Do you think that Allah is the same God as Jesus?


That isn’t exactly true. Dr Weinberg didn’t re-affirm the notion because he pointed out that many if not most of the scholars involved plied their trade in Muslim regions, but were not Muslim. Even the ones that were Muslim weren’t motivated by the Islamic faith, but by a quest for knowledge and technology.

The fact that Islam, as a whole, repudiated its own “golden age” within just a few centuries means that Islam, itself, didn’t exactly conclude that those scholars who contributed to the “golden age” did so because of Islamic principles or religious motivation.

It makes a nice politically correct notion today, in accord with legitimizing Islam despite its record of jihadist terrorism, but that very much is an anachronistic reading of historical facts.

Now if you go back to my original post on the topic, I never argued it didn’t happen, I made the point that whatever golden age Islam went through it was repudiated in the eleventh century. That pretty much means Islam didn’t think much of its “golden age” except in recent times to legitimize its history in front of a prone to be skeptical western society.

Note the words I used…

For the most part, whatever contributions were made by Islamic scholars, those scholars have been repudiated by Islam’s return to fundamentalism


What’s Islām as a whole?


I suppose it would mean all of Islam since the 11th century, seeing that the scholarship of the “golden age” has been almost completely ignored by Islam since then. That scholarship has had zero influence on Islam, except for in the past few decades when it has become a convenient trope to legitimize Islam in the eyes of western society.


That didn’t answer my question, what do you mean by “Islām as a whole” or “all of Islām” and what exactly did it repudiate? You’re here making these bold claims, I’m sure you can elaborate.


I don’t think you can paint all of Islam with the same brush. A lot of differences between Bedouin tribesmen, Mullahs ruling over the people in Teheran or folks living in America’s ghettos.

There is a wide range of belief and attitude in the Catholic Church as well.


I’ve nerve heard of this Television show, I don’t watch regular TV.

I fail to see how someone participating in an act that I may find distasteful means they are not a scholar.

You might find this book of interest.


So, you are attempting to make the case that cannibalism is merely distasteful? Nothing immoral about it? Just distasteful?

Would that include the predatorial hunting of humans to obtain their flesh? I mean unless you want to restrict cannibalism to the equivalent of scavenging dead meat or harvesting roadkill, cannibals have traditionally hunted for their human prey. “Perfectly natural,” you say.

Merely because things “happen in nature” (are perfectly natural) does not mean they are perfectly moral.


Not on the basics of faith. Those who do not agree on the basics are not Catholic in any meaningful sense. Ergo, the distinction between peripheral beliefs and central beliefs is crucial here.

I would submit that what caused Islam “as a whole” to repudiate its own golden age stems from the belief most central to their religion – Islam’s concept of God. Which is why I literally mean “as a whole,” as determined by its most central tenet.

You might want to listen or watch the talks by Robert Reilly at the Institute of Catholic Culture that I cited in an earlier post.


First thing, you are attempting to start a new thread wrt the morality of cannibalism. If you want to do that, begin one.

Anthropologists, sociologists, other scholars do partake in rituals, eat or drink things that you or I might not do. This does not somehow diminish their scholarship, some would argue that it deepens their level of understanding. Again, I have never seen or even heard of the TV show you talk about. I’m just not that immersed in popular culture.

If you do not want to read “No God But God”, do not read it. I am finding it a fascinating read. It is helpful when one seeks understanding to expand one’s source of info beyond their own echo chamber. For me, this book is helpful. It is by no means the first nor (God willing) the last book I will read about Islam.

Second, I gave you the title of a book that used the phrase “perfectly natural”. Those are NOT my words, they are the words of Mr Schutt and or his publishers.


You seem to be avoiding the question of who exactly did the repudiating, and what exactly did they repudiate. Well the answer is the Sunnī Muslim theologians (specifically the Asharī school) and what they repudiated was Neoplatonic & Aristotlean philosophy & anyone who takes part in these. Twelver Shīahs and Ismāīlī Shīahs did not do the same. But, did the Sunnī Muslims also repudiate medicine, astronomy, etc.? Well, here is what the leading figure in repudiating philosophy, Imām Ghazālī said in his Deliverance from Error:

The physical sciences are a study of the world of the heavens and their stars and of the sublunar world’s simple bodies, such as water, air, earth, and fire, and composite bodies, such as animals, plants, and minerals. They also study the causes of their changing and being transformed and being mixed. That is like medicine’s study of the human body and its principal and subsidiary organs and the causes of the alteration of the mixtures of its humors. And just as religion does not require the repudiation of the science of medicine, so also it does not require the repudiation of the science of physics, except for certain specific questions which we have mentioned in our book The Incoherence of the Philosophers.

I suggest googling Ali Qushji and Ulugh Beg as well, both Sunnī astronomers who lived after the Golden Age and see their achievements.


True, I doubt cannibals eat the brains of the sickly or old and dead…could cause even more problems in the person eating them. I wouldn’t be surprised if they ate the brains of an infant they killed. Infanticide is another thing found in nature…and found quite often in India to this day unfortunately.


It is generally agreed among historians that Jesus of Nazareth spoke Aramaic. Of course, we can find outliers on any subject, but the informed consensus of the majority is that Jesus spoke Aramaic. That was the common language in Judea at the time. He also probably knew a little Hebrew (for religious purposes) and perhaps a little Greek. But it is widely thought that his native language was Aramaic. Allah is the word for God in Aramaic.


I don’t "think that Allah is the same God as Jesus.
I know that Muslims don’t "think that Allah is the same God as Jesus.

Only those who are ignorant of Islamic and Christian history would attempt and try to find a cognitive relationship between the Christian religion and the Islamic religion, in order to justify one’s liberal, pacifist view or as not to come across as a bigot or prejudice against one or the other.

Christianity is a contradiction to Islam.

Islam mixes it’s religion with secular political and military law practices.

Catholicism does not mix her religious practices with secular politics or military forces.

For example; A Christian cannot share his/her Christian faith with a Muslim in an Islamic Country or Islam community that practices Sharia Law, without being punished by Muslims.

A Muslim cannot convert from Islam without the penalty of DEATH.

A Muslim male or female has the freedom to share the religion of Islam in a Western Christian Country or free society.

Allah of the Quran hates unbelievers, apostates and sinners.
In Islam there are two houses. One house for Muslims where love, peace exist among Muslims. In Islam there exist the house of unbelievers where Islam does not offer the same peace, love as it offers to it’s fellow Muslims, who are in the house of Islam.

Jesus loves the sinner and died for the sinner and unbelievers so that these may be saved.

In the Quran reveals that Allah hates the unbeliever and sinners, but loves the Muslim who repents.

Jesus was born, lived, died, resurrected from the dead to save the sinner whom Jesus loves.

Thus, Love is the spiritual test that reveals that the Allah of the Quran can never be “the same God as Jesus”, When God Incarnate Jesus Christ is Love proceeding divine Love to “ALL”

Peace be with you


John 19:18
There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus in the middle.

  • Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, “Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews.”
    Now many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.

Latin is the official Orthodox language in the Roman Catholic Rite.



Jesus is part of the Trinity.


Yes, it is entirely possible that the inscription was in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, as those would be the languages of the sorts of people in that place and time who could read. Jesus and his apostles and the class they came from for the most part are thought to have spoken Aramaic and that class of people in Palestine at that time aren’t thought to have been literate. It follows that the Romans may not have bothered to write in Aramaic. The message to that class was the crucifixion itself. Again, I am only going by what historians (including most bible historians) believe. I wasn’t there, so I simply tend to hedge my bets with the credentialed experts. As for the language of the Roman Catholic rite, that would have come over 200 years later, and no one in first century Palestine would have known what that was. The language of the Roman Catholic rite was determined by 4th century Romans, not Jesus or anyone contemporary to him in Palestine.


I’m not exactly sure why you went off a tangent like that.

Here you belittle people for being liberal, yet clearly you hold modern Western values, not historically rooted in Christianity. Modern Western values, that were initially fought against by the Church might I add (see counter-enlightenment).

Politics is only a secondary part of Islām, not a fundamental part of it. If it were fundamental, then Prophet Muhammad from the get go would have strove to establish an Islamic State, but he didn’t do so; thoroughout his mission, he was a part time judge, a part time military leader, a part time diplomat, got involved in social issues from time to time, but he was never a political leader. In a famous tradition, when given the choice between being Prophet-king or Prophet-servant, he chose to be Prophet-servant.

By that token, you must not believe that Jesus is the God of Moses. Even if the Old Law is no longer in effect, it doesn’t change what God commanded in the Torah (Deuteronomy 13.6-11):

“If thy brother the son of thy mother, or thy son, or daughter, or thy wife that is in thy bosom, or thy friend, whom thou lovest as thy own soul, would persuade thee secretly, saying: Let us go, and serve strange gods, which thou knowest not, nor thy fathers, Of all the nations round about, that are near or afar off, from one end of the earth to the other, Consent not to him, hear him not, neither let thy eye spare him to pity and conceal him, But thou shalt presently put him to death. It Let thy hand be first upon him, and afterwards the hands of all the people. With stones shall he be stoned to death: because he would have withdrawn thee from the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage: That all Israel hearing may fear, and may do no more any thing like this.”

It may interest to know, that there is no death for apostasy in the Qur’ān.

“Neither shall the wicked dwell near thee: nor shall the unjust abide before thy eyes. Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity: Thou wilt destroy all that speak a lie. The bloody and the deceitful man the Lord will abhor.” (Psalm 5.6-7)

“Walk not after the laws of the nations, which I will cast out before you. For they have done all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.” (Leviticus 20.23)

“Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh his soul detesteth: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that deviseth wicked plots, feet that are swift to run into mischief, A deceitful witness that uttereth lies, and him that soweth discord among brethren.” (Proverbs 6.16-19)

NOTE: Verses are taken from the Douay Rheims translation.


So why do some Muslim countries practice that. Are you saying they don’t understand Islamic teachings?
This applies in Saudi Arabia and many Muslim countries.


Yes and no.
I’m not sure because on one hand I think they are praying to the same God but then on the other hand they believe that God gave Mohammed the “instructions” in their Holy book the Quaran which differs from the bible.

Eg:if they believe that God told Mohammed that men can take more than one wife,Jesus (who is God) on the other hand said that men and women should only have one spouse.


It’s based on a tradition outside of the Qur’ān. Most Muslims accept these traditions uncritically as long as the chain of narration appears to be okay. Muslim scholarship in general has become complacent. However the majority of the Muslim scholars who do accept death as a punishment for apostasy, say that it’s only if the apostate intends to subvert the order of the society, not merely if he changes his beliefs.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit