shari@wpi.wpi.edu (Shari Deiana VanderSpek) (08/22/90)
>I think that it was Elijah Muhammad (from America) who said that he was both >a Christian and a Muslim. Correct me if I am wrong, but even if I am wrong, >is it possible to be Chrsitian and Muslim at the same time? someone had posted a reply to this, and my mailer deleted it. could you repost it? thanks!
brianc@daedalus.ucsf.EDU (Brian Colfer) (08/23/90)
In article <14584@wpi.wpi.edu> you write: >>I think that it was Elijah Muhammad (from America) who said that he was both >>a Christian and a Muslim. Correct me if I am wrong, but even if I am wrong, >>is it possible to be Chrsitian and Muslim at the same time? > > >someone had posted a reply to this, and my mailer deleted it. could you >repost it? thanks! Sammy Davis Jr. once said that he was both a Jew and a Christian. In explaining this remark he pointed out that he felt part of both cultures. This is probably what Elijah meant ... that he lives in both cultural worlds. I don't think he meant it theologically. -- Brian Colfer | UC San Francisco |------------------------| | Dept. of Lab. Medicine | System Administrator, | brianc@labmed.ucsf.edu | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | Programer/Analyst | BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET | PH. (415) 476-2325 |------------------------|
beekun@ncar.UCAR.EDU (R. I. Beekun) (08/27/90)
In article <14595@wpi.wpi.edu> muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers /100000) writes: >I don't think one can be both. At least a Muslim cannot be a Christian >because the essential thing of Christianity is that Christ is not a profet, >but God Himself. Accepting this, and forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ > is the only way for salvation in the Christian viewpoint. >From a Muslim's perspective, the true message of Jesus (Peace be upon him) is similar to the Qur'an in that both sets of revelations came from one same source: God. According to our Qur'an, Jesus (PBUH) is not the son of God or God Himself. God is Unique, Omnipotent and Ubiquitous. God does not need a Son to save mankind because each individual bears responsibility for his/her own sins. Both Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, both sinned and both were forgiven. Thus there is no need for a savior. Jesus is not God because God does not despair as Jesus allegedly did when he was on the cross. Nor does God die/become resurrected. God is eternal. [If you wish, I can cite relevant verses from the Qur'an to clarify what we, Muslims, believe.] Muslims believe that the true Christians knew the truth about Jesus, and held the same beliefs as Muslims now do with respect to this prophet and his mission. Therefore, in a sense, a true Christian (one who believed in the revelations put forth by Jesus [PBUH] ) is a Muslim and vice-versa. >(I think a Christian could not be a Muslim in the Muslim point of view as well, >because as a Christian we say that Gods Word is eternal and will never change, >therefore it is impossible that after Christ someone else could have been >sent by God who carries a message that is different from what Jesus taught.) Since there is no original text of the Bible available, and since the Bible (as we know it today) was not compiled until the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., and since Paul (who was Saul) never even knew Jesus during Jesus's (PBUH) stay on earth, it is hard to argue that the Bible is God's Word, and therefore incorruptible. The Qur'an is different. People memorized and wrote down the quranic revelations as they were revealed. The complete version of the Quran was compiled soon after the Prophet's (PBUH) death. There is only one version of the Qur'an, and it had not changed for 1400 years. Can you make the same assetion with respect to the Bible? In fact, the GOOD NEWS bible recently changed the words of the bible into "modern terminology", and removed "sexist" and "anti-semitic" references. Is this version of the bible the correct one or is the King James version the correct one? The true Bible (which you do not have) does not contradict the Quran. >Peter Mutsaers email: muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl Abu Syed Marwan ............................................................................ :... We decreed for the children of : : :Israel that whosoever kills a human : : :being for other than manslaughter or : / | "" | : :corruption in the earth, it shall be : / | | | | : :as though he had killed all mankind, : | | __| | | | : :and whoso saves the life of one, it : ____|___| | <__|__|__| | : :shall be as though he had saved the : | * : :life of all mankind. (Qur'an 5: 32) : _ / : :.....................................:....................................:
rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown) (08/30/90)
> >>Correct me if I am wrong, but even if I am wrong, > >>is it possible to be Chrsitian and Muslim at the same time? > > After thinking about it for 30 seconds or so, I'd imagine that Islam might qualify for the Christian heresy of Arianism. A basic tenet of the Arian position is that Jesus was a created being. If Islam regards Jesus as a great prophet and simply a man then they qualify on that point. However, most Arians (such as modern day Jehovah's Witnesses) believe Jesus was the highest created being which Islam probably doesn't subscribe to. So maybe on an Arian scale of 1 to 10, Islam would be a 1 ?? BB
goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) (08/30/90)
[Moderator's note: this article is approved because a portion of it is directly relevant to Islam. All replies must remain relevant to Islam to be approved. -Behnam] In article R. I. Beekun writes: > >Since there is no original text of the Bible available, and since the Bible >(as we know it today) was not compiled until the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., >and since Paul (who was Saul) never even knew Jesus during Jesus's (PBUH) stay >on earth, it is hard to argue that the Bible is God's Word, and therefore >incorruptible. I hate to see this sort of thing in an *Islamic* newsgroup, and I hate even more to respond. But it is important that Muslims understand what it is that Christians believe before they attempt to criticize or refute them. First of all, in the modern Protestant tradition there is much controversy about what "God's Word" is. Most now feel that the notion of verbal inspira- tion is primitive, and that in all ages God has accommodated his Truth to the languages and ideas of the peoples to whom he revealed himself. Differ- ences in textual and canonical traditions are nothing more than varied under- standings and receptions of God. Most modern Protestants do not understand the need for verbal inspiration that many religious traditions display. Catholics traditionally have valued the authority of the Church more than the authority of written revelation. The written revelation is indeed im- portant, but the Church and its traditions are the filter through which written revelation is viewed. One of the great points of controversy be- tween Catholics and Protestants in the 1500 and 1600s was over the text of the Bible. Catholics, like Muslims, pointed out that the original text was unrecoverable. This served as a basis for arguing that scripture could not, of itself, be the final spiritual authority. Catholics, traditionally, have no problem with the idea of an uncertain biblical text. The only Christians who traditionally believe in the importance of perfect preservation of the text of the Bible are very conservative Protestants. My point is that, when a Muslim criticizes a Christian for having a Bible whose text is uncertain, most Christians will either look puzzled, or else will place the Muslims with fundamentalist Christians, as a group of hopelessly primitive ideologues. I say this not to anger any Muslims. It is important to know how you are perceived by the people you criticize. It is also important, when engaging in polemics, to know what it is your opponents actually be- lieve. The bottom line is that many Christians simply don't understand the theological necessity of a perfectly preserved text. This belief must be justified before going on to criticize Christians for their ephemeral sacred text. >The Qur'an is different. People memorized and wrote down the quranic >revelations as they were revealed. The complete version of the Quran was >compiled soon after the Prophet's (PBUH) death. There is only one version >of the Qur'an, and it had not changed for 1400 years. Can you make >the same assetion with respect to the Bible? In fact, the GOOD NEWS bible >recently changed the words of the bible into "modern terminology", and >removed "sexist" and "anti-semitic" references. Is this version of >the bible the correct one or is the King James version the correct one? This also indicates a misunderstanding, and needs to be corrected. In many Christian camps, revelation is seen as a progressive thing. God is infinite, and no human language or set of cultural concepts can fully grasp his essence. The idea of the Good News Bible is to accommodate an older revelation to a new language and culture. To many Christians, the very act of reading an old text, written in an old language, com- posed in a different cultural environment involves such interpretations. Again, I say this not to criticize Muslims, but merely to try to inform Muslims about how Christians view revelation. Some Christians would agree that the Good News Bible goes too far. Many like it a lot. Some might argue that it doesn't go far enough. The point is, though, that few question the right of this or that group to try to put an ancient revelation into languages and cultural terms more appropriate for the modern world. I might also add that many Christians believe that the notion of a per- fectly memorized Quran a myth. No one's memory is perfect, so they would say, and the assertion that the Quranic revelations were memorized and written down, and then preserved perfectly, is an impossibility. They psychological need to believe in such a fantasy, so they would say, is again the apparent Muslim need to think that God can somehow communi- cate with human beings directly, in a non time-bound fashion. This is an idea most Christian groups would *not* accept. They only ones who still think this way are the fundamentalists. Muslims who argue along these lines are therefore, inevitably, lumped together with the Bakers, and the Bible-pounding creationists who are in such dreadful disrepute among the majority of educated Christians. I would recomment that, in polemics such as the one I am responding to, Muslims concentrate on justifying why they believe what they do, and not on knocking over supposed Christian beliefs. More often than not, I find that arguments against this or that belief misrepresent Chris- tians, and that they therefore cannot draw any support. Concentrate, instead, on why Muslims believe in an infallible revelation. Justify the notion that human memory and penmanship could have accomplished this feat. Concentrate also on why Christians err in thinking that a verbally inspired and perfectly preserved revelation is NOT neceses- sary. There is nothing wrong with debating great topics like the nature of God, the nature of revelation, and the validity of various religious traditions. What I am trying to caution agains here is that Muslims - one of the world's great religions - not make themselves appear like Bible-pounding fundamentalist Christians. It may seem like folly and insanity to identify the two, but this is exactly what many Muslims lead Christians to do by their style of argumentation. -Richard
abaza@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (08/30/90)
In article <1990Aug30.012534.972@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown) writes: >> >>Correct me if I am wrong, but even if I am wrong, >> >>is it possible to be Chrsitian and Muslim at the same time? >> > If you follow the true revelation of Jesus(PBUH). Then you have to follow the message of Muhammad(PBUH). If you follow the message of Muhammad (PBUH) then you should know that the new rules override the old ones. I wish you - the same as I wish to myslef- God's enlightment. > >So maybe on an Arian scale of 1 to 10, Islam would be a 1 ?? > >BB Muslims will not be happy to qualify for anything by your measure.
aabiyaba@athena.mit.edu (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug30.021227.2345@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> approved by bes@tybalt.caltech.edu, goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) reminds newsgroup debaters that they should have a better grasp of their opponents perceptions. He goes on to sketch the Christian/western (excuse the ambiguity) view of some Muslim arguments. I will attempt to clarify the Muslim position on some points that he brought up: Revelation: o I are Muslims because I believe in the Unicity of God and in the Prophethood of Muhammed [pbuh]. o The primary credential of this unlettered prophet is the eloquent Quran the words of which I am convinced were "revealed" as God saw fit. o To be sure, the Quran is only part of God's revelation through history. But whereas God may inspire otherwise (this is the reason the Sunnah [topic of another discussion] of the Prophet is considered another primary source of Islam) the Quran is a clear record in its own right. Preservation of the Revelation: o The verses of the Quran were revealed at particular times and places for which they had particular bearing. But as the Quran itself states, some verses are clear and others more "esoteric"; furthermore, in addition to the apparent meaning of the words there are other meanings; only God knows all the meanings. o Far be it for us to change the words of the Quran - the words and the history of their revelation are clear signs that are accessible, perhaps not fully immediately comprehensible, to all. o Muslims in different times have interpreted the verses in order to apply it to their particular situations; but their understanding is just that - their understanding. We will not treat it as a definitive treatment of religion but only use it as an aid in our individual attempts to follow the signposts of God. o It is unthinkable for us to uproot and repaint the signpost that is the Quran. o And just to be sure, there are thousands of Muslims who have put the entire Quran, with its intonations/inflecions/deflecions, to heart. Indeed the Quranic recitation contests that are held in modern times are an extension of this tradition which has its roots in the days of the revelation and in the society in which memory was highly prized. Translation: o Unlike your representation of the Christian view of "new" Bibles, translations of the Quran are distinct from the Quran itself. The Quran is preserved intact. History is less well preserved. Anyone and everyone is welcome to try to understand it and apply it. Fundamentalism: o In the strictest sense of the word, every observant muslim is a "fundamental"ist becasuse it is the fundamentals which define a system - and the primary fundamental of Islam is the event of the Quran. o I hope you see the difference between a "bible thumping Christian fundamentalism" and the islamic fundamentalism of pop-culture. o The internal and external conflicts involving muslims cannot be forced to fit the mold of christian religious history just as, as you have stated, debaters ought to know what they are talking about. Internal Muslim Dialogue: o This topic deserves more justice than can be done here; suffice it to say that my attempt at a linguistically correct definition of the participants in this dialogue would include words such as "literalist" "extreme literalist", "traditionalist", "Islamic modernist", "modernist", "reinterpretationist", "traditional reinterpretationist", "scholasticist" and "mysticist". [Inexhaustive non-exclusive list]. While I empathize with your frustration at some bizarre "muslim" arguments, if you still equate these essentials of Islam (revelation, preservation of revelation) with the mythology of "primitive ideologues", so be it. >From my (imperfect) memory: "And when it is said to them believe as the people believe they say: Should we believe as the fools believe? It is they who are the fools but know not." -Very early part of Sura Baqara. "when he(they?) is(are?) shown Our signs he(they?) say(says?): the legends of primitive folk." -Early part of a Sura in the the last thirtieth of the Quran Ahmed Biyabani aabiyaba@athena.mit.edu PS: This was written in haste; sorry about the "references".
muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers /100000) (08/31/90)
abaza@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >If you follow the true revelation of Jesus(PBUH). Then you have to follow >the message of Muhammad(PBUH). If you follow the message of Muhammad (PBUH) >then you should know that the new rules override the old ones. I wish >you - the same as I wish to myslef- God's enlightment. >> This remains a strange line of reasoning to me, to which I never heard a reasonable answer. Gods Word is eternal, God is eternal, how can He change His own word? If the old rules are overrided, sometimes this could happen when rules applied to specific circumstances, but generally this would mean that the old rules were wrong and not the truth. I don't think that is possible. -- Peter Mutsaers email: muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht nmutsaer@ruunsa.fys.ruu.nl Princetonplein 5 tel: (+31)-(0)30-533880 3584 CG Utrecht, Netherlands
beekun@ncar.UCAR.EDU (R. I. Beekun) (09/04/90)
In article <1990Aug31.114718.10269@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers /100000) writes: >abaza@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: > > >>If you follow the true revelation of Jesus(PBUH). Then you have to follow >>the message of Muhammad(PBUH). If you follow the message of Muhammad (PBUH) >>then you should know that the new rules override the old ones. I wish >>you - the same as I wish to myslef- God's enlightment. >>> > >This remains a strange line of reasoning to me, to which I never heard >a reasonable answer. Gods Word is eternal, God is eternal, how >can He change His own word? >-- >Peter Mutsaers email: muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl According to Islam, all genuine revelations come from One and The Same Source, namely ALLAH. Allah does not change His own word. Rather, people do, and because of this fact, Allah continued to send messenger after messenger. In a sense, the new (undistorted) message replaces the old (distorted) message. However, if you were able to compare the new (undistorted) message with the old (undistorted) message, you would notice that they are the same and represent the truth. With the Qur'an, Allah Promised to be the Guardian of His Own Word to the Day of Judgement, and up to this date, not a single iota has been added to or removed from the Qur'an. The Qur'an therefore supercedes all previous messages since these are all to some degree distorted. Abu Syed Marwan ............................................................................ :... We decreed for the children of : : :Israel that whosoever kills a human : : :being for other than manslaughter or : / | "" | : :corruption in the earth, it shall be : / | | | | : :as though he had killed all mankind, : | | __| | | | : :and whoso saves the life of one, it : ____|___| | <__|__|__| | : :shall be as though he had saved the : | * : :life of all mankind. (Qur'an 5: 32) : _ / : :.....................................:....................................:
gwydion@tavi.rice.edu (Basalat Ali Raja) (09/04/90)
abaza@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: #If you follow the true revelation of Jesus(PBUH). Then you have to follow #the message of Muhammad(PBUH). If you follow the message of Muhammad (PBUH) #then you should know that the new rules override the old ones. I wish #you - the same as I wish to myslef- God's enlightment. In article <1990Aug31.114718.10269@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers /100000) writes: >This remains a strange line of reasoning to me, to which I never heard >a reasonable answer. Gods Word is eternal, God is eternal, how >can He change His own word? >If the old rules are overrided, sometimes this could happen when rules >applied to specific circumstances, but generally this would mean that >the old rules were wrong and not the truth. >I don't think that is possible. Such is not necessarily the case. You are making a false assumption - that the rules that are being applied are being applied to a static thing. This does not necessarily hold, as such as scenario does not acknowledge the evolving nature of mankind and human communities at all. Old rules might no longer be applicable as time goes on, whereas new rules come into effect.
bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) (09/04/90)
In article <11488@accuvax.nwu.edu> aabiyaba@athena.mit.edu writes: >o I hope you see the difference between a "bible thumping Christian > fundamentalism" and the islamic fundamentalism of pop-culture. I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean --- would you please elaborate for us? Comparing and contrasting the two would be interesting. -- Dave Bakken Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu Dept. of Comp. Sci.; U.of Ariz. UUCP: uunet!arizona!bakken Tucson, AZ 85721; USA Bitnet: bakken%cs.arizona.edu@Arizrvax AT&T: +1 602 621 4976 FAX: +1 602 621 4246
gt5599d@prism.gatech.edu (gt5599d TOLBERT,JASON ALAN) (09/04/90)
I think one person once told me that the only thing you had to declare in order
to become Muslim was 1) There is but one God whose proper name is Allah
and 2) Mohammet is his prophet.
If this is true, isn't it possible that you could believe in the Christian
faith and still sincerely declare the 2 statements above?
Jason
--
TOLBERT,JASON ALAN
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt5599d
ARPA: gt5599d@prism.gatech.edu