Interfaith: a new dialogue between Muslims and Catholic

[men0wjv]

Hi Max, no need to apologise

It appears to me that you and many other Muslims who live in Western countries are embarrassed by the traditional Muslim position that someone who leaves the Muslim religion should be killed. However in many Muslim majority countries the populace, or large segments of it, seem to be in no doubt.
Posters can read it for themselves and decide how Islam defines apostasy and what punishment is to be meted out to apostates.

The above are quite telling of the modern age. Like Catholicism, we Muslims believe in hierarchy and that not all opinions are equal. To be able to comment on something, you must know something about it otherwise it is just mere opinion and thus worthless. I noticed you have mentioned this report a few times, but I pay it little heed since I thought you wanted to find out about Islamic Law; interpreting solitary hadith and relying on popular opinion is of no consequence because it has no legislatory authority. Islam is preserved by a handing down tradition of knowledge from teacher to student since the earliest times and this is the only source of information on Islamic Law. Should you wish to have a conversation about the various views of lay Muslims then that is something different, but I can only really speak for my home: the UK.

I found Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa’s words: “If the case in question is one of merely rejecting faith, then there is no worldly punishment. If, however, the crime of undermining the foundations of the society is added to the sin of apostasy, then the case must be referred to a judicial system whose role is to protect the integrity of the society.”

That said, I did look up in my array of classical works and yes it does seem that the traditional position was that: should a sane male willfully and openly reject one of the necessarily known elements of the religion of Islam in a recognised Islamic State and not repent within three days they face execution, usually by the sword. In the Hanafi rite (I’m Hanafi btw) women are imprisoned, although this is probably not the position of the other three Sunni schools, i.e. they face execution too. It seems my memory on this was not so good.

So you now have the traditional position and a fatwa (legal ruling) from one of the leading scholars in the world today. I am not a Mufti and thus my opinion on the subject is of no consequence, suffice to say this is a complex matter and should not be concluded as the last word so easily.

Any religion that seeks to curb the free practice of competing religions – including the right to change religion and to evangelise – is not compatible with democracy as it is commonly understood in Western countries.

Compatibility with democracy? Hmm a potentially expansive discussion and way way beyond the limits of a mere student. In terms of, can Muslims contribute to a democratic society then yes because whether Muslims agree to the law or government of the land that they are in or not, they are bound by a Shariah recognised sacred trust to adhere to its commandments.

Islamic models of governance were not traditionally democratic - in say the case of modern Britain - in structure, but the scriptural sources are few on the subject and thus it allows for great flexibility. I did find a brilliant article that summarised a host of papers put forward by scholars from all around the world on the subject, click here. To quote a snippet:
Democracy that is based on the principle of (in President Lincoln’s phrase) “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” is generally compatible in its constitutional characteristics with the concept of shurah in Islam. Democratic governments are sovereign governments whose aim is to maintain a political system that establishes justice and freedom for its citizens. This very aim is in complete agreement with Islamic principles, except that, conceptually, sovereignty in democracy belongs to people, whilst in Islam it belongs to God, and thus to the Shari‘ah and to the Muslim ummah (nation) together.

As you say, a principle of Islamic Law is preservation of religion - this does not just mean Islam btw. Should the state be Muslim then they have a duty to guide peoples souls to the truth (of course what we view that as) and thus would protect Muslim subjects from falling into heresy or disbelief, rather like a physician would protect a patient from illness or death. Of course there is room for other religions to be tolerated as full members of the state, but evangelizing would not be acceptable (in either direction - non-Muslims would be free in self governed areas, traditionally).
Just out of interest, why do you want to know?
Peace

 

[men0wjv]

 

[men0wjv]

Very well expressed I’ll buy one of those magnets.

Now for a few questions, if I may…
5. Is it necessary to read the Qur’an in Arabic to receive God’s graces? Also, to make a pilgrimage to Mecca?

I only have time for this one at present, but I’ll return to them all God willing. You don’t need to know any Arabic at all to receive God’s Grace. That said, Arabic plays an important role. I did once write an article on the matter, I’ll post it bellow:

Why do Muslims have to pray in Arabic all the time and not English?

Firstly it is important to make a distinction between the five obligatory prayers (salah) and supplication (du’a); salah should be performed in Arabic whilst du’a can be made in any language. Whilst certain etiquettes should be observed, in du’a, you can say whatever you wish and speak to God in a more personal way.

Perhaps the fact that salah needs to be in Arabic is one of the most striking signs of the position of the language within the religion of Islam; the two are intertwined. A brief study is enough to highlight the significance of this. For example; the word in English for reality comes from the Latin root ‘res’ which means thing, the equivalent word in Arabic, haqiqah, has the root ‘haq,’ which is a name of God (Al Haq – The Real). The two languages perspectives of reality are quite different, English sees reality as made up of things which you can touch and see etc. whilst Arabic sees reality as God. God is the absolute reality; our reality is merely contingent; the entire universe is dependent upon Him. The language of Arabic is always turning us back to Almighty God. There is much linguistic theory about the influence of a language on a people’s perspectives and indeed vice versa.

To love God you have to know Him. One way of doing this is to understand His revelation to mankind – the Qur’an. Although a translation serves as a sort of crutch it in no way encompasses the entirety of meaning within the Qur’an. Any translator normally takes a relied upon commentary and translates accordingly, thus giving only one possible meaning. Recitation is an integral part of prayer which can only be in Arabic, for the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: ‘there is no prayer without the Fatiha (the first chapter) and another chapter with it’ [Tirmidhi]. Prayer is a means to reach God and for the same reasons why the Qur’an cannot be fully translated neither can the prayer. It is our responsibility to raise ourselves to understand the words of the prayer and indeed the Qur’an.

The Qur’an’s eloquence is a proof of it’s Divinity, which no translation can ever retain. Would Juliet’s saying: ‘What’s in a name? that which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet.’ have the same impact as the factual statement: ‘What matters is what something is, not what it is called?’ This eloquence is not only in poetic licence, but also sound. The very recitation itself has made people weep despite them having no knowledge of Arabic. The Qur’an and the other elements of salah, recited correctly are a key to our very soul.

From a legalistic (fiqh) perspective the ruling that salah should be in Arabic is due to the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him): ‘pray as you see me pray’ [Bukhari]. He (peace be upon him) performed prayer in Arabic at all times despite the ability to speak any language. This was the practice of His Companions and has been of all Muslims until the present day, it is something agreed upon despite the presence of many different languages amongst the early and latter Muslim communities - the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “My Ummah shall not agree upon error,” [Hakim].

This answer is in no way exhaustive and has merely been a brief overview of what I and my teachers know. What needs to be remembered is that sometimes the reason behind Divine legislation, especially spiritual aspects, are not always clear. It does not mean they are irrational, but rather rationality beyond our limited intellects; it comes from Almighty God whose Wisdom and Knowledge cannot be encompassed. For example, why is the Noon prayer (Dhuhr) four rakats (cycles) whilst the Morning Prayer (Fajr) is only two? No one knows, but we follow it with humility because God through His Bounty has given us a means through which we can reach Him even if we do not fully understand the how’s and why’s of it. Islam literally means submission and it is part of the character of the believer to say: ‘We hear and obey’ [Qur’an 2:285] and it is in so doing that meaning is unveiled, for God’s Messenger (Peace be upon him) has said: ‘Whomsoever practices what he knows, God reveals that which he did not know.’ And God knows best

 

[MaxRosen]

Hi men0wjv

In your posts #237 and #274 you quote Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa as follows:

“The act of abandoning one’s religion is a sin punishable by God on the Day of Judgement. If the case in question is one of merely rejecting faith, then there is no worldly punishment,” punishment only applies if it undermines the “foundations of society”.

(My underlining)

The underlined words are what we in Australia call “weasel words”. Weasel words are words people use when they want to appear to be saying something definite while leaving themselves an out. They are like the fine print in a contract.

Consider the following scenario. In Australia a few thousand people, mostly women, have “reverted” to Islam. Reverts tend to be especially assiduous in what they perceive to be their duty of “Dawah” or proselytising for Islam. This is their right in Australia and I support that right.

However it could be argued that in mostly secular but culturally Christian Australia doing Dawah is undermining the “foundation of (Australian) society”.

Consider the case of a Muslim who converts to Christianity in an Islamic country. Christians, like Muslims, have a duty to proselytize. Would a Muslim convert to Christianity be “undermining the foundations of society” if he or she were to, say, distribute bibles? Or if her or she were to build a church or place a decorated Christmas tree in their garden?

Would someone who left Islam for atheism and tried to persuade people to read “The God Delusion” be “undermining the foundations of society”?

men0wjv

You see why I am underwhelmed by the Grand Mufti’s words. Unless he defines precisely what he means by “undermining the foundations of society” he has said nothing.

Certainly nothing the Grand Mufti has said allays my fears about what it would mean to live in an Islamic society.

 

[elwill]

1. In line with our conversation on the nature of God, would you say that we worship the same God?

my i answer your questions

we worship the same God ( father part of trinity)

1. If God is All-Loving, why are there such harsh stipulations in the Islamic code for punishments, even for children? Does God want this or just allow it as part of man’s code of behavior or civil law?

i think that because God is all loving for rightious and good people , there are such punishments for wrong doers , God seeks healthy soceity for us

1. Why do Muslims believe that Christ will come back at the end of the world to judge it instead of Muhammad?

what do you mean by saying that christ will judge the world ?

1. What is the true meaning of jihad?

resist the evil

 

[elwill]

Hi men0wjv

In your posts #237 and #274 you quote Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa as follows:

(My underlining)

The underlined words are what we in Australia call “weasel words”. Weasel words are words people use when they want to appear to be saying something definite while leaving themselves an out. They are like the fine print in a contract.

Consider the following scenario. In Australia a few thousand people, mostly women, have “reverted” to Islam. Reverts tend to be especially assiduous in what they perceive to be their duty of “Dawah” or proselytising for Islam. This is their right in Australia and I support that right.

However it could be argued that in mostly secular but culturally Christian Australia doing Dawah is undermining the “foundation of (Australian) society”.

Consider the case of a Muslim who converts to Christianity in an Islamic country. Christians, like Muslims, have a duty to proselytize. Would a Muslim convert to Christianity be “undermining the foundations of society” if he or she were to, say, distribute bibles? Or if her or she were to build a church or place a decorated Christmas tree in their garden?

Would someone who left Islam for atheism and tried to persuade people to read “The God Delusion” be “undermining the foundations of society”?

men0wjv

You see why I am underwhelmed by the Grand Mufti’s words. Unless he defines precisely what he means by “undermining the foundations of society” he has said nothing.

Certainly nothing the Grand Mufti has said allays my fears about what it would mean to live in an Islamic society.

i think he meant the situations which may lead to civil war , when they preach or announce their apostacy by telling lies about islam and about the prophet of islam inside country have a majority of muslims will raise relegious hateness between them " Fitnah"

such behaviours which may cause such problems in the society should to be dealt with to protect the whole society ( specially the minority )

but i think it’s okey to preach his new relegion personally or inside theire churches if he want , governments not prohibit muslims to enter the church or buy a bible

it’s about the means which somone may use to preach his relegion ,
i think that it’s what he meant when mufti said
punishment only applies if it undermines the “foundations of society”. then the case must be referred to a judicial system whose role is to protect the integrity of the society."

 

[dzheremi]

To add a different perspective to the mindset typified by Muslim responses to questions about the use of Arabic in their religion, here are a few relevant and hopefully interesting reflections on the nature of language in prayer from Journey Back to Eden: My Life and Times among the Desert Fathers by Mark Gruber (O.S.B.), a travel journal of the author’s time spent in the Coptic monasteries of the Egyptian desert in the late 1980s:

Pope Shenouda was particularly joyous today. He invited me into the sanctuary and asked to borrow my English Bible so that he could read one or two of the passages from it on behalf of the English-speaking prelates who are present as guests. He told me once that he likes to use English in the Coptic ritual, since there is nothing in particular about the Arabic language that is essential to Coptic ritual. He said that if it is not being read in Coptic, the language of the ancient Pharaohs, it may just as well be read in English. I wonder whether he is content to use a language other than the language of the Koran because, of course, the Koran has so completely formed the Arabic language. He did not say this, nor would he be likely to say so if asked. Nevertheless, Arabic is essential to Islam and only peripheral to Coptic Christianity.
Most of the employees of the monastery are very young. To see them studying and memorizing their Coptic prayers reminds me of my earliest memories in the Roman Church, when the language of preference was still Latin. These unlettered villagers pray in a language they do not understand, and yet it seems to nourish them completely.

There are Coptic people who object, just as Catholics objected, to praying in a language which they do not understand. But the Coptic monks are insisting, and so apparently is the hierarchy of this Church, that understanding the words of a prayer is the least important part of the meaning and the value of the prayer. The monks remind me that “the Spirit intercedes for us with groans too deep for words" (cf. Romans 8:26) and, therefore, when you are groaning, when you are arching, when you are too tired to participate intellectually in the psalmody, you are still praying. The Holy Spirit is unlocking the depths of that which lies within. Sometimes when the mind is fully engaged and thinking in its own terms and categories, it will not release the inward soul to discourse with God. Sometimes the mind must work itself through its desire to control and come to a kind of humility, a relaxation of its powers, so that the Spirit might work at deeper currents than those which the mind employs. So I think of the words of the Psalmist: “Like a weaned child on its mother’s lap, so is my soul within me.” (Psalm 131:2)

 

[men0wjv]

To add a different perspective to the mindset typified by Muslim responses to questions about the use of Arabic in their religion, here are a few relevant and hopefully interesting reflections on the nature of language in prayer from Journey Back to Eden: My Life and Times among the Desert Fathers by Mark Gruber (O.S.B.)

Thanks for that. I Always said to my Catholic friend that I think you should resist the temptation to resort to the vernacular completely (I don’t mean its completely useless btw). If nothing else saying the words in the same way as the righteous is more blessed. Let us raise ourselves and make our selves in God’s image, rather than God in our image.
Peace

 

[dzheremi]

No Catholic resorts to the vernacular completely in their liturgy, as the “Kyrie” is kept in the original Greek in even the most uprooted O.F. masses (while only parts of the “Agnus Dei” remain in Latin at these same Latin rite masses!), but yes, for all intents and purposes it might as well be considered to be all vernacular.

 

[men0wjv]

Unless he defines precisely what he means by “undermining the foundations of society” he has said nothing.

This is a fair point, but since this quote is from the Washington Post then he’s not going to go into the finer details. For example he has not defined what apostacy is. Like I said, I’m trying to find his exact wording. As Elwill points out, he is referring to ‘fitnah’ but this also requires defining, leave it with me …

 

[MaxRosen]

Hi elwil

i think he meant the situations which may lead to civil war , when they preach or announce their apostacy by telling lies about islam and about the prophet of islam inside country have a majority of muslims will raise relegious hateness between them " Fitnah"

What does it mean to tell “lies about islam and about the prophet of islam”?

For that matter what does it mean to “tell lies” about any religion?

For example, Christians believe that Jesus is simultaneously God incarnate and the Son of God who was crucified and rose from the dead.

Muslims do not believe anything of the sort. If you deny the truth of the incarnation, of Jesus’s sonship and of His resurrection a Christian may well say you were telling lies about Christianity. If you say this in a country where the majority of the populace is Christian, such as the USA, are you causing religious hatred?

You are certainly upsetting a lot of people in the USA by proclaiming the truth of Islam and, by implication, the falsity of a central tenet of Christianity. In the interests of avoiding religious hatred should Muslims refrain from Dawah in the USA?

What’s source for the goose is source for the gander.

It also applies the other way around.

Muslims believe that an angel, Gibril, transmitted the koran verbatim to Muhammad over a 22 year period. Here is what the koran says about Jesus’ crucifixion.

[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.
[4.158] Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[4.159] And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them.

It is plain that this cannot be reconciled with the Gospel account of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. If one is correct then the other must be false. And if you believe the Gospels are correct you are, by implication, saying the koran is false and therefore cannot be the word of God. Therefore, by implication again, Muhammad was either deluded or lying when he claimed to have received a verbatim message from God via Gibril.

So if a Christian preaches the gospel you would say that, by implication, he is telling lies about Islam and about Muhammad.

So, elwil, if your interpretation of the Grand Mufti’s words are correct then his words are empty. The moment a Christian started preaching the Gospel in a Muslim majority country he would be accused of telling lies about Islam and about Muhammad and of causing “fitnah" and he would face some sort of punishment.

Either you allow complete freedom of religion; or you don’t. Anything short of that is empty words.

 

[SolarWinds63]

Can we co-exist with Islam? The short answer is no, not in it present form.
It seems that some people have forgotten that Islam hasnt really moved on past the dark ages. From its treatment of women to its use of violence to further its aims, Islam is not a religion that works and plays wells with others.
There is a small movement in Islam to make it more mainstream{ putting a happy face on it} but more often than not, the leaders of such movements have been either killed or threaten with death.
Islam cannot simply get overs its past. While we had our rough times{ The Crusades, the Inquestion and the like} Christians have pretty much stopped using violence as a mean to spread the word. To Islamics, it is the first club out of the bag.
There are some that seem to think that appeasing Islam will curb it violent moves. Appeasement never stopped any regime that is bent on world control. Ask the British how Appeasement worked with Nazi Germany.
Should there be another Crusade{some people have suggestted this} to rid the world of Islam.No…That would lead to a bloodletting the likes of which has never even been seen or imagined.
We must be watchdogs for our Faith. We must pray that Islam finds it path and stops resorting to killing to achieve it goals.

The Question should be “Can Islam coexist with others?” Besides politics all religions faiths get along, this century. Islamics are still committing genocide.

 

[elwill]

Hi elwil

What does it mean to tell “lies about islam and about the prophet of islam”?

For that matter what does it mean to “tell lies” about any religion?

For example, Christians believe that Jesus is simultaneously God incarnate and the Son of God who was crucified and rose from the dead.

Muslims do not believe anything of the sort. If you deny the truth of the incarnation, of Jesus’s sonship and of His resurrection a Christian may well say you were telling lies about Christianity. If you say this in a country where the majority of the populace is Christian, such as the USA, are you causing religious hatred?

You are certainly upsetting a lot of people in the USA by proclaiming the truth of Islam and, by implication, the falsity of a central tenet of Christianity. In the interests of avoiding religious hatred should Muslims refrain from Dawah in the USA?

when someone christian talking about christianity which contradicts islam , is differ than someone who is christian talking about islam and prophet of islam and teaching of islam by lies in negative way

the second type is the one i’m talking about

my all concern is about the consequences of all of that in the society , if it may lead to danger of hateness and civil wars then it should be restricted

 

[SolarWinds63]

Peace
I don’t think you understood what I was getting at. You can make outrageous remarks about my religion with a personal and exaggerated interpretation based on a single incident with no background knowledge, but I can’t for yours. Does that seem fair? Aren’t you meant to do unto others?
If you wish to make illogical arguments like: since one X is Y, then all X is Y then you have proven categorically that all RC Priests are pedophiles! Using your argument - and ignoring any teaching from the Church, all the examples when this hasn’t happened to the point of it being negligible, and any common sense - then since one RC Priest has sexually abused young children then all RC Priests sexually abuse young children all the time! If you don’t like this conclusion then you must through away your argument forever; if you don’t then you have categorically proven what you dislike!
I think you have some issues, being honest and not insulting, I think you need to see a counsellor. You have a lot of anger towards people, try going and meeting people, travel and try and love.
Get well soon, go in Peace

You can not deny the fact that islami women ware bursa. I was at an amusement park and saw a muslin family with the mother in a fabric cage, Father, son’s and daughters all walking together and the mother or whoever was underneath that fabric cage. You can not begin to compare sexual abuse to Murder, assault, decapitation, stoning, torture of your own family members!!!. As Islamic law!!! Why are you insulted by the truth??? Do you deny the Stoning, killings, torture, beatings of women & children??? On the contrary Mr. you in fact need to find GOD and the true meaning of respect for others, and be more Like the Lord Jesus Christ. You will then have peace in your self and become a human being as GOD intended us to be in His Image. I am and have been honest and truthful with you and pointed out true facts about Islam, and there is much more. May GOD have mercy on you…

 

[SolarWinds63]

Sir. What have I said to offend you, or others in this forum? If I have offended you or any body else please accept my apology… God Bless You…

 

[men0wjv]

Would someone who left Islam for atheism and tried to persuade people to read “The God Delusion” be “undermining the foundations of society”?

I have been looking into the traditional position and have quite a lot to write, I will do this soon God willing. I did just want to further comment that any discussion relating to disbelief/apostasy in any official capacity (we know not on the Day of Judgement, per se) only relates to denying of something fard not wajib, with all the conditions as mentioned before e.g. such as being adult, of sound mind and in full knowledge. Fard is something proven by a ‘mutawatir’ (mass transmitted source, such as The Qur’an or a few ahadith that meet that requirement) that has an unequivocal interpretation, such as the command to pray or the article of faith of Divine Destiny etc. Anything that is still considered mandatory (wajib) but only proven by less than something mutawatir (one sound hadith etc) or/and has a probabilistic meaning would not constitute disbelief etc such as denying the obligation (well it is in Hanafi) to pray witr etc. It is the denying, not the not doing of, either; for example, if one refuses to pay zakat they are a fasiq (sinner), but if they refuse to pay the zakat and deny that it is part of Islam then they have entered kufr (disbelief).
Will write soon.

 

[men0wjv]

This idea of the 72 virgins is difficult to grasp for the Western mind. Why 72? Why not 172 or 52 or 44 or 10,001? Also, Muslims must believe that the corporal body is in Heaven immediately, but that certainly doesn’t fit the laws of nature which God has placed. Where do these creatures come from? Are they bodily forms?

Hi 4Horsemen,
I will get to the rest of your questions, God willing. I have only just realised that the quoted part from your post was also part of your comments.
It is a well known use of classical Arab prose to use numbers figuratively, so 1000 is often used to denonet a massive number, even infinity. There is also something about seven, so you’ll see 7, 70, 700 etc that is repeatedly used, which again is a sort of poetic licence. In a nutshell you can have for whatever you wish, so should you want 1001 then you can, but if you want 1 then you can. These type of discriptions are just trying to encourage us to seek the hereafter, I’m sure you must have something similar in terms of encouragement.
Muslims believe that when one dies, there body dies and decays but the soul lives on. It is seperated (barzakh) from its body. It remains in this state ‘in the grave,’ which may be a period of felicity or tribulation, until judgement. Then at the end of time, all will cease to be and God will say ‘I am the first and the last,’ and then He’ll bring all the souls and bodies back to life to face judgement, which is not immediate either; there being a standing on the plane and awaiting judgement. Heaven or Hell is no immediate, from where did you get this?

 

[4Horsemen]

Why do Muslims have to pray in Arabic all the time and not English?

men0wjv,

Firstly it is important to make a distinction between the five obligatory prayers (salah) and supplication (du’a); salah should be performed in Arabic whilst du’a can be made in any language. Whilst certain etiquettes should be observed, in du’a, you can say whatever you wish and speak to God in a more personal way.

The Catholic Church points out different kinds of prayer:

1. Praise and Worship
2. Thanksgiving
3. Contrition
4. Petition or Supplication

Perhaps the fact that salah needs to be in Arabic is one of the most striking signs of the position of the language within the religion of Islam; the two are intertwined.

The Divine Liturgy was for centuries in the old language of Latin. The Church, throughout the centuries has always guarded the wording and rituals of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Roman Missal of pope St. Pius V, promulgated in 1570–the “Tridentine Missal”–goes back to the ancient Gregorian Sacramentary derived from the 5th Century and to the earliest days of the Church. Hearing the monks chant the liturgy of the Mass and the hours is the most beautiful sound this side of Heaven.

To love God you have to know Him. One way of doing this is to understand His revelation to mankind – the Qur’an.

Actually the Bible is the earliest transmission of God’s Word, first of all to the Israelites of the Old Testament and then to the Gentiles in the New. The Qur’an wasn’t compiled until several centuries later.

The Qur’an’s eloquence is a proof of it’s Divinity, . . .

How is eloquence a proof of Divinity? There are many eloquent speeches that have no connection with Divinity.

From a legalistic (fiqh) perspective the ruling that salah should be in Arabic is due to the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him): ‘pray as you see me pray’ [Bukhari]. He (peace be upon him) performed prayer in Arabic at all times despite the ability to speak any language.

My understanding is that the Prophet was illiterate and that his aides compiled the Qur’an at least a hundred years later after the oral Tradition.

This answer is in no way exhaustive. . .

As I mentioned above, the Catholic Church (at least the religious communities) recite the Liturgy of the Hours. Following is an explanation from Wikipedia:

"The Liturgy of the Hours or Divine Office (latin: liturgia horarum) is the official set of daily prayers prescribed by the Catholic Church to be recited at the canonical hours by the clergy, religious orders, and laity. The Liturgy of the Hours consists primarily of psalms supplemented by hymns and readings. Together with the Mass, it constitutes the official public prayer life of the Church. Upon ordination to the Diaconate, the daily recitation of the Liturgy of the Hours becomes a canonical obligation. The Liturgy of the Hours also forms the basis of prayer within Christian monasticism.[1]

The Liturgy of the hours, along with the Eucharist, has formed part of the Catholic Church’s public worship from the earliest times. Christians of both Eastern and Western traditions (including the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglican churches) celebrate the Liturgy of the Hours under various names. Within Roman Catholicism, the Liturgy of the Hours is contained within the Roman Breviary."

I try to attend the Traditional Latin Rite (Extraordinary Form) as much as I can. The Latin language is no barrier and, in fact, is the vehicle that drives one into God’s embrace.

 

[4Horsemen]

Hi 4Horsemen,
I will get to the rest of your questions, God willing. I have only just realised that the quoted part from your post was also part of your comments.
It is a well known use of classical Arab prose to use numbers figuratively, so 1000 is often used to denonet a massive number, even infinity. There is also something about seven, so you’ll see 7, 70, 700 etc that is repeatedly used, which again is a sort of poetic licence. In a nutshell you can have for whatever you wish, so should you want 1001 then you can, but if you want 1 then you can. These type of discriptions are just trying to encourage us to seek the hereafter, I’m sure you must have something similar in terms of encouragement.
Muslims believe that when one dies, there body dies and decays but the soul lives on. It is seperated (barzakh) from its body. It remains in this state ‘in the grave,’ which may be a period of felicity or tribulation, until judgement. Then at the end of time, all will cease to be and God will say ‘I am the first and the last,’ and then He’ll bring all the souls and bodies back to life to face judgement, which is not immediate either; there being a standing on the plane and awaiting judgement. Heaven or Hell is no immediate, from where did you get this?

Hi men0wjv,

For Christians, numbers in the Bible are symbolic and have different meanings. For example, the number 3 is the perfect number because of the Holy Trinity (still one God–it’s a mystery); 7 is completion as the seven days of creation; 4 is God setting things in order as in the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse or the 4 Final Things (Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell), and 40 is for the forty days of fasting by Moses in the O.T. and Jesus in the New; 12 for the twelve tribes of Israel in the O.T. and 12 Apostles in the N.T., etc. . . You can read more about that by googling “meaning of numbers in the bible.” Interesting other interpretations that I had never heard of before. I’ll have to do more reading on this.

Christians also believe that when a person dies, the body is corruptible, but the soul lives on but not stuck in a grave. (What is there is no grave and a person is shot to pieces in a war or somebody scatters their ashes?) Immediately after death is the Particular Judgment in which God judges us individually. Our soul then ascends directly to Heaven (probably only the greatest saints—only the perfect can see God), or go for purgation in Purgatory to cleanse us from the remnants of confessed sin (deliberately unconfessed sin is sinful in itself), or to Hell where punishment for evil is eternal. At the end of time will be the General Judgment which encompasses everyone who ever lived on the earth. Purgatory will be no more, just Heaven or Hell. This has been Church doctrine because there are biblical references that inform biblical scholars.

The Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed is a compilation of what Catholics believe.

 

[4Horsemen]

my i answer your questions

Hi elwill,

Welcome!

we worship the same God ( father part of trinity)