people to obtain peace is misguided... that is also the worst i have for the taliban, terrorists or iraqi insurgents... misguided. i don't believe in this nonsense that we are right and everything we do is just and they are like the physical embodyment of evil. they're people too... they can fall prey to the same mistakes we all do. in fact i think one of the most useful things i gleened from that taliban video somebody posted was confirmation that we, in fact, fighting people. and not the drooling slaves of evil the media paints the taliban out to be... people who have unfortunatelly fallen into sin and misguidance.

anyway...

i was commenting on this issue from a third person perspective... for me, militant muslim ideology ('terrorists') versus secular nationalism (us), aren't different. they are both human attempts at supplanting God's preordained moral code (Christianity) and they are completely subjective...

in the world of subjectivity the best we can do is understand people's motivations, forgive them for what they do in ignorance, and hope for their eventual redemption... we cannot draw any conclusions about what is objectively right and wrong. in this case both subjective systems create illusions to justify their actions which in the end are really the same thing, sweet lies one tells ones self to make taking a life more palatable.

added to this is the illusion of war itself... the assertion, if it were not so dangerous i would call it laughable, that there is 'good warfare' and 'bad warfare.' people who fight 'dirty' and people who fight 'nice,' notice how it's always the other person who fights dirty while you are the one who fights nice? if killing innocent civilians is the sole measure of terrorism the united states committed the two largest acts of terrorism in the history of mankind at the end of world war II when we bombed nagasaki and hiroshima, or when the allies firebombed germany.

yet when the same happens to us with cruder weapons it's terrorism... that's a little inconsistent isn't it? it would seem to me that if this instrinsic objective moral code everybody appeals to really did exist then an act of terrorism doesn't depend on which flag is flown.

que Dios te bendiga

[Jayda]

if i may ask... how many people here have been in a war? or in an area in which a war has just occurred?

[Jayda]

To tell you the truth, I'm quite shocked to see you embrace the idea of moral relativism on this issue. Strapping on a bomb with the sole intention of killing as many non-combatants as possible is not dictated by "perception". At least not in my world. I'm afraid I also don't buy into the argument that these actions are taking place outside of a religious context. Take a look at the number of suicide bombers and would-be suicide bombers who were born and raised in the West and had no personal connection to any form of oppression(if you want to use that as justification for murder). What is the tie that binds them together? Islam. As much as I want to make the point that I do not believe proper Islamic guidance justifies suicide terrorism, the reality still exists there is an obvious and blatant connection.

what is the difference between strapping on a vest with the sole intention of killing as many non combatants as possible and strapping into an airplane with the sole intention of killing as many non combatants as possible? what makes haifa and hiroshima different?

[Grace Seeker]

what is the difference between strapping on a vest with the sole intention of killing as many non combatants as possible and strapping into an airplane with the sole intention of killing as many non combatants as possible? what makes haifa and hiroshima different?

Just a point of clarification: While it was known that civilians were going to be killed, the purpose of Hiroshima was NOT to kill as many non-combatants as possible. If that had been the only factor, or even the prime factor, then there were several other cities that would have been higher on the priority list than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But I will agree that terror, what President Bush likes to call "shock and awe", was behind the use of the atomic bomb.

Also for a point of information: I did serve in the military (US Navy), but was never in a field of combat. My father served in WW2, he was to have mined the harbors of Honshu prior to August 6, 1945 in a mission that even the Navy anticipated to have higher than 50% casualties (and that was for loss of the ship, not just the men on it), but was prevented by a typhon. As a result he did not arrive there until August 10 and was instead stationed at Nagasaki.

[Keltoi]

if i may ask... how many people here have been in a war? or in an area in which a war has just occurred?

I spent quite a bit of time in a little country called Kuwait a few years back.

[Keltoi]

I don't agree that moral relativism is right.


I agree that what is going on is moral relativism. And I believe that it is what is being engaged in by everyone involved in the present set of conflicts: USA, Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi insurgents, Iranian infiltrators, CIA pot-stirrers, Taliban "freedom fighters", Al-Queda "terrorists", Palestian suicide bombers, Israeli soldiers, and presidential candidates.

Thanks for the clarification. This isn't exactly the point I'm trying to get at, but I'll just let it go for now. :D

[Keltoi]

what is the difference between strapping on a vest with the sole intention of killing as many non combatants as possible and strapping into an airplane with the sole intention of killing as many non combatants as possible? what makes haifa and hiroshima different?

Grace Seeker addressed the primary point, which is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not executed with the intention of killing as many non combatants as possible. If that was the case why stop at two?

That being said, to the poor people on the ground it didn't make much difference what the intent was. I don't argue that point. The point I'm attempting to address doesn't involve two world powers on the brink of destruction. It doesn't even involve nations. It is about individuals, many of whom live or have lived in the West, and who carry out suicide attacks in the name of their religion. Yes, sometimes they join groups. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, whatever. My original question was where this phenomenon comes from. Oppression isn't the answer.

As for the idea of a "clean" war vs. a "dirty" war, I'm inclined to agree. Killing is killing, whether it is an individual wearing a uniform or not. That being said, I think most people would agree that if war is inevitable, it is more "clean" to keep the bloodshed between the military factions involved. That is about as "clean" as war can get.

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker addressed the primary point, which is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not executed with the intention of killing as many non combatants as possible. If that was the case why stop at two?

Two reasons:
First, the Japanese did surrender.

Second, we didn't have enough fissionable material to make another bomb.

[Keltoi]

Two reasons:
First, the Japanese did surrender.

Second, we didn't have enough fissionable material to make another bomb.

Well, I wasn't trying to gather historical facts there, I was making an overall point. I know the Japanese surrendered, but the point wasn't to kill as many Japanese civilians as possible in any event.

[MustafaMc]

It is quite interesting that the last 17 or so posts on suicide bombing and terrorism were between Christians. All three of you have put forth your respectful and well thought out perspectives. This is obviously something that you didn’t first think about last night.

GraceSeeker, I appreciate your empathy and pointing to my post for illustration. Jayda, I have also thought of the same comparisons regarding war. We (USA) have done a lot of atrocious things in the name of war that people don’t think about – for example WWII bombing of Dresden, Germany and firebombing of 67 major Japanese cities including Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And don’t forget the Vietnam War where we dropped 7.6 million tons, yes tons, of bombs. More recently, how many Iraqi and Afghani civilians have been killed by the American military? ….and yet we are the ones “wearing the white hat”. Now that I got that off my chest, I will try to address Keltoi’s question.

My opinion is that there are some people in positions of authority that are misguiding some Muslims to do things that are not consistent with Islam, as I understand it. Fighting is indeed prescribed in Islam for specific justifiable reasons, such as to repulse an attack or to oppose oppression. Giving one’s life during such a struggle is an honorable deed in Islam with the promise of Paradise for the martyr; however, even the merit of this deed before Allah (swt) depends upon one’s intention. Muslims live and strive for the Hereafter and nothing has more value than that – not even one’s life on Earth.

However, my opinion is that these suicide bombers have been sold a “bill of goods” with false hopes. I believe that they will be held accountable before Allah (swt) for their own life that they took as well as the lives of the women, children and other innocent people that died as a result of their deed. Even more accountable will be the leaders and instigators of these atrocious acts.

[Grace Seeker]

My opinion is that there are some people in positions of authority that are misguiding some Muslims to do things that are not consistent with Islam, as I understand it. Fighting is indeed prescribed in Islam for specific justifiable reasons, such as to repulse an attack or to oppose oppression. Giving one’s life during such a struggle is an honorable deed in Islam with the promise of Paradise for the martyr; however, even the merit of this deed before Allah (swt) depends upon one’s intention. Muslims live and strive for the Hereafter and nothing has more value than that – not even one’s life on Earth.

However, my opinion is that these suicide bombers have been sold a “bill of goods” with false hopes. I believe that they will be held accountable before Allah (swt) for their own life that they took as well as the lives of the women, children and other innocent people that died as a result of their deed. Even more accountable will be the leaders and instigators of these atrocious acts.

Now the follow up to that, is where, I think, Keltoi has been coming from -- You have made that statement plainly and clearly here. Where are the other voices? Why do we not hear the clerics and ayatollahs and Islamic scholars saying these things so as to put a stop to those who misguide Muslims and lead them from the truth?

If, as you say, these who do these things will, in accordance with Islam, be held accountable rather than rewarded by Allah, why are not more people vocally, vociferously, and publically preaching against this sort of perversion of Islam? Where are the true leaders of true Islam? Have they given over the religion to the militant Jihadists? And if they have, isn't that the same as saying that Islam accepts the violent teachings of those Jihadists as an acceptable way to practice Islam?


I guess another way of asking the question is: Mustafa, are you alone in this view? Because I hear nill to nothng from the Islamic community speaking out against these previously mentioned acts as being anti-Islamic. If they are not representative of Islam, why are they being implicity condoned by silence?

[Jayda]

It is quite interesting that the last 17 or so posts on suicide bombing and terrorism were between Christians. All three of you have put forth your respectful and well thought out perspectives. This is obviously something that you didn’t first think about last night.

GraceSeeker, I appreciate your empathy and pointing to my post for illustration. Jayda, I have also thought of the same comparisons regarding war. We (USA) have done a lot of atrocious things in the name of war that people don’t think about – for example WWII bombing of Dresden, Germany and firebombing of 67 major Japanese cities including Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And don’t forget the Vietnam War where we dropped 7.6 million tons, yes tons, of bombs. More recently, how many Iraqi and Afghani civilians have been killed by the American military? ….and yet we are the ones “wearing the white hat”. Now that I got that off my chest, I will try to address Keltoi’s question.

My opinion is that there are some people in positions of authority that are misguiding some Muslims to do things that are not consistent with Islam, as I understand it. Fighting is indeed prescribed in Islam for specific justifiable reasons, such as to repulse an attack or to oppose oppression. Giving one’s life during such a struggle is an honorable deed in Islam with the promise of Paradise for the martyr; however, even the merit of this deed before Allah (swt) depends upon one’s intention. Muslims live and strive for the Hereafter and nothing has more value than that – not even one’s life on Earth.

However, my opinion is that these suicide bombers have been sold a “bill of goods” with false hopes. I believe that they will be held accountable before Allah (swt) for their own life that they took as well as the lives of the women, children and other innocent people that died as a result of their deed. Even more accountable will be the leaders and instigators of these atrocious acts.

hola Mustafa,

but again... this (bold) seems subjective to me. i forget who said this but there is a phrase 'all wars are defensive.' let me give you two examples...

the first is the United States:

largely in the pursuit of oil, the United States over the last 100 years has supported a dictatorial non muslim regime in Iran, a dictatorial regime in Saudi Arabia, a dictatorial non muslim regime in Egypt and has not dealt evenhandedly with respect to the Israeli Arab continued conflict... most recently allowing Israel to pursue a war on Lebanese soil, destroying infrastructure, killing civilians and bombing everything in sight. our presence in the middle east has increased their misery and we are by many middle eastern peoples estimations a cruel and miserly tyrant, hurting their way of life.

with such a perception, isn't it self defense for them to fight us?

next example: islam expanded into the byzantine empire largely, if not exclusively, through war - especially during the time period of mohamed and immediately following his death. the time period that you now look to as examples of good islamic action. these wars were unprovoked, unnecessary and exceedingly cruel. innocent people like the clergy and citizens too poor to escape were intentionally killed, even though the Roman army was retreating and the day was won. to quote a survivor, Thomas the Presbyter, again:

In the year 947 (635—36ad), the Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it. The Arabs climbed the mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in the monasteries of Qedar and Bnata. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.

In January the people of Hims took the word for their lives and many villages were ravaged by the killing of the Arabs of Muhmd and many people were slain and taken prisoner from Galilee as far as Beth.

On the twenty-sixth of May the Saqilara went from the vicinity of Hims and the Romans chased them.

On the tenth of August the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus and there were killed many people, some ten thousand. And at the turn of the year the Romans came. On the twentieth of August in the year nine hundred and forty-seven there gathered in Gabitha a multitude of the Romans, and many people of the Romans were killed, some fifty thousand.

with such a perception, wasn't it self defense to fight the Caliphs and Prophet that today you hold as an example of righteous action and righteous combat?

depending upon your perspective the people who have invaded, conquered and then ruled (in both scenarios) are liberators, good people fighting for a noble purpose... or they are unwelcome savage cultural aliens, who destroy, exploit and tear at the fabric of civilized life. and since everybody seems to agree that fighting is only okay for self defense the second opinion justifies any kind of conflict... even though there is really no certainty that their perspective is true.

and so 'self defense' just becomes a pretty mask for a subjective decision to hurt people.

que Dios te bendiga

[Jayda]

Grace Seeker addressed the primary point, which is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not executed with the intention of killing as many non combatants as possible. If that was the case why stop at two?

That being said, to the poor people on the ground it didn't make much difference what the intent was. I don't argue that point. The point I'm attempting to address doesn't involve two world powers on the brink of destruction. It doesn't even involve nations. It is about individuals, many of whom live or have lived in the West, and who carry out suicide attacks in the name of their religion. Yes, sometimes they join groups. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, whatever. My original question was where this phenomenon comes from. Oppression isn't the answer.

As for the idea of a "clean" war vs. a "dirty" war, I'm inclined to agree. Killing is killing, whether it is an individual wearing a uniform or not. That being said, I think most people would agree that if war is inevitable, it is more "clean" to keep the bloodshed between the military factions involved. That is about as "clean" as war can get.

hola,

actually the arithmatic of choosing nagasaki and hiroshima was quite inhuman. it should be the eternal shame of the united states... but because we are so powerful it is a crime (like others) we will never have to answer for. i fear the day our power cannot protect us from the anger that our actions generate... while we forget the things we do with each presidential cycle, the rest of the world remembers.

but i have two questions for you:

1: in your original statement the suicide bomber is a rather mindless creature that 'straps a bomb to himself to kill as many people as possible,' is that true? is the suicide bombers intention to kill as many people as possible or is it to terrify the population into bending to their political will? how is that different than the choosing of nagasaki and hiroshima for their 'psychological effects' ?

2: why didn't we drop our atomic bombs over the ocean near toyko or in an uninhabited place for the japanese to witness the destructive power of an atom bomb? we chose to bomb cities, which we knew were filled with civilians, with a weapon we knew could not be defended against...

and just as an historic point of inquiry, what right do we (americans) have to decry hitler for his use of V2 rockets against London?

que Dios te bendiga

[Keltoi]

hola,

actually the arithmatic of choosing nagasaki and hiroshima was quite inhuman. it should be the eternal shame of the united states... but because we are so powerful it is a crime (like others) we will never have to answer for. i fear the day our power cannot protect us from the anger that our actions generate... while we forget the things we do with each presidential cycle, the rest of the world remembers.

but i have two questions for you:

1: in your original statement the suicide bomber is a rather mindless creature that 'straps a bomb to himself to kill as many people as possible,' is that true? is the suicide bombers intention to kill as many people as possible or is it to terrify the population into bending to their political will? how is that different than the choosing of nagasaki and hiroshima for their 'psychological effects' ?

2: why didn't we drop our atomic bombs over the ocean near toyko or in an uninhabited place for the japanese to witness the destructive power of an atom bomb? we chose to bomb cities, which we knew were filled with civilians, with a weapon we knew could not be defended against...

and just as an historic point of inquiry, what right do we (americans) have to decry hitler for his use of V2 rockets against London?

que Dios te bendiga

Jayda, with all due respect, you are centering on this "nation vs. nation" concept of war. I didn't bring this up to suggest the USA or any other country is blameless or is existing without blood on their hands. A nation doesn't gain power and a nation doesn't hold on to power without spilling blood. That has been the case long before Moses led the slaves out of Egypt. That isn't the issue.

What I am concerned with here, and what I'm trying to address, is that a religion that I do have alot of respect for, i.e. Islam, has been for all intents and purposes hijacked(no pun intended) for the political aims of a certain ideology. I believe this ideology is as much of a threat if not more of a threat to Muslims themselves. It seems to revolve around the word "jihad" and "mujahideen", as if adopting these labels will equate to an automatic acceptance by the global Muslim community. So far it seems to be working like magic. My logical question would be, who is the real "mujahideen", those who are willing to blow up Muslim mothers and children to serve a political aim of their own, or those whose goal it is to stop these people from their reign of terror? I'm not talking about the U.S., Britain, or any other Coalition force, I'm talking about the forgotten and despised Muslim police officers and community leaders who are trying to protect their people from these self-described "mujahideen". Who should be appreciated more, the scared police officer who is walking around the marketplace in an attempt to protect innocent life, or the "mujahideen" who is willing to kill all of them and his or herself to create chaos? Which is a better representative of Islam?

[Jayda]

hola,

ultimately my question for you is this... has Islam really been 'hijacked' ? or is this the natural consequence of a moral system that allows violence for what are, ultimately, subjective reasons?

que Dios te bendiga

[Keltoi]

hola,

ultimately my question for you is this... has Islam really been 'hijacked' ? or is this the natural consequence of a moral system that allows violence for what are, ultimately, subjective reasons?

que Dios te bendiga

Perhaps you are correct, but I understand from what I know of Islam that taking innocent life is never allowed and should never be defended, regardless of the subjective goal involved. I'm finding it hard to reconcile what I know of the moral code of Islam and the somewhat blind defense of the indiscriminate slaughter we see on TV every day.

Here is my theory. In my experience, those who are the quickest to denounce these atrocities are normally older, more mature, and more educated Muslims. More educated in general, but also more educated about Islam the religion. It seems there is a very large segment of the Muslim population who are young, lack maturity, and are somewhat uneducated about the faith they embrace. I believe this is fertile ground for extremist groups like Al-Qaeda or Hamas in Palestine. I've come to believe there is a serious age gap within Islam, with the younger generations embracing this idea that anyone calling themselves "mujahideen" must be accepted as such, and that suicide murder is in fact "martrydom".

[Grace Seeker]

You may be right on that, Keltoi. I don't know. I have had some similar suspicions. I know that youth can breed a degree of impetuousness in any culture. Over the years I have certainly seen it, been guilty of it, among young youth pastors who are filled with passion, but lack good direction. It would seem to me that those who are passionate about Islam, but young, might also be looking for some direction to their faith and be easy prey for others that might take advantage of their passion for ends that on the surface might appear to be about Islam, but really have other roots. Of course, these people may be acting not out of ignorance or Islam, but known nationalistic or tribal loyalties, and we in the west mistakenly call them Islamic terrorist, when in fact they are simple nationalists who (like Begin and Rabin before them) happen to be using terror as their weapon of choice and who also happen to be at least nominally Muslim as regards their faith.


With Mustafa, I had already personally noted, and find it interesting, that this side discussion is basically occuring amongs Christians. But today is the Eid, so perhaps we should give our Muslims brothers the courtesy of waiting a day before expecting a response.

[Keltoi]

This should probably be a different thread all its own actually.

[MustafaMc]

This should probably be a different thread all its own actually.

I agree. The latest discussions have gotten way off topic. A new thread should be started. I don't know if discussions such as these are technically allowed according to the forum rules. I personally see these discussions as relevant as any - except perhaps the "fish" thread.:)

[Grace Seeker]

This should probably be a different thread all its own actually.

I agree. The latest discussions have gotten way off topic. A new thread should be started. I don't know if discussions such as these are technically allowed according to the forum rules. I personally see these discussions as relevant as any - except perhaps the "fish" thread.:)

Well, I reported Keltoi's post. :D Asked the mods if they could split the thread. We'll see what becomes of it.



Oh, and Happy Kurban Bayrami, Mustafa! Sorry, that's the name in Turkish, I don't actually know the proper name for this Eid in English.

[Talha777]

Oh, and Happy Kurban Bayrami, Mustafa! Sorry, that's the name in Turkish, I don't actually know the proper name for this Eid in English

It's called Eid-ul-Adha, the other Eid is Eid-ul-Fitr which is commemorated at the end of Ramadhan.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Edit: Thread opened. If my memory is correct the tangent of off-topic posts occured within a post that was also on-topic. However, the dialogue that resulted was quite interesting so for that reason, I shall let the posts remain. I did give this some consideration mind you.

All posts from this one should now relate to the original question. This thread is one of the better ones - mainly 'cus it hasn't been jacked, so let's keep it that way.

[MustafaMc]

Oh, and Happy Kurban Bayrami, Mustafa! Sorry, that's the name in Turkish, I don't actually know the proper name for this Eid in English.

Thank you, GraceSeeker. The proper Islamic term is Eid Mubarak.

[BlackMamba]

This is an awesome lecture of the similarities of Islam and other religions. It is really interesting and its not the same old stuff you always here. I guarantee that you'll learn something new here. And its by Dr. Zakir Naik,the best in the business.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1

[munssif]

20 Questions to the Christian( By Harun Yahya)

1. WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?
2. HOW DOES THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH OF CREATION?
3. HOW FAR BACK DO TRACES OF MAN GO? WHY DO THESE NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION?
4. WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION "NOT THE BASIS OF BIOLOGY"?
5. WHY IS THE EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENT RACES NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION?
6. WHY IS THE CLAIM THAT HUMAN AND APE GENOMES ARE 99 PERCENT SIMILAR AND THAT THIS CONFIRMS EVOLUTION NOT TRUE?
7. WHY IS THE CLAIM THAT DINOSAURS EVOLVED INTO BIRDS AN UNSCIENTIFIC MYTH?
8. WHAT SCIENTIFIC FORGERY IS THE MYTH THAT "HUMAN EMBRYOS HAVE GILLS" BASED ON?
9. WHY IS IT DECEPTIVE TO PORTRAY CLONING AS "EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION"?
10. COULD LIFE HAVE COME FROM OUTER SPACE?
11. WHY DOES THE FACT THAT THE EARTH IS FOUR BILLION YEARS OLD NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
12. WHY ARE WISDOM TEETH NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION?
13. HOW DO THE COMPLEX STRUCTURES OF THE
MOST ANCIENT CREATURES DEMOLISH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
14. WHY IS DENYING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
PORTRAYED AS REJECTING DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS?
15. WHY IS IT MISTAKEN TO THINK THAT GOD COULD HAVE CREATED LIVING THINGS BY EVOLUTION?
16. WHY IS IT WRONG TO THINK THAT EVOLUTION COULD BE CONFIRMED IN THE FUTURE?
17. WHY IS METAMORPHOSIS NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION?
18. WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOUNT FOR DNA BY "CHANCE"?
19. WHY IS IT THAT BACTERIAL RESISTANCE TO ANTIBIOTICS IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION?
20. WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP IS THERE BETWEEN CREATION AND SCIENCE?

[Grace Seeker]

I don't even understand the context of your questions, munssif.

Lots of Christians have no problem with the theory of evolution. Lots of scientists are Christians.

True some Christians have made it a big issue, but one certainly cannot say that Christianity is against such theories as an article of faith. Darwin himself was a very devout man.

Maybe I'm not the right type of Christian to answer your questions.

[ricardo_sousa]

In fact, Darwin was a very religious man, following the Christian faith, and he thought that his "evolution theory" was a way of proving God's "work".

[Yerpon]

In fact, Darwin was a very religious man, following the Christian faith, and he thought that his "evolution theory" was a way of proving God's "work".

No, Darwin was not a devoted Christian. He was actually an agnostic or atheist. There has NEVER BEEN ANY DEVOTED CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST because Christianity, like the other religions, tends to prevent its followers from exploring the world. However I can't say all versions of Christianity are like that, because its earlier versions were closer to Islam. Infact all religions are Islamic in their purest form while the messengers of God were preaching them. Even in the 7th century, the Goths and Vandals were purely monotheistic Christians, so I can't say they were non-Muslim. Only God knows who is Muslim even for those who declare themselves Muslims.

On the contrary, just few centuries ago there were many devoted Muslim scientists form Khorasan, north Africa and Iraq etc. However now we don't have them in our dark ages. Hopefully few centuries later, Muslims will again enter their bright ages.

[Grace Seeker]

No, Darwin was not a devoted Christian. He was actually an agnostic or atheist. There has NEVER BEEN ANY DEVOTED CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST because Christianity, like the other religions, tends to prevent its followers from exploring the world.

Interesting point of view, giving the following:


Charles Robert Darwin was born at Shrewsbury. His father was a doctor and his mother was the daughter of Josiah Wedgwood. Darwin first studied medicine at Edinburgh. Will as they might, it soon became clear to the family, and particularly to young Charles, that he was not cut out for a medical career; he was transferred to Cambridge (Christ's Church, 1828), there to train for the ministry. Darwin actually imported and paid to have distributed in England Asa Gray's pamplet, Natural Selection is not inconsistent with Natural Theology. Darwin discounted the reliability of the Old Testament, certainly Genesis, but he still held to beliefs that God was the ultimate lawgiver in the universe. Nothing in his studies caused him to conclude otherwise. What did effect Darwin strongly with regard to his religious beliefs was the death of his daughter. Following that, Darwin became more and more agnostic as he could not understand God taking his child from him. Thus is was not science but human emotions that produced the views you cite him as holding.


Though he was not a Christian, I find it interesting that Albert Einstein would take exception to your more general views: Here is what he said in answer to a letter from a child in a New York City Sunday School class, dated 24 January 1936:

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe — spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort.

As for your statement "There has NEVER BEEN ANY DEVOTED CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST because Christianity, like the other religions, tends to prevent its followers from exploring the world." It really is two seperate statements:
1) There NEVER has been ANY devoted Christian scientist.
and
2) Christianity tends to prevent its followers from exploring the world.

Rather strong and universal statements. Both are categorically false.

Max Planck, a physicist and founder of quantum theory, was a devouted Christian. William Thomson Kelvin, George Gabriel Stokes, and James Clerk Maxell were all famous 19th century physists who did the truly exploratory research into the world of atomic theory and were also commited Christians.

Some other devout Christians who, no doubt by your standard, were scientific lightweights include:

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

[Omari]

No, Darwin was not a devoted Christian. He was actually an agnostic or atheist. There has NEVER BEEN ANY DEVOTED CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST because Christianity, like the other religions, .

Unfortunatly my muslim brother, you said somthing without reference or evidence.
Brother, [i'm not going to, grace here has done enough:)] i can name soo many devoted christian/ muslim/ jew/ Hindu scientists who USE science as a base to prove religion. And as Dr. Zakir Naik said, science is not conflicting religion/god but it turns out it's confirming it.


Peace be with you
Omari

[Yerpon]

As for your statement "There has NEVER BEEN ANY DEVOTED CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST because Christianity, like the other religions, tends to prevent its followers from exploring the world." It really is two seperate statements:
1) There NEVER has been ANY devoted Christian scientist.
and
2) Christianity tends to prevent its followers from exploring the world.

Rather strong and universal statements. Both are categorically false.

Hi Grace Seeker,

My first point was that Darwin was not a devoted Christian because most of the times he is considered an agnostic. However indeed some of the other scientists (eg. Rene Descartes) were devoted Christians but I didn't know about their religions before. Thank you for informing me!

[Yerpon]

Unfortunatly my muslim brother, you said somthing without reference or evidence.
Brother, [i'm not going to, grace here has done enough:)] i can name soo many devoted christian/ muslim/ jew/ Hindu scientists who USE science as a base to prove religion. And as Dr. Zakir Naik said, science is not conflicting religion/god but it turns out it's confirming it.


Peace be with you
Omari

Thanks for the kind words.

Salom
Irfan