Does Islam worship the same God?

[Americanrevert]

**Hello,

Verses are a convention, created for one to more easily find a passage. Prior to adding chapters and verses, pericopes were used. (Discussion of the advantages of pericopes over chapters and verses is the topic for another thread.)

verses yes, but how do you get them to start and finish…isn’t it true that even the sentences didn’t have punctuation to even begin a verse from the other??? (simple logic) to find a passage, one needs to understand what is being said and to translate something that makes no sense is not something that is being understood…merely words put together.

That is a convention done to help people study the Bible. (You can also find Bibles that other types of presentation markup. The majority of times, these are so that it can be better used as a study tool.)

Yes, I understand as to WHY they put them there but who gave them permission God? What I don’t understand is why people think they have the authority to change what is not there to begin with.

The words in red are direct quotes of Jesus, or God.

Yes, so they say that is the case. But people claim the entire book is to be from God so where’s the rest? Who said that the entire Bible must be in a form of a book named “The Bible”? You have authors that people attribute to God and yet where’s the proof that God ordered for it to be written? Just because people say so?

Translation, at best, is a hard task. Different people will translate the same words in one language, to different words, in a second language.

Since Christianity is for everybody, regardless of their circumstances, providing the Bible in every language will result in minor textual differences, when backtranslated

.

Yes, translating is extremely hard and one must be very knowledgeable I totally agree. Textual differences you say, but you have different beliefs…protestants, catholics, etc. Who is to say who is correct?? The Bible doesn’t state it unequivocally. It all seems to boil down to the ones in charge…and even the very beginning theologians (Christian) are confused and actually decided in knowing what from what and they do not put forth claims that the churches and Christian denominations put forth.

thank you

americanrevert

**

 

[Matariel]

Yes, I understand as to WHY they put them there but who gave them permission God? What I don’t understand is why people think they have the authority to change what is not there to begin with.

It was not changed. Verses and chapters are ONLY FOR REFERENCE. Catholic Christians do not treat them as anything more.

Yes, so they say that is the case. But people claim the entire book is to be from God so where’s the rest?

Who said that the entire Bible must be in a form of a book named “The Bible”?

It matters not what it is called; in ancient times, it was called Scripture, and it is also called the Holy Book, the Good Book, and Holy Scripture, or Holy Bible.

You have authors that people attribute to God and yet where’s the proof that God ordered for it to be written? Just because people say so?

Because the Church (instituted by Christ, with divine authority) said so.

Yes, translating is extremely hard and one must be very knowledgeable I totally agree. Textual differences you say, but you have different beliefs…protestants, catholics, etc. Who is to say who is correct??

The Church is correct, because it is the pillar and bulwark of Truth. Notice how divided the Protestants and Orthodox are compared to the Church.

The Bible doesn’t state it unequivocally.

That doesn’t matter; Catholic Christians (the original brand of Christian ) do not submit to Sola Scriptura. So this question is irrelevant.

It all seems to boil down to the ones in charge…and even the very beginning theologians (Christian) are confused and actually decided in knowing what from what and they do not put forth claims that the churches and Christian denominations put forth.

You’re mistaken. The early Church Fathers (theologians) were Catholic Christians and support Catholic Church doctrine. Check 'em out!

 

[Americanrevert]

**

It was not changed. Verses and chapters are ONLY FOR REFERENCE. Catholic Christians do not treat them as anything more

.

when you add any type of punctuation it is considered changed.

It matters not what it is called; in ancient times, it was called Scripture, and it is also called the Holy Book, the Good Book, and Holy Scripture, or Holy Bible

.

It does matter what it is called for God should have a say in it no? It would be His book afterall. I mean, the Torah, the Injeel, the Quran, why then name His messages? Did God order for it to be placed in a way such as this? (The Bible)

Because the Church (instituted by Christ, with divine authority) said so

.

That is what I mean, you say it is divinely authorized, but you have no proof to back up your claim. You have had a pope to go against morals of killings etc. and you cannot say that he was divinely inspired by Jesus. no proof at all…especially when he was going against the teachings of his own book!

The Church is correct, because it is the pillar and bulwark of Truth. Notice how divided the Protestants and Orthodox are compared to the Church.

The truth from who? Jesus has not established any church that is present at all. To say so because of a verse in the bible isn’t really proof to say that the church is always correct…especially when you can’t prove the bible as being the original words of Jesus himself. See what I mean?

That doesn’t matter; Catholic Christians (the original brand of Christian ) do not submit to Sola Scriptura. So this question is irrelevant.

See, but you are missing what I am tryin to ask, the original brand of Christian~~what gives them that right? How can you say that you are the correct one when your belief to the other side is irrelevant as well?

You’re mistaken. The early Church Fathers (theologians) were Catholic Christians and support Catholic Church doctrine. Check 'em out!

/QUOTE]

Actually I haven’t got the time right now to back this claim (need to go to physiotherapy for my arm. …but I will look further into it and get back inshaAllah. But I remember doin a little research before and not every theologian professed to bein a Christian Catholic.

thank you

americanrevert**

 

[Matariel]

when you add any type of punctuation it is considered changed.

The English language requires punctuation. No-one ever claimed English translations are inspired.

It does matter what it is called for God should have a say in it no? It would be His book afterall. I mean, the Torah, the Injeel, the Quran, why then name His messages? Did God order for it to be placed in a way such as this? (The Bible)

Sorry, you’re not making any sense to me.

That is what I mean, you say it is divinely authorized, but you have no proof to back up your claim.

Read the Gospel of Matthew.

You have had a pope to go against morals of killings etc.

What Pope are you talking about? What “morals of killings”? Besides, this is irrelevant. Popes aren’t sinless. Catholics have never taught that.

and you cannot say that he was divinely inspired by Jesus. no proof at all…especially when he was going against the teachings of his own book!

Do you have any citation? That would be nice.

The truth from who? Jesus has not established any church that is present at all.

History says otherwise; the Catholic Church was founded by Christ on St. Peter, the first Pope.

To say so because of a verse in the bible isn’t really proof to say that the church is always correct…

I never said that.

especially when you can’t prove the bible as being the original words of Jesus himself. See what I mean?

The Church preserved these Words from the Four Evangelists. Why would they lie? Why would the disciples die for a lie? Why did the first bishops of the Church die? For a lie? I think if it was just a lie they would’ve abandoned it wholeheartedly when threatened with death. But they didn’t.

See, but you are missing what I am tryin to ask, the original brand of Christian~~what gives them that right?

Christ, and it’s confirmed by historians. You see, the Orthodox were formed in 1400’s (not in 1000’s as some say) when they broke away from the Church, and the Protestants broke away in the 1600’s. Only the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old, and it has the Apostolic Succession to prove it.

How can you say that you are the correct one when your belief to the other side is irrelevant as well?

Because they (the Protestants) came along 1,600 years after Christ and broke off of the Church in disobedience, taking with them the Bible which the Church had preserved. They invented their own doctrine of *Sola Scriptura *to justify this.

Actually I haven’t got the time right now to back this claim (need to go to physiotherapy for my arm. …but I will look further into it and get back inshaAllah. But I remember doin a little research before and not every theologian professed to bein a Christian Catholic.

The term “Catholic” did not come around until 100’s, but all the early theologians were Catholic, expressed Catholic doctrines, were devoted to the Catholic Church, and defended it. The Orthodox and Protestants came much later.

thank you

americanrevert

 

[dzheremi]

Regarding the word “Bible”: It entered English through late Latin, though apparently it is ultimately derived from Greek (source).

Of course, this does not matter AT ALL. In English it is called “Bible”, in Amharic “Mets’haf Qdus” (lit. Holy Book), in Nahuatl “Huēhuehtlahtōlli”, in Finnish “Raamattu”, in Tartar “Izge Yazu”, in Tongan “Tohitapu”, etc. etc. etc.!

What does all of this prove? Nothing, really. I just think it will be fun to see Americanrevert try to make something out of nothing. “The name ‘Quran’ is more uniform across languages, this proves that blahblahblahblah!” Yeahhhhh. It’s a loan word in most languages since most people don’t speak Arabic. And even then there are different adaptations based on the phonology of the language under consideration. In Chechen, it is Къуръан (K’ur’an, apostrophe representing a glottal stop). In Kabyle, it is Leqran. In Wolof, it is Alxuuran. Again, this doesn’t mean anything.

I know it is heresy to a Muslim, but God really doesn’t care which language you speak. He created them all, after all.

 

[inJESUS]

Did God order for it to be placed in a way such as this?

who inserted the vowels and marks and chapter names in the Quran? did Allah order for it?

 

[fibromite]

In a word, NO.

The Judeo-Christian God is the God of Abraham. The God of Islam does not continue the Salvation History Tradition which is revealed to us through the scriptures.

For Muslims, the Koran is the main source of the knowledge of God. It is the only “revealed” source that a Muslim is allowed to read and believe. The Koran is supplemented by interpretations that have come from those who all Muslims accept as authoritative through the centuries, and these form a body of work called the Hadith. In addition, there are authoritative writings on the life of the “prophet” Mohammed. That’s it, period, and it’s all that a Muslim needs.

The God, called Allah, revealed in the Koran and the accepted interpretations is not the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians. Islam has it’s own way of looking at the people and events of the Bible. Jesus is not considered to be the Son of God, but rather just another wise prophet. Under Islamic teaching, Jews and Christians were originally given the same message later “revealed” to Muhammed, but both Jews and Christians “distorted” that message. So this allows Muslims to say we all worship the same God.

The more I study, the more I realize the definition of the words each side is using is the key to really understanding the Islamic faith. The words used mean one thing to us, and something entirely different to them – but they will not tell you that, preferring that we proceed in our ignorance and therefore continue to believe the way they would have us believe, for the moment.

I also refuse to infantalize the followers of Mohammed, to say that those who speak for the religion today could not possibly believe what they say, that there must be some other reason for the violence they claim is sanctioned by their faith and their God. I prefer to take people at their word. And if I do that, it is very clear that Allah is not the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians.

I know many wish to believe this is not the case, that all religions, peoples, and cultures want essentially the same good things and hold the same good values that we do. An this desire to refuse to accept facts, or even to at least explore the facts and see where such newly gained knowledge leads, may be the one thing that prolongs the clash of civilizations taking place now, therefore resulting in much more suffering and death than would otherwise have to occur. Willfull blindness is not a good way to react to any challenge.

There are many reliable sources out there for those willing to learn. I pray more and more people will make use of them.

 

[jblake]

Matariel;:

No-one ever claimed English translations are inspired.

The KJV-only crowd believes that the English KJV is inspired, and has more authority than the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Armenian, Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and other Biblical Language manuscripts that were produced between 40 AD and 1500 AD.

Do you have any citation? That would be nice.

I think that is a reference to the difference between the Gospel of Paul, and the Gospel of John, and the Synoptic Gospels.

I think if it was just a lie they would’ve abandoned it wholeheartedly when threatened with death. But they didn’t.

The mythist argument is that there would have been no percentage in recanting.

Christ, and it’s confirmed by historians. You see, the Orthodox were formed in 1400’s (not in 1000’s as some say)

The documented history of the Oriental Church can be traced back to 30 AD. Ditto for the Orthodox Church.

Only the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old, and it has the Apostolic Succession to prove it.

Both the The Coptic Church and The Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church would disagree with you.

They invented their own doctrine of Sola Scriptura to justify this.

Sola Scriptura predates the Reformation by at least 500 years.

xan

jonathon

 

[Schnitz]

No, we don’t worship the same God. Let’s take a look at the life of Muhammad:

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 795; Narrated Anas: The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died.

Now let’s take a look at the life of Jesus:

Matthew 6:44 “But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you…”

But wait… Muslims would have us believe that we have distorted “the message of Allah.” Please.

 

[Matariel]

The KJV-only crowd believes that the English KJV is inspired, and has more authority than the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Armenian, Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and other Biblical Language manuscripts that were produced between 40 AD and 1500 AD.

Right; there are fringe groups I forgot to mention.

I think that is a reference to the difference between the Gospel of Paul, and the Gospel of John, and the Synoptic Gospels.

These “differences” are reconcilable. And since when is the Gospel of Paul canon?

The mythist argument is that there would have been no percentage in recanting.

Sorry, you have to rephrase this. I don’t know what you mean.

The documented history of the Oriental Church can be traced back to 30 AD. Ditto for the Orthodox Church.

I’m talking about their histories as separate entities from the Church. Everyone knows they have Apostolic Succession.

Both the The Coptic Church and The Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church would disagree with you.

See above statement.

Sola Scriptura predates the Reformation by at least 500 years.

xan

jonathon

You have to understand that the term Sola Scriptura was floating around before the reformation by orthodox Catholics. However, the Protestants and the Reformation took it in a whole 'nother direction. My priest and I were talking about that earlier at Bible study.

 

[Matariel]

The KJV-only crowd believes that the English KJV is inspired, and has more authority than the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Armenian, Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and other Biblical Language manuscripts that were produced between 40 AD and 1500 AD.

Right; there are fringe groups I forgot to mention.

I think that is a reference to the difference between the Gospel of Paul, and the Gospel of John, and the Synoptic Gospels.

These “differences” are reconcilable. And since when is the Gospel of Paul canon?

The mythist argument is that there would have been no percentage in recanting.

Sorry, you have to rephrase this. I don’t know what you mean.

The documented history of the Oriental Church can be traced back to 30 AD. Ditto for the Orthodox Church.

I’m talking about their histories as separate entities from the Church. Everyone knows they have Apostolic Succession.

Both the The Coptic Church and The Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church would disagree with you.

See above statement.

Sola Scriptura predates the Reformation by at least 500 years.

xan

jonathon

You have to understand that the term Sola Scriptura was floating around before the reformation by orthodox Catholics. However, the Protestants and the Reformation took it in a whole 'nother direction. My priest and I were talking about that earlier at Bible study.

The doctrine as understood today is practically a different view as expressed previously by Catholic theologians.

 

[jblake]

Matariel;:

These “differences” are reconcilable. And since when is the Gospel of Paul canon?

That is the source for some of the material about Jesus, that is in the q’ran.

The mythist argument is that there would have been no percentage in recanting.

Sorry, you have to rephrase this. I don’t know what you mean.

Advocates of the Jesus Myth Hypothesis claim that regardless of whether or not the martyrs recanted, they would have been killed. As such, by recanting their beliefs, they would not gain anything. However, if they did not recant their beliefs, they would achieve historical immortality.

You have to understand that the term Sola Scriptura was floating around before the reformation by orthodox Catholics. However, the Protestants and the Reformation took it in a whole 'nother direction.

The usage that Protestant Reformation made of the term “Sola Scriptura” does go back to the Tenth Century. The only change they made, was to popularize what had previously been a tertiary meaning/usage of the term.

xan

jonathon

 

[Americanrevert]

**Hello,

Regarding the word “Bible”: It entered English through late Latin, though apparently it is ultimately derived from Greek (source).

Yes, the word Bible means biblia sacra “holy books” (just translation), but christians profess the BOOK of God…where do all the other books come into play? Isn’t there a play on words here? I mean certain words/things can be translated into something completely different in meaning…like for one place in the New testament a word is used for meaning satan and also god in another place, both are the same word. This is what I refer to. Translations are not the original words.

What does all of this prove? Nothing, really. I just think it will be fun to see Americanrevert try to make something out of nothing. “The name ‘Quran’ is more uniform across languages, this proves that blahblahblahblah!” Yeahhhhh. It’s a loan word in most languages since most people don’t speak Arabic. And even then there are different adaptations based on the phonology of the language under consideration. In Chechen, it is Къуръан (K’ur’an, apostrophe representing a glottal stop). In Kabyle, it is Leqran. In Wolof, it is Alxuuran. Again, this doesn’t mean anything.

I know it is heresy to a Muslim, but God really doesn’t care which language you speak. He created them all, after all.

It proves a great deal “DZ” since the original should be kept in the correct order, sequence and correctly punctuated.

The name Quran was given in the Message to Mohammad as well as other names for it. There are different dialects all over the world and their accents of people and how they pronounce DZ, but that doesn’t disprove the correct words.

God did create His words in His languages the way He wanted them brought down. We are not to judge Him. We are in agreement.

Someone asked me if there was any punctuation when the Quran was revealed. There was no need until later but the words were all the same… You could not get one word different or passed a sahaba (companion of Mohammad sallaAllahu 'alayhi wa sellem) for they knew the entire book by memory). It wasn’t until people started messing up when pronouncing (different places n such) and they did not know the correctness of the word, so they just put the harakats (the vowels over the words to show that this is how you say it.) The word never changed, the sentence never changed, the punctuation never changed.

american revert

**

 

[dzheremi]

but christians profess the BOOK of God…where do all the other books come into play?

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re asking, and what your asking has to do with what I posted. Can you clarify, please?

Isn’t there a play on words here?

Where?

I mean certain words/things can be translated into something completely different in meaning…like for one place in the New testament a word is used for meaning satan and also god in another place, both are the same word. This is what I refer to.

The fact that words can be translated in multiple ways does not necessarily imply or provide evidence that any such “play on words” has occured. It also does not mean that poor translations are a deliberate attempt at confusing the reader/hearer. Let’s not forget the controversy surrounding the Quranic verse telling Muslims not to take Christians or Jews as “friends” (or is it “protectors”?). It would be insulting to suggest that whichever word is placed in this critical verse is a deliberate attempt to alter what Muslims take to be the word of God. Please grant the translators of the Bible and the Christians who follow it the same courtesy.

Translations are not the original words.

You don’t need to tell me that. I used to be a translator for a living, and have been one unofficially for most of my life, growing up as one of only two Spanish-speakers in a mostly monolingual anglophone home. But what is your suggestion to this problem that you have created in your own mind? That no one ever attempt to translate anything ever? That no one ever attempt to read the Quran until they have mastered the Classical Quranic Arabic, or the Bible until they have mastered Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? That is an undue burden, if I’ve ever heard one. A multi-lingual world such as ours demands translation. It’s a GOOD thing.

It proves a great deal “DZ” since the original should be kept in the correct order, sequence and correctly punctuated.

Actually, it proves nothing, American Revert. Do you really mean to tell me that the “correct order” for a holy book is by length of verse, rather than to tell some sort of coherent narrative? That’s just silly. As far as correct punctuation is concerned, who added the vocalization markers (harakat) and other diacritics to the Quran? (link)

The name Quran was given in the Message to Mohammad as well as other names for it. There are different dialects all over the world and their accents of people and how they pronounce DZ, but that doesn’t disprove the correct words.

I know this. I am a linguist by profession.

God did create His words in His languages the way He wanted them brought down. We are not to judge Him. We are in agreement.

Alhamdulillah.

Someone asked me if there was any punctuation when the Quran was revealed. There was no need until later but the words were all the same…

I will take your word for it, though the link I gave earlier also mentions that the i’jam marks that distinguish between various consonants were not there in early Quran, either, so it is less likely to me that everyone who read it never became confused. But this is an article of faith for you as a Muslim, and I have no problem with it, since nothing is proved by attempting to disprove it. The fact that the marks were missing stands whether or not they caused confusion.

 

[planten]

No, we don’t worship the same God. Let’s take a look at the life of Muhammad:

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 795; Narrated Anas: The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died.

Now let’s take a look at the life of Jesus:

Matthew 6:44 “But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you…”

But wait… Muslims would have us believe that we have distorted “the message of Allah.” Please.

**Yes, quite right. Jesus did not have the chance and time to enforce anything. He was caught very quickly by his enemies and he had to disappear suddenly from the scene. Otherwise Jesus was quite brave man.

Our prophet Muhammad had two names, Ahmad and Muhammad. The name Ahmad (Comforter) was a copy of Jesus. That had the love and beauty and gentleness.(Jamaal). That was in effect in Makkah.

The name Muhammad has the power and glory and authority (Jalaal) That was an exact copy of Moses a.s. That was in effect in Madinah.

If you have distorted or lost the message of Jesus, you can always try to look for it in the bible again. Some truth is still there.**

 

[Sam_777]

**Our prophet Muhammad had two names, Ahmad and Muhammad. The name Ahmad (Comforter) was a copy of Jesus. That had the love and beauty and gentleness.(Jamaal)

The name Muhammad has the power and glory and authority (Jalaal) That was an exact copy of Moses a.s.
**

Planten , you are a unique Muslim indeed…

 

[planten]

Planten , you are a unique Muslim indeed…

**Please I do not want to dishonor any one, specially the Jews and the christians. I try to pass on what I know about anything. Please forgive me if I have said something wrong.

I have edited my last post slightly. Please see again. Thanks.
**

 

[Schnitz]

planten:

Jesus did not have the chance and time to enforce anything.

Yeah, I guess you’re right. Allah just decided to leave the massacring up to the next prophet.

planten:

He was caught very quickly by his enemies and he had to disappear suddenly from the scene.

Yes, how silly of me. I forgot that he went to hide in some level of heaven.

planten:

The name Ahmad (Comforter) was a copy of Jesus. That had the love and beauty and gentleness.

I am sure that the people who Muhammad slaughtered would agree with that.

planten:

The name Muhammad has the power and glory and authority (Jalaal)

As given by whom?

planten:

If you have distorted or lost the message of Jesus, you can always try to look for it in the bible again. Some truth is still there.

I suppose you’re right. It just leaves out the part about going out and killing the unbeliever. The message of love contained within the Gospels just isn’t as much fun without getting to kill innocent people.

 

[Khalfan]

who inserted the vowels and marks and chapter names in the Quran? did Allah order for it?

Hi inJESUS

After long time.

By the way, the vowels and marks are to support the pronunciation. Chapter names were given as per prophet (S) as per guidence of God.

Were you comparing the vowels and marks in the Quran with the order of books in the Bible?

 

[guestmuslim]

Often Christianity is lumped together with Judaism and Islam as monotheist religions. I understand and accept that the three all worship only 1 God, but am questioning whether Muslims believe in the same God as Christians.

For instance, why would it be necessary for God to send another prophet, Mohammad, after Jesus? Jesus was not a prophet, but God…so for what necessity would God need to send a prophet after Jesus? Additionally, Muslims claim Jesus was only a prophet and even touch on the Blessed Mother in the Koran. While this seems to make them similiar to the God of Christianity, they still seem way off in their beliefs compared to both Christians and Jews. Islam itself means “submission.” Muslims I have meant, and much of what I have read, interpret this to mean a lack of free will. Perhaps I am misinterpreting…but, if not this is drastically different than Christian theology that puts great import on the doctrine of free will.

Also, while we have fundamentalist that are violent in Christianity we don’t seem to have the identical problems of Islam in that you are either Muslim or you are wrong. Our God preaches love for neighbor and that each person is judged upon death. I hate to lump all Muslims together, but feel that their religion lacks many substantial qualities of Christianity. As a result, I wonder whether they should be considered to worship the same God? Thoughts?

Muslims we belief that there is only one God for every thing on this universe (including Humans). Since Christians think that Jesus (PUHIM) is God, I wonder what is thier answer for this question:
Who was the GOD of the people before the birth of Jesus(PUHIM)?

Thanks