Posted on 12/04/2006 10:22:38 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Which One God? Comparing the Muslim and Christian conceptions of God.
By Bat Yeor
With the passing of time, hidden challenges, which for a long time had been growing unnoticed and unaddressed, can suddenly emerge into the full-blown light of current events with a force which seems quite overwhelming. Today the Western world, or Judeo-Christian civilization, shaken by jihadist terror, is being rudely awakened to theological realities blurred for decades. From clashes of civilizations to the jihad that is declaring to the planet its genocidal intentions, rational discourse concerning faith is becoming increasingly fraught.
It is within this tumult and confusion that Mark Durie, an Anglican minister, has written Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God?, in which he raises a couple of fundamental questions: Who is God? Is God Allah? Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?
To answer these questions, he analyzes Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God in Christianity and Islam. The reader is given a concise representation of Muslim and Christian arguments. Such an endeavor needs both solid scholarship and theological training. Mark Durie possesses both, being a theologian and a graduate in the language and culture of the Acehnese, a Muslim people from the north of Sumatra in Indonesia. In addition, the subjects he addresses, in the current context, request much intellectual integrity and courage.
But how to know the identity of “God” in the Koran and in the Bible? The author stresses that this profound and deep question requires engaging with the very essence of God’s identity. With perspicacity and great objectivity, Durie delineates the diverse aspects of his investigations, but he warns that his book should be seen only as guidance, and not the last word.
Durie’s questioning grows from the Koran’s statement that Jesus is a Muslim prophet, named Isa — a prophet whose birth, life, teaching, and death are found to be totally at odds with the testimony of the Gospels and with Biblical theology. The Koran — which for Muslims is the literal word of Allah that cannot be doubted — affirms that Muhammad’s prophetic message is exactly the same as that expressed by the Torah and the Gospels. Since there are many contradictions between the Koran and the Bible, Muslim orthodoxy considers the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity as falsifications of the primal and unique Islamic revelation. It is this accusation that provided the doctrinal justification for the discriminatory legal status of Jews and Christians living under Islam.
In the first section, the author provides information about and reflections upon the Muslim Jesus (Isa). He stresses as fundamental the Koran’s teaching that Islam is the first, primordial religion, preceding Judaism and Christianity, which are dismissed as invalid traditions, being falsified versions of Islam. Because Christianity and Judaism are thought to be a corruption of the pure message of Islam, anything true in these religions comes from their Islamic roots. Consequently, to obey their true religion, Jews and Christians should “revert” to Islam and accept the prophethood of Muhammad.
This implies, writes Durie, that anyone who opposes Muhammad is not a true Christian, nor a true Jew. Seen in this light, the Koranic verses sympathetic to Jews and Christians refer to those who will see the light and find it to be Islam. If Islam recognizes only itself in Judaism and Christianity, one can wonder whether this replacement theology is not the negation of the very principle of recognition of other religions.
Many Christians profess that Christianity is closer to Islam than to Judaism, because of a common reverence of Jesus/Isa and his mother Mary. They will be astonished to learn from Durie that according to hadiths — acts and sayings attributed to Muhammad, and endowed with theological and legislative authority — Isa, the Muslim Jesus, will be the ultimate destroyer of Christianity.
Durie examines the characters of Jesus and Isa, separated by six centuries; he compares their name and biographies and explains the differing understandings of the prophecy in the Bible and the Koran. While Christianity accepts Jewish Scriptures as the foundation of their belief and practice, and as an integral part of Christian ministry, read in churches around the world, Muslims disregard the Bible. They claim that it is Islam that is the common heritage of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and that Jews and Christians should work to recover this heritage. Durie comments that, in this process, the Islamization of Jesus and the Hebrew patriarchs and prophets destroys both Christianity and Judaism.
The author analyses with great clarity and depth the fundamental principles of the two religions and, in a powerful chapter that raises essential questions, he discusses the concept of “Abrahamic Faith” that has become so fashionable today as a framework for dialogue. This definition, he points out, originates from the Koranic statement that Abraham was a Muslim prophet and from Islam’s core doctrine that Islam was the one revelation given to humanity by Allah through the Biblical figures and through Jesus. For Durie, the many “Abrahamic Faith” conferences throughout the world point to the Islamization of Christian understandings of interfaith dialogue. How should Christians respond to this claim which is a fundamental point of Muslim doctrine? Durie develops several arguments based on a rational analysis of history and the texts.
In his conclusion, Durie writes that profound contrasts exist in Islam and Christianity in their understanding of the identity of God. These have far-reaching implications, affecting attitudes, ethics, and politics. The clarification of misunderstandings and false assumptions, masterly exposed by Durie, is a condition to open the way for more constructive dialogue.
Durie’s book could not have been more timely. He offers a well-balanced analysis, acknowledging the important similarities of the two faiths, without ever misrepresenting the real disagreements or ignoring the hard issues. In this time of globalization, when crucial challenges are emerging for the West’s post-Christian societies, Durie’s reflections provide essential and fundamental guidance that will enable Christians to engage in a dialogue based on truth.
This is all the more urgent now that the cultural jihad in the West is preventing the free expression of thought and belief, and is subverting the whole ethical foundation of Judeo-Christianity.
— Bat Yeor is the author of studies on the conditions of Jews and Christians in the context of the jihad ideology and the sharia law. Recent books include: Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide and Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, both at Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Show me where the name "Yahweh" appears in ancient Pagan texts. [...] This just further proves my point. El, allah, Eloah, Eloi, Elohim are GENERIC names for deity. Just like the word "god". It's clear from your own source that El refers to a specific Levantine god of rain and the sky. There was no use of "YHVH" before Moses, chronologically as well as in the text. Are you claiming that Moses worshiped a different god than Adam, Abraham, and Isaac? Or that YHVH and the Creator of the Universe are not the same?
If you can't see what I'm getting at with this point (that the name Yahweh appears no where in islamic holy texts) then I can't help you. The name "allah" does not (and has never) = "Yahweh". EVER.It has never been translated into arabic despite the fact that other semitic peoples (Assyrians and Chaldeans) have translated "Yahweh" as "Mariah" both meaning "Lord"
"Yahweh" does not mean "Lord". I could "translate" your name into something with a different pronunciation and meaning, but that's not the point of translation.
And you have yet to show me how the word "allah" in arabic relates in any way to the word "Yahweh".
For the second (or is it third) time, both "Allah" and "YHVH" are the written forms used to refer to God.
It's just that muslims do it far less pleasantly.
I really don't.
And in the Syriac bibles it's found all over the Torah too, but TRANSLATED INTO SYRIAC as "Mariah".
How can "Mariah" be a translation of "YHVH" but "Allah" can't? It's not as if Mariah (Syriac: "Lord") means the same as "YHVH" (Hebrew: "I am that I am"), so why exclude "Allah"?
A feat muhammed, his followers, and his demon never managed to accomplish.
Oh. Because you're a religious bigot, that's why.
1) Then I can't help you. Sorry.
2) Are you serious? Let me repeat this SLOWLY. Mariah is the Syriac translation of the word Yahweh. Do you understand that? allah can't be an arabic translation of the word "Yahweh" because allah is a translation of "Eloah". Both come from the same root word "il"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah#Etymology
3) I'm a proud religious bigot when it comes to pislam.
1) No I'm claiming when Abraham and others were using the words "el, elohim, eloah, etc..." they were using generic names that refered to deity. I've already given the example of the Hindu and Christian thanking "God" both may use the word "God" but they are referring to totally different beings.
2) Yes my bad "Yahweh" does not mean "Lord", I was confusing it with the word "Adonai".
3) So by your definition : Odin, Zeus, Krishna, Brahman, are written forms used to refer to God. But these Gods are not Yahweh and that's my whole point.
Let me repeat this: "Yahweh" is a proper noun that is a Roman alphabet rendering of the Tetragrammaton, YHVH. "Mariah" is not a translation of it any more than "Señor" is a translation of "John". They are different words.
The Tetragrammaton itself refers to God's response when Moses asks for His Name: "I am that I am". This does not mean "Lord". It is not a translation.
So they weren't praying to the God of Moses?
2) Yes my bad "Yahweh" does not mean "Lord", I was confusing it with the word "Adonai".
So the Syriac "translation" argument crumbles.
So by your definition : Odin, Zeus, Krishna, Brahman, are written forms used to refer to God.
No, Odin, Zeus, Krishna, etc. are understood as being members of different pantheons. They are not God as understood by Jews, Samaritans, Christians, Muslims and Baha'i. They are not the sole and universal God.
But these Gods are not Yahweh and that's my whole point.
So you're a pantheist who believes that there are many gods. This contradicts the basic tenet of monotheism: that there is only one God.
Oh yes it is. Mariah (or Maryah) is the Aramaic (and Syriac) translation of Yahweh.
http://www.studylight.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2423
"
Not only that, but in the Peshitta, Yeshoo (Yeshua/Jesus) is called MarYah somewhere around 32 times. The Peshitta leaves no doubt that Yeshua was Elohim (Alaha) manifest in the flesh. MarYah literally means Mar (Lord) Yah (shortened version of YHWH, or Yahweh). It is a compound word, Lord Yah. Yah is the accepted Aramaic shortening of Yahweh."
Islam has nothing remotely similar to this.
I know "Yahweh" doesn't mean "Lord" I said I confused it wity "Adonai" earlier.
1) Yes they were, using generic names for god available at the time. Just like when Christians pray to "God".
2) No the syriac/aramaic translation does't crumble, I linked to it above.
3) I'm sure followers of those pantheons would disagree with you. Brahaman is believed by the Hindus' to be the universal god. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
Odinists and Neo-Pagans, I'm thinking, have similar beliefs.
A two-year-old comment on an internet discussion board is hardly ironclad proof. It is an opinion or interpretation written by an anonymous or semi-anonymous poster.
Surprisingly, I am not qualified to comment on the intricacies of Syriac lexical morphology. Suffice it to say that if the internet comment you cite is accurate, it is clear that "Lord Yah" is not the same as "I am that I am". It is a title (denoted by "Mar") and not the statement that God made on Sinai.
Islam has nothing remotely similar to this.
Apparently, only the Syriac scriptures do. Are all other Christian denominations heretical?
So when Muslims pray to God, it's the same thing.
'm sure followers of those pantheons would disagree with you. Brahaman is believed by the Hindus' to be the universal god.
Monotheism means that there is one and only one universal God. Such is not the case with Hindu and Norse pantheons, which have many gods.
alright n00b, it's dinnertime for me. thanks for the interesting commentary on the syriac church.
More here :
http://cachicas.7host.com/shmaisrael/english/aramaic.htm
Maryah/(Mariah) Aramic/(Syriac) = Yahweh
I'm with you - I just posted that link myself, before I read down the thread to yours.
Excellent way to put it.
Allow me to present to you how I view the issue of how Jews and Muslims view God as opposed to Christians.
Firstly, it is possible to know the IDENTITY of a person, yet, be wrong about the person's attributes.
For instance, there are people who believe that George W. Bush is a sincere and honest, albeit a flawed president. There are others ( like Moveon.org or Michael Moore ) who believe that Bush is the second coming of Hitler himself.
It would be foolish to say that these people ( those who like Bush and those who hate Bush ) are speaking of two different persons. NO. They IDENTIFY the correct person, however they do not view him the same way. OBVIOUSLY, those closest to Bush know him the best.
In the same way, it is INACCURATE to say that Muslims, Jews and Christians worship different gods simply because their conception of God is different.
For instance, Jews do not believe that God can be incarnate, while Christians believe He can and DID become incarnate.
THEY CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT ABOUT GOD. However, it would be foolish to say that Christians do not worship YHWH as the Jews do. The difference is in HOW THEY VIEW YHWH's attribute and self-revelation.
Just as people can IDENTIFY the real Bush and can be wrong ABOUT who Bush really is, as a Christian, I can say that Jews IDENTIFY God correctly and worship Him, but worship Him IN ERROR BY DENYING HIS REVELATION OF HIMSELF ( only accepting PART of His revelation, not the whole ).
This brings me to my next point ---- WHOSE WORSHIP DOES GOD ACCEPT ?
If Jesus is correct, we must worship God IN SPIRIT *AND* IN TRUTH.
Consider Cain and Abel. BOTH WORSHIPPED THE ONE TRUE GOD ( just as Christians, Jews and Muslims do ). However, GOD ACCEPTED ABEL's WORSHIP AS BOTH SPIRITUAL AND TRUTHFUL and *REJECTED* Cain's worship and offering.
The lesson is this -- YOU WORSHIP GOD ON HIS TERMS, NOT ON YOURS. If you are wrong in your understanding of GOD's ATTRIBUTES and GOD's REVELATION, then you cannot worsip Him in truth.
IN THIS SENSE, IF JESUS IS INDEED THE SON OF GOD, THE WORD MDE FLESH... The Jews and Muslims unfortunately, like Cain, are worshipping God in a manner that is NOT ACCEPTABLE TO HIM.
They IDENTIFY THE CORRECT PERSON, BUT MISUNDERSTAND THIS PERSON's ATTRIBUTES AND REVELATION.
*THAT* is the main difference I see with Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Jesus is the perfect sacrifice prefigured in the Passover. There were four cups in the ritual. The third was the Todah (thanksgiving or Eucharista in Greek) offering of bread and wine. Jesus gave us His Body and His Blood as the passover lamb. In Jewish tradition, in the days of the Messiah, only the Todah offering would continue... and it does at every celebration of the Eucharist.
The fourth cup is the cup of consummation. Jesus, acting as priest and sacrifice on the cross completed the passover sacrifice with the drinking from the sponge. He then said, "It is finished." and gave up His Spirit in death.
John 19:30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, " It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His Spirit.
It is no more complicated than what is written in the text of Scripture. Your theologian went through some amazing theological gymnastics to avoid the 2,000 year old Catholic understanding... because obviously anything the Catholics believe must be wrong...
The Jews worship the God depicted in the same scriptures that Jesus himself read and interpreted. The New Testament is commentary on ther Torah, a prefection of it. The Koran is supposed to replace both and to give a picture of God that is at odds with both. Mormonism is somewhat like this, but gives much greater importance to Jesus.
The Catholic Catechism says, in effect, that we Christians now recognize Jesus as Lord; Jews will not until he comes again. Family reunion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.