Quran 5:116

[Lapell]

So, in order to love Muhammad in the same way that Muslims love Jesus, we would need to show that Muhammad actually did something positive for Christianity (if we were really trying to “match” them, we would need to show that Muhammad preached Christianity). Unfortunately for Muslims, this is not the case. Muhammad did the exact opposite, destroying Christianity in his homeland and inspiring others to do the same elsewhere. So, of course we should love Muhammad as we should love everyone, but we cannot do so for the same kinds of reasons that Muslims love Isa, because those reasons just aren’t there.

I don’t know if the Arabic word for Muslim actually implies that one must believe in God the exact way Muhammad did.
I tend to think not. I understand that it means “submitted to God”.
If it necessarily would mean that God is a master and we are to be strictly slaves, then of course Jesus was not. But if we from our free will choose to do the Will of God as it is revealed to us from the Holy Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church (for us Catholic Christians mainly) or through our conscience if we were not raised as Christians, aren’t we then “submitted to God”? In this sense then, if the word for Muslim means this, Jesus (and the Christians truly folllowing in His steps) would truly be a “Muslim” ( but not necessarily one of Muhammad’s disciples!)… if, like I said, what I just described fit the meaning of the word for “Muslim”. Otherwise, if it just can’t fit the actual meaning of the word, then I agree that neither Jesus nor the Jews nor any one of us could be called Muslims. Is this clear enough a statement (although a bit long out of necessity)?
What you seem to attribute to Muhammad I thought was to be rather attributed to his successors. And from what I understand it (theoretically) is when the people act against Muslims because of their being Muslims…

 

[Lapell]

dzheremi, you tried to state what you were thinking, and even though it may have called for some more precisions, I can’t blame you at all. Cristal clarity doesn’t come immediately, and even when it does look cristal clear it might call for further developments to make it more just, more faithful to the truth and… clearer. You often have to think: There is this, of course, but on the other end,… and then, on the other end… and on the other end… and so on. It might seem a lot of fuss, but how do you otherwise come to have a deeper insight on things?

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t know if the Arabic word for Muslim actually implies that one must believe in God the exact way Muhammad did.

As it has been explained to me by native Arabic speakers, “Muslim” means “one who submits” (to the will of God, ostensibly). Since we can assume that this word did not have the specific meaning of “follower of the Islamic religion” prior to the advent of Islam, I don’t know what you mean when you say that the term “Muslim” might not entail believing in God as Muhammad defined it in the Qur’an. It seems pretty obvious that it must at least include that definition, and since it is a definition that is mutually exclusive with the conception of God in Christianity, I think you are trying to make something out of wishful thinking and grasping at linguistic straws. Sorry to be so blunt, but I can’t help but have the same reaction to this line of thinking as I have when one of our Muslim posters claims to be a “better Christian” than the actual Christians here, by virtue of the respect given to Jesus and Mary in Islam. I usually try to point out to them that Christianity is not founded on the idea that Jesus is a nice guy, or had good things to say (though both of these things are true). It is belief in Jesus’ divinity that forms the basis of Christianity. Similarly, a Muslim, to be a “submitter” in the way prescribed to him by his religion, must embrace a certain idea of God as expressed in the Qur’an. To do otherwise would risk going against the Qur’an and placing oneself outside of the fold of the religion.

I tend to think not.

Based on what, exactly? The blurring of distinctions between different kinds of “submitters” when it is necessary on the part of those doing the blurring to emphasize certain shared characteristics between Islam and the other Abrahamic faiths? If a Catholic is not an Orthodox Christian, when we agree at a much more significant level about the nature of God (“filioque” controversy set aside, for the purposes of this argument), then how could a Christian of ANY kind consider himself a Muslim, when the two faiths have fundamentally different understandings and claims about the nature and character of God? You can keep thinking of “Muslim” in the broadest sense possible so that you and I and Sister Amy and Planten are all “Muslims”, but I would guess that no one but yourself of the four people mentioned would be comfortable with such a designation. Words have to have communally agreed upon meanings or else we lose our ability to communicate. If I call myself a “Muslim” because I submit to God while worshiping Him in accordance with the Catholic faith, what will happen when I practice my unique form of “Islam” among Muslims who follow Muhammad? Nothing good, that’s for sure. It is an affront to both religions.

What you seem to attribute to Muhammad I thought was to be rather attributed to his successors. And from what I understand it (theoretically) is when the people act against Muslims because of their being Muslims…

And I attributed it to Muhammad’s successors where it is known that they did so (such as with Ahmed Gragn’s gutting of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church in the 9th century). The destruction of Arabian Christianity might best be laid at the feet of Muhammad for the most obvious reason that Muhammad brought forth Islam, which created the whole impetus to destroy the pre-existing religious communities of Arabia in the first place. Unless you want to argue that there is no correlation between the two and the Christians that had been there before left or were murdered of their own accord…I don’t think that’s what you’re saying or want to say.

As to that last bit, “act against Muslims because of their being Muslims”…yeah, that’s what is said. Don’t you wonder, though, how they can say it with a straight face when the indigenous religious communities were “acted against” (decimated) on account of their not being Muslims? I know I sure do. I guess it’s a case of “do as I say, not as I do”…

 

[Lapell]

Dear dzheremi, if you had read my post, you’d have seen that it’s a case of “either…or”. Even Muslims seem to differ among themselves about what the proper teachings of Islam are, if I can remember how Muslims from the USA on this thread disagree on certain things with Muslims based in the regions between Irak and Pakistan, for instance…

 

[dzheremi]

What is an “either or” case? I’m sorry, my friend, I am just not seeing what you mean. And if anything I think I made it clear that the “either/or” case with regard to Islam is one of either following the Quran’s depiction of God or the Christian idea, not because the two don’t share characteristics, but because they each deny what is central to the other (Islam denies Christ’s divinity as Islam understands the Christian idea of that; Christianity denies the Islamic idea of a remote, cruel, fickle God as Christianity understands the Muslim idea of God to be that).

I am not disagreeing that we are all “submitters” to God (after all, there is One God!), but it is within the traditions/guidelines of our faith, whatever that faith is. I don’t call myself a Muslim because I understand that tradition to entail certain doctrines that are anathema to me. Similarly, I won’t accept others’ self-assignment of “Christian” if they deny Christ’s divinity. Being a Christian, just like being a Muslim, means believing in certain core things, and living in a certain way.

Again, where is the “either/or” in that?

 

[Lapell]

dzheremi, this is my “either/or” statement. Only the words “either” and “or” are not there per se, it rather is “if” and "but if "… By saying it’s a “either/or” statement, I might have erred formally maybe. But from the statement itself I thought it to be a true “either/or” statement nevertheless. O.K.?

I don’t know if the Arabic word for Muslim actually implies that one must believe in God the exact way Muhammad did.I tend to think not. I understand that it means “submitted to God”. If it necessarily would mean that God is a master and we are to be strictly slaves, then of course Jesus was not.
But if we from our free will choose to do the Will of God as it is revealed to us from the Holy Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church (for us Catholic Christians mainly) or through our conscience if we were not raised as Christians, aren’t we then “submitted to God”?
In this sense then, if the word for Muslim means this, Jesus (and the Christians truly folllowing in His steps) would truly be a “Muslim” ( but not necessarily one of Muhammad’s disciples!)… if, like I said, what I just described fit the meaning of the word for “Muslim”. Otherwise, if it just can’t fit the actual meaning of the word, then I agree that neither Jesus nor the Jews nor any one of us could be called Muslims.

 

[Lapell]

(Islam denies Christ’s divinity as Islam understands the Christian idea of that; Christianity denies the Islamic idea of a remote, cruel, fickle God as Christianity understands the Muslim idea of God to be that).

Where did you get the notion that it’s “Christianity’s” understanding that the “Muslim” idea of God is that: cruel, remote, fickle? My understanding is rather that it see what a number of Christians believe it to be, which is not quite the same thing!!

 

[meedo]

What is an “either or” case? I’m sorry, my friend, I am just not seeing what you mean. And if anything I think I made it clear that the “either/or” case with regard to Islam is one of either following the Quran’s depiction of God or the Christian idea, not because the two don’t share characteristics, but because they each deny what is central to the other (Islam denies Christ’s divinity as Islam understands the Christian idea of that; Christianity denies the Islamic idea of a remote, cruel, fickle God as Christianity understands the Muslim idea of God to be that).

I am not disagreeing that we are all “submitters” to God (after all, there is One God!), but it is within the traditions/guidelines of our faith, whatever that faith is. I don’t call myself a Muslim because I understand that tradition to entail certain doctrines that are anathema to me. Similarly, I won’t accept others’ self-assignment of “Christian” if they deny Christ’s divinity. Being a Christian, just like being a Muslim, means believing in certain core things, and living in a certain way.

Again, where is the “either/or” in that?

We never understand god as cruelf or fickle or remote. i have no clue where Christians get this from?

 

[Lapell]

We never understand god as cruelf or fickle or remote. i have no clue where Christians get this from?

Not all Christians, meedo. It’s not a Christian teaching, it’s what a number of individuals, some of whom happen to be Christians, would think…

 

[Lapell]

I am a Christian myself, a Catholic, that is, and I disagree with that thought.

 

[meedo]

I am a Christian myself, a Catholic, that is, and I disagree with that thought.

You are right. I appologise, i didn’t mean to generalise. i have actually met many cartholics and also other Christians who are open minded.

Catholics seem to be more intellectual than other denominations for some reason . When i go to a forum like CARM , it is like teh bottom of a trash bin . The worst accusations and insults against muslims here are the norm there .

I think that this site is much better than fundamentalist protestant sites.

best regards,

meedo

 

[dzheremi]

Lapell, Meedo,

Please re-read the quoted statement:

(Islam denies Christ’s divinity as Islam understands the Christian idea of that; Christianity denies the Islamic idea of a remote, cruel, fickle God as Christianity understands the Muslim idea of God to be that).

The key is “as ____ understands it to be”. Islam rejects what it understands as the Christian claims of Christ’s divinity. This is the impulse behind the statements in the Qur’an that call for Muslims to “not say three” (or something like that; sorry, it’s been quoted on this board before, but I don’t have a Qur’an in front of me to check the actual wording). Who else is claiming a Trinity other than Christians. Of course, as any Christian will tell you, what is denied in the Qur’an is not the Trinity as Christians understand it.

Similarly, Christians often charge that the relationship between Allah and Allah’s creation in Islam is more remote, fickle, whatever you want to call it, than it is in Christianity. The point is not that there is one Christian claim (so maybe it is poorly phrased to say “Christianity’s understanding”) in this regard or that Muslims worship a qualitatively different God than the Christians do (some Christians obviously have no problem saying that we worship the same God as the Muslims; I am one of them), but that this is a claim that Christians make based on our relative understandings of our relationship to/with God in our respective religions. I have seen this argument happen over and over on this board, usually from Christians to Muslims. I have myself asked questions that presume a vastly different relationship to/with God in the two religions, when I’ve felt that they would illuminate my understanding of Islamic worship and thought. Some Muslims here have essentially confirmed that there is a difference in understanding here, so I do not think I am presuming anything terribly offensive here, only saying that, to the extent that Christians make the argument here that the Islamic conception of Allah seems more remote than the Christian concept, they also reject their understanding of that Allah based on what they presume the Muslims to believe.

I hope this makes more sense. I didn’t type any of that to offend anyone, so I apologize, Meedo and Lapell, if I have offended either of you. My point is that we often do not understand each other or what the other religion believes as well as we think we do, but that does not stop us from rejecting it anyway, because we presume our religion or representatives of it to be correct in its depiction of the world.

Don’t we? I know I do. That doesn’t mean that I necessarily agree with every argument put forth by anyone claiming to be Christian here (for instance, I tire easily of the “Allah is a pagan moon-god”/“Allah is Muhammad’s alter ego” idea…it’s disgusting and offensive), or take any Muslim’s statement as representative of some monolithic “Islam” that does not exist, but I do think it is necessary, out of respect for both religions, to discuss openly and honestly as best as I can the sort of presumptions I operate under as a Catholic Christian, and I appreciate it when our Muslim friends here do the same regarding their own inherited presumptions.

 

[Steven_John]

It is all true to understand God is all knowing.
He also loves His goodness in all creation.

My understanding of the Quran is it is in arabic and is given to arabic speaking people in a place and time so they could be corrected.

This does not say that the “message” is not timeless but we must understand how and to whom it was addressed.

The message is at times not the literal words as we interpenet them today

I have prayed long and hard about this.

Does any one know of the Syrian Christians who thought they understood the trinity but would today be seen as believing tritheism.
(some of these people may have had conflict with Christians over their false hood)

Mohamed (pbuh) and his community would have had much contact with theses people.

These people could have been well intended and propagated their belief.

In this case a loving God would need to communicate to these people to give them knowledge
He is one and needs nothing, if you like He is alone and has no partner.

It would need to be done in terms that would effectively correct the misinformation in people with very low intellect in comparison to ours today.

I guess many Christian converts would have really seen Gods goodness in the image and stories of Mary (bbhn) and mixed some of their godess worship practice. We are creatures of habit.

I have not knowingly met sinless Christians of Muslims, we aspire to serve and submit to God wholly but fall short until we complete our journey.

At a personal level i think it is wrong for us to take statements made about people of old and place them on people of today who have the same label.

I am not good communicator May God forgive me for any error and only show you His truth.

 

[Lapell]

Christianity denies the Islamic idea of a remote, cruel, fickle God as Christianity understands the Muslim idea of God to be that.

Put THIS way, it sounds like you said that to “Christianity”, the Muslim idea of God would be one of a remote, cruel and fickle God. Isn’t this what you actually said? Maybe this is a mistake, that you meant really something else, but this is what came out, and it’s to THIS that we responded, dzheremi. O.K.?
As for Jesus’ divinity being denied by Islam, I am not questionng this at all, for it is the case… (even though Islam recognizes him to be a prophet and thus a man of God!)

 

[Steven_John]

I don’t know if the Arabic word for Muslim actually implies that one must believe in God the exact way Muhammad did.
I tend to think not. I understand that it means “submitted to God”.
If it necessarily would mean that God is a master and we are to be strictly slaves, then of course Jesus was not. But if we from our free will choose to do the Will of God as it is revealed to us from the Holy Scriptures, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church (for us Catholic Christians mainly) or through **our conscience if we were not raised as Christians, aren’t we then “submitted to God”? ****In this sense then, if the word for Muslim means this, Jesus (and the Christians truly folllowing in His steps) would truly be a “Muslim” ( but not necessarily one of Muhammad’s disciples!)… if, like I said, what I just described fit the meaning of the word for “Muslim”. **Otherwise, if it just can’t fit the actual meaning of the word, then I agree that neither Jesus nor the Jews nor any one of us could be called Muslims. Is this clear enough a statement (although a bit long out of necessity)?
**What you seem to attribute to Muhammad I thought was to be rather attributed to his successors. **And from what I understand it (theoretically) is when the people act against Muslims because of their being Muslims…

I reckon this is a pretty good post, from my limited reading ability the Quran does not speak against all Christians and Jews. It even offers names of some Jews and Christians as Muslims (submitters).

The Quran was given to those people of that time in their language so they may understand. (i dont offer this to deny its timeless value or value to peoples of other languages).

While Trinity may have been well taught by this time, i would suggest no one in this forum could state none of the people were in error of their understanding of the trinity.
These people had some 360 gods and and others had goddesses, i have not read any posters here to have faith in the same.

It maybe helpful to look upon the Quran as an address to people rather than the words from a source.

People of the Islamic faith would do well not to decide because some one says the are Christian or Jew that they are the enemy.

People of Christian and Jewish faith would do well not to take the warnings about Christians and Jews upon themselves if they don not apply.

People of the Islamic faith profess Jesus (pbwh) was created by Gods command and given the pure spirit.
He is not flesh of flesh as we all are and Mohammad (pbuh) was. That is to me created by The Divine source and given the Holy spirit is that not at some level acknowledgment of divinity?

We could argue that one must see Jesus (pbwh) as God but some could have trouble then and say Jesus (pbwh) ordered the killing of those who would not submit to God, he did not.
But God has ordered this before when it was needed.

So for me Jesus (pbwh) can not be the entirety of God.
Nor can God be in need of Jesus (pbwh) but it is you and i that needed to see how God can be fully with us (you and me) and we can be perfectly with God.
God offered to us in him the perfect model of our being.

God is most merciful and knows we will fall short (by our choice not His will) so we have other models while not perfect are still models of right relationship with God.

If people choose to pray through or to dead people or anything else it brings no harm to me personally only to that that surrounds me in this world and My Fathers kingdom is not like this
.
It brings no harm to The One True God for It needs nothing from us but wants to give it all to us.
It could only bring harm to the individuals that stray and those that follow them and we need to remember The One True God looks to the heart and is most merciful, this mercy is greater than all of our sins and transgressions.

We have so much alike and yet embrace our differences.

Jewish people were taught by prophets (pbut) to submit to the One True God.

Christians profess Jesus (pbwh) is the one and only teacher and he taught to pray to the Father meaning the One and Only God he submitted himself to.
He taught no other way that has been narrated as his speech available to me now that i know of.

People of the Islamic faith profess Mohammad (pbuh) taught to pray to Allah the same deity Jesus (pbwh) did.

ALL PRAISE BE TO THE ONE TRUE GOD OF ALL CREATION FOR THIS ONE WAY.

If two ore all three of these groups embraced this and pray and work in unity what do think God could do through us?

These three groups are all chosen by God and i don’t care who is best, if we humble ourselves to serve Gods goodness in each other and unite to be a trinity, God through us could quickly jihad in love against the growing force of satan in people that deny Our God. That is our real enemy satan just tricks us into thinking it is each other so we divide.
In unity as Gods army of love tell satan we want you to submit your self to your creator and us because we love you or be gone from us forever more.

I will be, who I will be,
it’s your choice to see me

 

[DLC]

Christians do not hate Catholics. They hate their idolatry, their work oriented system of salvation Eph 2:8-9, their denial of faith alone for salvation John 3:16, and their denial of sola scriptura 2 Tim. 3:16.

 

[DLC]

Q. Have you come the place in your spiritual life where you **know for sure **that when you die that you go to heaven?

why or why not?

 

[swariffin]

I think the topic is Quran 5:116. Why do we see discussion about Catholics vs Christian ??

 

[Lapell]

Christians do not hate Catholics. They hate their idolatry, their work oriented system of salvation Eph 2:8-9, their denial of faith alone for salvation John 3:16, and their denial of sola scriptura 2 Tim. 3:16.

What idolatry? You fell into that misconception… Do you worship the pictures of the ones you love?

 

[Lapell]

Since we Catholics believe IN Jesus Christ, of course we are Christians! This should be obvious to you, really!