Islam based on a polytheistic faith???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abraxsis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Abraxsis

Guest
From an article in Catholic Culture:

Islam and Paganism

by Dr. Jeff Mirus, September 28, 2007

A few weeks ago I removed from our library a misplaced document which purported to prove that Islam was really a polytheistic faith based on an ancient pagan god of the half-moon. The article ignored Mohammed’s obvious purpose, inspired by Judaism and Christianity, of using the cult associated with a particular god to wipe away the old local pantheon, insisting that there is only one God in heaven and earth.

The Pagan Difference

In some ways, the effort was not unlike that of St. Paul in addressing the Greeks. Paul seized upon the altar to an unknown god and used it as a springboard for monotheism. The difference is that Paul based his approach on the pure Revelation of the one God while Mohammed used a highly selective mixture of Judaism, Christianity and his own imagination. In other words, it is no good denying Islam’s devotion to the One, which Mohammed derived indirectly from Revelation; clearly, he was a passionately committed monotheist. But it is critical to realize that Islam is not based on any sort of special revelation given by the One to his people, except insofar as it borrows imperfectly from Judaism and Christianity.

It is possible to identify the remarkable differences which separate Islam from the Judeo-Christian tradition without resorting to the specious claim that Muslims do not seek to worship the one and only God of all. In the 1920’s, a remarkable Jewish theologian named Franz Rosenzweig developed a deeper theory of paganism which sheds light on this divide. Rosenzweig argued persuasively that the key component of paganism is not polytheism but the inescapable fact that paganism never originates with God revealing Himself to His people out of love. This idea has a number of fascinating repercussions, both for our conception of God and for our relationship with Him.

Who God Is

We begin with the certainty that pagans cannot know God personally, initially because God had not revealed Himself to them and later because they have ignored or rejected His self-revelation. For this reason, all pagan religions tend to be preoccupied with the essential arbitrariness of God’s power. In contrast, where God has revealed Himself, he shows Himself to be a God who loves and desires relationships of love. But love is never arbitrary. It always seeks the good of the beloved. As such, it is also at the deepest level both understandable and predictable. Though philosophers would rightly explain this as a perfection rather than a limitation, we may bow to convenience here and describe God as self-limiting. He acts only in love.

For the Muslim, this is not the case. Allah is perceived as having an absolutely arbitrary will, completely unfathomable and impenetrable to the human mind, a will which in all cases and in every way directly determines and even continually creates everything that is, everything that happens to us, and everything we “decide” to do. Because Allah’s will is perceived as ultimately unfathomable and arbitrary, Islam shares a certain despotic fatalism with all other and more obvious paganisms. This, at least, is what Rosenzweig argued in his 1921 book The Star of Redemption (which I encountered for the first time in the current issue of First Things), an argument which, whether or not we choose to use the loaded term pagan in this context, is not only persuasive but helpful in understanding how Islamic monotheism is so different from that of Judaism or Christianity.

Who We Are

Revelation requires two parties, God and the people to whom He opens Himself. In a relationship of love, not only do we understand more fully Who God is, but we understand more fully who we are. For those who love must necessarily be both persons and free agents. Yes, they are mysteriously sustained in existence by God, but out of love, in a way that liberates from fatalism. We are real separate beings with our own freedom and our own purposes, not beings who are continually recreated as pawns in some theistic game of dice. It is precisely this stability and independence, in persons created in the image and likeness of God, which makes it possible for us to enter into relationships with each other and with God Himself.
 
Again, for the Muslim, the idea of a personal relationship with Allah which can be nurtured to grow in a consistent way is extremely foreign. Whatever will be will be, as Allah wills it. Rosenzweig argues that this has enormous implications not only for personal spirituality (which, theoretically, should be reduced to desperate obedience) but for society and culture. He suggests that the pagan’s personality cannot be formed by personal growth with God and is therefore left to be merely an extension of race and state, locked in a struggle for racial or national survival, a struggle which in the end must always be doomed. Hence while the distinctive mark of Christian or Jewish culture is its concern for the weak and vulnerable, the distinctive mark of pagan culture is war, the extension of submission. Hence too the common emphasis on personal suicide in the service of the larger cause. What we saw in Japanese warfare in World War II, we now see in Islam, in spades.

The Role of Reason

Given the severe constraints Islam places on God and anthropology—that is, the arbitrariness and the fatalism—the attempt to introduce consistent rational discourse or philosophy into an Islamic culture faces severe obstacles. The operation of reason depends precisely on certain consistencies in reality which Islam tends to deny. And yet there have been great flashes of rational discourse and philosophy during certain periods of Islamic history. We must never forget that Judaism and Christianity were profound influences on Mohammed, and that no culture or people is ever perfectly explained by an analytical theory, even a theory as suggestive and illuminating as Rosenzweig’s.

For this reason, the great challenge of Pope Benedict XVI can be better understood but never dismissed. In his now infamous Regensberg address, quoting a Christian emperor’s dialogue with Islam half a millennium ago, Benedict noted that “God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature.” In his own voice, Benedict continued: “For Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.” On this basis, the Pope issued his own counter-assertion:
Code:
God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf.
And so Benedict keeps asking his fundamental question: Can Islam find within itself a basis on which to use human reason for discussion and collaboration with other peoples in other cultures? If so, the Islamic conception of an utterly arbitrary God must inevitably slowly change, colored by aspects of Judeo-Christian Revelation which have heretofore gone undeveloped. Rosenzweig would ask the same question in terms of whether Islam is, or can become, more than merely a monotheistic paganism. Franz Rosenzweig’s remarkable analysis, now nearly 90 years old, sheds enormous light on one of the central issues of our times.
 
Ironic you started this thread.

Here is what hamba2han says on the Apostles & Islam thread: "You need to understand that in Islam, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was appointed by God to not merely be a ‘postman’ delivering a divine Message but rather he was a vicegerent who will teach, administer and rule the people on behalf of God according to the divine laws that were revealed to him and the earlier Prophets (pbut) who were sent before him.

And so, since the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is indeed the vicegerent of God who has been sent to all nations bringing with him God’s Final Revelation to humankind, then obviously he has to be obeyed by anyone who professes to believe in the Message that he brought to the world."

By hamba2han’s own admission Muhammed is a vicegerent with Allah. Vice, co, equal with… Yep! Polythestic! 👍
 
I think you seriously need to look up the ‘viceregent’, it doesn’t mean that at all.

But regardless nowhere in Islamic sources is Muhammad (pbuh) titled as such. He called himself “God’s servant and messenger”, and that’s what we call him.
 
I think you seriously need to look up the ‘viceregent’, it doesn’t mean that at all.

But regardless nowhere in Islamic sources is Muhammad (pbuh) titled as such. He called himself “God’s servant and messenger”, and that’s what we call him.
Don’t Muslims believe that obeying Muhammad is like obeying God?? Isn’t that putting a creature on the same plane as God?? Sounds like ascribing partners to God!

Vickie
 
No it’s not, because God in the Qur’an commands us to follow the Messenger, so to obey him is to obey God. If we were to obey Muhammad (pbuh) on no other authority than his own then you might have a point.

Are you going to accuse Jews of polytheism because they believe they must obey Moses and the Prophets (pbut)? Or would applying such polemical logic to the Tanakh be self-defeating?
 
Again, for the Muslim, the idea of a personal relationship with Allah which can be nurtured to grow in a consistent way is extremely foreign. Whatever will be will be, as Allah wills it.

…{snip}…
Islam MUST harden into a strong but brittle metal glass.

When that “solid-like fluid” (glass) is finally met with a sharp shock, it will shatter.

Once it shatters, it will have the potential of being annealed with revelation, and forming a great arm of the Church. This happens on an individual basis rather more often than is publicized.

The change WON’T be slow. It will be a phase-shift of rapid evolution, because of the utter incompatibility between the concepts of Father and Slaver.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.
 
No it’s not, because God in the Qur’an commands us to follow the Messenger, so to obey him is to obey God. If we were to obey Muhammad (pbuh) on no other authority than his own then you might have a point.

Are you going to accuse Jews of polytheism because they believe they must obey Moses and the Prophets (pbut)? Or would applying such polemical logic to the Tanakh be self-defeating?
And who told you that God said that? The same man that claims that he has to be obeyed as God! :rolleyes: And you actually believe it!:whacky:

Vickie
 
I think you seriously need to look up the ‘viceregent’, it doesn’t mean that at all.

But regardless nowhere in Islamic sources is Muhammad (pbuh) titled as such. He called himself “God’s servant and messenger”, and that’s what we call him.
So is your co-religionist being a bit overzelous in his portrayal of Muhammad then?
 
No it’s not, because God in the Qur’an commands us to follow the Messenger, so to obey him is to obey God. If we were to obey Muhammad (pbuh) on no other authority than his own then you might have a point.
In the first place you have no proof that the Quran is the word of God except that Muhammad said so!
Are you going to accuse Jews of polytheism because they believe they must obey Moses and the Prophets (pbut)? Or would applying such polemical logic to the Tanakh be self-defeating?
No! The Jewish religion is rational unlike Islam and Moses was a *real *prophet! So as far as I’m concerned there is no comparison between the two.

Vickie
 
So is your co-religionist being a bit overzelous in his portrayal of Muhammad then?
In my view, yes. But even so he was a long long way from making Muhammad (pbuh) out to be God.
No! The Jewish religion is rational unlike Islam and Moses was a *real *prophet! So as far as I’m concerned there is no comparison between the two.

Vickie
Well as far as Muslims are concerned Muhammad (pbuh) was a real Prophet just like Moses (pbuh), so this argument isn’t very effective.
 
No! The Jewish religion is rational unlike Islam and Moses was a *real *prophet! So as far as I’m concerned there is no comparison between the two.

Vickie
Well as far as Muslims are concerned Muhammad (pbuh) was a real Prophet just like Moses (pbuh), so this argument isn’t very effective.
 
In my view, yes. But even so he was a long long way from making Muhammad (pbuh) out to be God.

Well as far as Muslims are concerned Muhammad (pbuh) was a real Prophet just like Moses (pbuh), so this argument isn’t very effective.
Why Islam…?

Because it’s simple. The simple love it.

Why not Islam…?

Because it’s simple. Revelation is messy. Reality is messy.

I choose reality to simplicity.

Will we ever agree on this?

No. Not until reality is prefered to simplicity, which will never be the case to the un-revealed-to.
 
Yeah the highlights of it are also that Islam is like paganism in that both never originate in God revealing himself to his people except in what it borrows in bits and pieces from Judaism and Christianity.

The Koran is also meant to be read and heard as a dictation and taken for what it is literally with no interpretation. Because of that Islam is not open to reason, collaboration with other cultures, and is not able to coexist with anything else in a civilized way.

I give this too all Muslims who claim that Christians got it wrong in the New Testament. As much as they say the Bible is corrupt and wrong; them using it in parts to promote Islam is blasphemy.

Revelations (22:18-20) "I (John) warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.

The one who gives this testimony says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen! Come Lord Jesus!"
 
In my view, yes. But even so he was a long long way from making Muhammad (pbuh) out to be God.

Well as far as Muslims are concerned Muhammad (pbuh) was a real Prophet just like Moses (pbuh), so this argument isn’t very effective.
Really! And does a real prophet who claims to be a blessing for all mankind make his living by stealing, or teaching that lying is okay to fool unbelievers, who rapes women captives after having their husbands tortured and killed before their very eyes, who had people assassinated simply because they wrote satyrical poems about him??

Vickie
 
Why Islam…?

Because it’s simple. The simple love it.

Why not Islam…?

Because it’s simple. Revelation is messy. Reality is messy.

I choose reality to simplicity.

Will we ever agree on this?

No. Not until reality is prefered to simplicity, which will never be the case to the un-revealed-to.
And especially when they can’t even tell the difference between good and evil. How can anybody with any sense see Muhammad as a good man!

Vickie
 
In my view, yes. But even so he was a long long way from making Muhammad (pbuh) out to be God.
Well Kadaveri, hamba2han has informed us that actions speak louder than words so when Muslims kill people for insulting their prophet, claiming it is blasphemy (a profanne abuse of GOD) their actions illustrate their true belief about Muhammad.

Sorry, if you don’t like that, but hamba2han is right. Actions do speak louder than words. I do hope that Muslims will someday soon decide which is the true Islam so we may prepare for honest dialouge or brace for war.
 
Muslims putting Mohammed on the same level as God is not the articles argument. The fact that there is no interpretation or revelation to the people is.
 
And especially when they can’t even tell the difference between good and evil. How can anybody with any sense see Muhammad as a good man!

Vickie
Dont forget, Muslims in a sense are like a heard of sheep, they follow their master Mohammads thinking, and thats it.
You pointed out this perfectly when you said they believe him because he said so. He said to them God gave him the quran, cause he said so, they dont seem to question it, they dont ask why, they just believe it.
We have seen lately on these forums that any debates we have with them, they are shot down in flames, they either dont answer the questions by avoiding them, or just change the subject all together.
Now this is where the scary part comes for them, they can see the mistakes in their religion, but alas, if they leave, its a death sentence waiting for them if they do.
So they really are in a sticky situation.
Which also raises a question, it says in the ten commandments do not murder, so why would a God allow mankind to murder for leaving a religion if its a sin?? I give up trying to understand Islam.
Im so glad im catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top