Actually there are a lot of muslim beliefs outside of the Quran. They tell me that the 72 virgins promised to martyrs is something else that isn’t in the book as well.
Yeah, that shouldn’t really be taught as a common point of creed anyway. The Hadīth which mentions 72 virgins is an ahad (singular/isolated) Hadīth, and the theologians (so this would exclude the Salafī/Hanbalī scholars) say that only mutawātir (mass transmitted) evidence can qualify as a common point of creed. Even among ahad Hadīths, I’ve heard the 72 virgins Hadīth to be weak.
If the intent is to expand the discussion, then consider this:
click here google you tube islam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
The point I am making is that Islam, as a whole, has a fundamental problem. It is, at ground, an epistemological problem that is insoluble, regardless of which sect or division of Islam the believer subscribes to.
The problem is that the ultimate authority for any believer is the Qur’an. That means that no matter what any “Sunni astronomer,” mathematician or physicist (etc.) discovers or proposes, their work is necessarily subject to the oversight of a book that was written some fourteen centuries ago in very literalist language, and as Allah’s final say on everything.
That means scientists or mathematicians who happen to be Islamic are necessarily subject to theologians who can veto their work based solely upon a literalistic reading of the Qur’an. Since interpretative readings of the Qur’an are pretty much verboten, it is the traditional and fundamentalist readings that will have the final say.
This all stems from Islamic ideas regarding the complete unknowableness of God. Since to humans and human reasoning, God’s will and nature are completely unknown and his will or plan for the world are incomprehensible, the only reference available for humans to act is the Qur’an and that, by being as faithful to the literal text as possible.
Christianity, and specifically Catholicism, reconciled the fundamental tension between the incomprehensibility of God and the human state by the realization that nature is the work of God and reflects his will us. Thus, Christian scientists and theologians could speak of God having “written” two books, the book of nature and the book of Scripture. And that isn’t the end of it because in Christianity, God himself became man, which ultimately implies that the will of God for man is the full use of the faculties and talents endowed upon us by God having created us human in his own image and likeness. In fact, God fully endorsed human existence as having the potential to share in his divine nature by becoming man in Christ. We can know God as he is in himself after death, and to an incomplete extent in this life.
Islam rejects that possibility entirely, which means any relationship between man and God is rejected entirely. That leaves only the Qur’an at its most fundamental as the final authority. In fact, God wouldn’t now act in any obvious or believable (to a Muslim) way in reality without endorsement from the Qur’an. He could, by necessity, only act in complete conformity to the Qur’an.
Ergo, in Christianity science checks religious beliefs, and their application in the world, and religious beliefs serve as a check on science. In Islam religious notions indelibly found in the Qur’an always trump science and human endeavor. There is no opening for any philosophical or scientific discoveries that contradict the Qur’an. The final say was determined for Muslims fourteen or so centuries ago.
You are wrong about your understanding of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ONE God in three Divine Persons is the only God - there is no other. Do not confuse people by saying we all pray to the same God. There is only ONE that has revealed Himself to us through Our Lord Jesus Christ and that is the final answer.
I am not wrong. Sorry. Islam IS an Abrahamic religion, and we pray to the same God. Your RC teachings back me up on this.
If the point you are trying to make is that two individuals or groups who use the same word as a referent are necessarily speaking of the same thing, you would be wildly in error. Think of words like “good” or “big” or even “god.” Merely because the same word is used does not imply the same referent, even if the very same language or linguistic group is involved.
Heck, think about any proper name, John for example. Does John always and everywhere refer to the same referent? No. So why would we assume a word in a foreign tongue, like the word “Allah,” necessarily entails that whoever uses the word is speaking about the same referent or has the same being in mind, or has the same ideas about that being, even if they are using the same word?
The question, as I pointed out in a previous post, is whether the God of Christianity and the God of Islam claim to be the same God? They clearly do not.
The God of Christianity claims to have incarnated as a human being in Christ. The God of Islam says he did not.
Clearly, these are not the same God (according to each respective God himself) unless that God is schizophrenic or suffers from Alzheimer’s, or some other memory debilitating condition or mental instability. Given that God is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and immutable, those dysfunctions would all be incompatible with being the actual God.
This means that no matter what human beings claim about the God we worship, those claims do not matter. If a Catholic says or thinks God does not take on the forms of bread and wine at the Eucharist, their subjective thoughts on the matter are not the basis upon which the truth of the religion are based. The truth is whether God actually does take on the form of bread and wine.
The truth claims of any religion derive from the being and authority of God and what God reveals or states about himself. Clearly, the God of Islam does not make the same claims about himself that the God of Christianity does. Ergo, they cannot be the same God no matter what mental gymnastics invested human beings try to go through to arrive at the conclusion, “Same God.”
Thank you for your reply Harry. Your point with regard to multifarious meanings of the same words is well taken, however, in the case of Islam v. Christianity and Judaism, they are all classified as Abrahamic religions, as they all worship the God of Abraham, meaning they worship the same God. While there are differences in many details with regard to tradition, such as the nature of Jesus of Nazareth, for instance prophet v. Son of God v. simply an insurgent, there are of course differences between these religions. However, they all find their origins in the God of Abraham, which is I think the question the thread poses. As for the word Allah, it is in fact different than the word God simply as a matter of language.
“your” Abrahamic religion is not the same profession of belief as that of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church. What you refer to as RC teachings is not the real deal. There is no teaching other than that God is One God in Three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There shall be no other God. I think some people tried to suggest your view in order to lead people to accept Islamic followers among them. We have learned much about how that can be a mistake because of the Jihad belief, killing of nonbelievers, Islamic law, etc, etc. Don’t want to argue - just making the situation clear.
Well, no. The fact that they are all Abrahamic religions does not mean they worship the same God.
If the God in one reveals himself to be logically inconsistent with the God of another, it might be claimed the beliefs have the same origins or “genetics,” but that does not mean the believers still worship the same God.
The same original genetics can be manifest in wildly different ways. Think of common descent of species (if true) resulting in the myriad of life forms on earth.
I would submit that what the God of each religion claims about himself is the sole criteria of whether the same God is actually being worshiped by believers. What Allah in Islam says about Allah is logically incompatible with what Christ in Christianity says about God – even if Aramaic speakers used the same term, Allah. That, by itself, is sufficient to show it cannot be the same God being worshiped.
So the question, ultimately, is which God is actually God as he is?
Hello Grotto: I did account for the fact that there are differences in ontology among the Abrahamic traditions. My point was that Allah and God refer to the same God. Your reply suggests that I made some representation of what the Roman Catholic belief was in reference to the Trinity, but I didn’t. The Christian belief in the Trinity differs from Judaism as well as Islam. As for Jihadist beliefs, I offered no defense of any of that, nor would I offer any defense to any of the killing or persecution aspects of Mosaic law.
Another case in point are Mormons. They can legitimately claim to be an Abrahamic religion because (they claim) a similar set of story narratives and chain of derivation. Yet, the Mormon concept of God is so metaphysically and theologically different from the theistic concept that Mormonism is more like a polytheism or henotheism than it is monotheism. Yet, it could be said that Mormonism is an Abrahamic faith.
Do they worship the same God as Christians?
Only, I suppose, if Christians can consistently believe they, too, will literally become “a God” and populate their own universe at some future time.
I thank you for the discussion.
Hello Harry: I think you are conflating a simple question about the origins of the God of Islam v. Christianity v. Judaism into a debate on ancillary detail, and my reply wasn’t intended to address any of that. My point was that the word Allah refers to the God of Abraham as does the word God, and that Islam, Judaism and Christianity all claim the God of Abraham as their own. As for Mormons, they profess to believe in and worship Jesus Christ, and therefore they are widely considered a Christian faith, even though there are profound differences between what they believe about Jesus and what a Roman Catholic might believe. I haven’t ventured to validate or refute any of these beliefs.
Wow… that is a big one! You do realize that the whole Muhammad scheme was started 600 years after Our Lord Jesus Christ came among us. There is nothing worth comparing or keeping about Islam.
Read the link at the top: “What did the Saints say about Islam” - OnePeterFive
Hello Grotto: You are making judgments on the validity of one religion over another. That is not a discussion I am interested in having. Few people on any forum or in any venue change their views in any fundamental way from being brow-beaten, nor does the denigration of any religion facilitate a useful discourse.
Obviously you wish to refute the belief that there is only One God, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. One God in three Divine Persons. The exposure of Mohammad inventing Islam is baring the truth about it. That isn’t denigrating - the facts are truth. I support the Truth and the Way of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the One and Only True God. That is the greatest discourse to engage… Mohammad was a false prophet to be condemmed for forcing his control over people.
Yeh… I don’t make it a habit of being disrespectful toward other religions. Such an attitude shows a lack of maturity.