OK, in light of the earlier discussion on translation, let me pick a section of the Le Monde translation (I’d love a link to a Farsi original – if anyone has it (I looked on Iran News but couldn;t igure it out) to ask some questions about and let’s see if we can generate a consensus about what was said and what it means.
Here’s the official Iran News translation, with some comments of mine interspersed (note that this isn’t meant to be a Fisking):
We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvation. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.
OK, he’s asserting that they are both religious.
We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well: [19.36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path. Marium.
Here’s what reads to me a like a crux phrase: when he says “And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path. Marium.” it seems clear that he’s calling on Bush to serve Allah – not to join in a mutual worship of their respective single Gods.
Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.
The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.
He’s asserting that there is one God – now this can be taken in a Unitarian sense, or in the literal sense that there is only one diety.
We again read in the Holy Book: “The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purify them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious”.
I’m interpreting him to say ‘the Book’ to mean the Koran.
All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.
Does the Good Book mean the Bible?
Divine prophets have promised: The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly affected by our actions.
OK, this is pretty clear – we’re all accountable in Heaven, but rulers are answerable here on Earth.
All prophets, speak of peace and tranquility for man — based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.
OK, seems clear.
Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world — that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?
Here again we have the question of the specific God or the general one? Is believing in God enough, or do we have to believe in the same one?
Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?
There are two principles conflated here. One is that having principles in abstract – separate from the content of the principles – implies that principled people who may disagree can better come together in peace and understanding. It is in essence, pluralist. The other imples that when we all agree on principles, we will be able to do so.
Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?
The answer depends on whether the princples are particular or abstract, no?
Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?
Again, when he talks about the Almighty is he talking about Allah? Is it a fundamentalist Allah, or an Allah who would be comfortable taking worship in a Unitarian church?
Let’s discuss, because I think a lot depends on the answer.
I think this is a very interesting, skilful and beautiful document.
I will be interested to see how it plays in Africa, for which George W. Bush has cared more and done more than any American president ever, and certainly more than Iran.
I will be interested to see how it plays with Hindus, Animists and other polytheists. Read from the point of view of militant monotheism versus liberal democratic rights for polytheists, atheists and others, this is a clear document. The distinction between divine religions and others is also clear.
It would be a sign of vitality and self respect for people to take an active dislike to this. (Alas, I’m far from confident that will happen.)
You evidently think that Muslims worship one god called Allah, while Christians worship another, called God. Can you provide just one example of a Muslim (even one I’ve never heard of) who (a) makes such a claim and (b) has a following of more than 10 people? (Make that 3 people if you want.)
A person who believes that is a very strange kind of Muslim. But I begin to suspect you have a very, very strange notion of Islam.
Armed Liberal: “Again, when he talks about the Almighty is he talking about Allah? Is it a fundamentalist Allah, or an Allah who would be comfortable taking worship in a Unitarian church?”
Armed Liberal: “Let’s discuss, because I think a lot depends on the answer.”
OK.
All prophets, speak of peace and tranquility for man — based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.
Armed Liberal: “OK, seems clear.”
Suppose you believe that A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (founder of the The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) (the Hare Krishnas) or let’s say Numa Pompilius (the official/legendary organiser and codifier of ancient Roman religion), or [many other possible examples] was rightly guided.
Is it not clear any more that they were prophets? Possibly they were not, if only prophets recognised by Islam count. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada would surely be out of luck in that case, as Muhammed (pbuh) was the last of the prophets.
You say “OK, seems clear.” Could you say a little more on what seems clear? Purely that these English words are the official translation? The invalidity of authoritative religious teachers not recognised by Islam? Or the need to reinterpret their doctrines to agree with what Islam decreed that all true prophets teach? Or what?
–
Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world — that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?
Armed Liberal: “Here again we have the question of the specific God or the general one? Is believing in God enough, or do we have to believe in the same one?”
And atheists?
Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?
Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?
Armed Liberal: “The answer depends on whether the princples are particular or abstract, no?”
I’m a little vague on what you mean here.
Suppose your coven meets regularly, you worship your gods according to familiar rites, and you give such respect to certain images as would certainly qualify as “idol worship” by Muslim (or for that matter Jewish or common Christian) standards. What level of particularity or abstractness would mean that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s principles had your respect?
Or is the trick what counts as “universal” respect, with some people not counting?
Or what?
–
Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?
My comment: this is an invitation to George W. Bush, and to other members of an oil-corrupted establishment, to go a little further than hand-holding with dear wealthy friends out on Brokeback Mountain. A similar offer was made long ago to European leaders, and judging by their conduct, apparently it was accepted. I hope and firmly believe that George W. Bush is a man of a different temperament. There is no chance he would even consider this public offer.
Armed Liberal: “Again, when he talks about the Almighty is he talking about Allah? Is it a fundamentalist Allah, or an Allah who would be comfortable taking worship in a Unitarian church?”
Suppose you worshipped idols and a dozen gods at sunrise, sunset and the first night of each new moon, proselytised enthusiastically if politely, and hoped to found and build a temple (in California of course!), and you wished to continue to enjoy equal rights and dignity with your neighbours. Would you bet your freedom on a Pollyanna-ish answer to that question?
Or to put it another way: as soon as you say “we are not going to betray such of our neighbours as don’t believe as we do,” all wriggle room vanishes.
There is no real grey area. Freedom, solidarity, tradition, religious fidelity and any number of other sound principles require that guys like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be opposed.
Since by his principles, guys like him will always, eventually, push things to the point that there will be no effective opposition without fighting and victory, and since war does not reward a permanently passive, reactive stance as against activity and the strategic and tactical initiative, this means war to the knife, for as long as certain kinds of dogma produce guys like that.
How is in question, and I’m all for being as civilised and restrained as practical, for the general good and because I too have principles, which say we should behave like civilised and civilised people, leaving the behaviour of barbaric savages to the death-cultists of the desert. But given what we’re up against, whether is alas not really in question.
Of course, if the Koran is rewritten to get rid of that dogmatic monothesism rubbish, and jihad, and the poisonous example of Muhammed (pbuh) and so on, that will be a wonderful thing, and if that takes off and replaces the Islam known to history: great! I leave the door open for hope in that respect. But I’ll wait without holding my breath.
I know very little about Islam, but it seems to me that “Armed Liberal” knows even less than I do, making this commentary almost worthless.
What I understand is that Muslims believe in a prophetic succession, from Abraham, through the Old Testament prophets and Jesus, culminating in the revelation of Mohammed. On this premise, Jews, Christians and Muslims are all part of the Abrahamic tradition. The Iranian president appears to be making the simple (from his perspective) observation that Christianity and Islam are sprung from the same root.
It would be very interesting to read a critical commentary on this letter from someone who knows more about Islam than I or “Armed Liberal” do.
AL: “I’d love a link to a Farsi original – if anyone has it.”
Via your old friend Juan Cole:
http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1385/02/19/index-f.htm#b4
To a Muslim Allah is the God of Abraham. They see Jews and Christians as falling away from the true worship of Allah.
Christians rather see Muhammed as a false prophet. Which makes Allah one of two things. One: the warped vision of God via a false prophet. Or Two: just the god of Muhammed (hence the symbolism of the moon and stars) and therefore not God.
As for myself I see Allah as the moon god of Muhammed’s tribe. Not the God of Abraham. And just because Muhammed came out with a vision saying … “Hey our moon god is the same as the Jewish and Christian God” doesn’t make it so.
Anyway, this letter isn’t anything new. When a Muslim talks about one god to a Christian he is thinking about Allah and God being the same thing. But, to him, the Christian has a warped view of Allah that needs to be corrected. This was the approach Muhammed took when he came to the Christians and Jews with his new message. And it is the approach that the letter takes.
–
What I understand is that Muslims believe in a prophetic succession, from Abraham, through the Old Testament prophets and Jesus, culminating in the revelation of Mohammed. On this premise, Jews, Christians and Muslims are all part of the Abrahamic tradition. The Iranian president appears to be making the simple (from his perspective) observation that Christianity and Islam are sprung from the same root.
At the risk of re-stating the obvious, there’s the rub. Same root or not, Islam’s take on what Jesus stood for is quite different from Christianity’s own take (and that’s even taking the many different shades of Islam and Christianity into account).
It sounds to me like Ahmadinejad either doesn’t appreciate this difference (and this letter is simply a misguided attempt to appeal to Bush in terms he expected Bush to understand) or doesn’t care (and this letter is, as several bloggers have already speculated, simply a matter of Ahmadinejad fulfilling his duty under shari’a to invite the infidel leader to convert to Islam – presumably on behalf of the whole nation, not just himself – before commencing the jihad in earnest.)
Regardless of whether Islam and Christianity “sprang from the same root”, the two religions are fundamentally incompatible. This is because Christians believe that Jesus specifically was the Son of God, and that if you refuse to accept Him as Savior, you are “unsaved”. Islam, on the other hand, rejects Christ’s divinity and adds on a number of non-Biblical concepts. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the 5 pillars of Islam–for example, giving alms to the poor is commendable no matter whose name you do it in–but Christians view Muslims as unsaved for very basic theological reasons.
Whether or not “Allah” and the Christian God are the same deity is certainly open for debate. But Christianity is more than just “God exists”, it is “God came to earth in human form as the only route to Heaven”. The often quoted theology is, “Christ claimed He was the only way to Heaven; therefore he was either a liar, insane, or the true Son of God. But he can not be merely a good man or prophet.” By marking Jesus himself as the recipient of worship, Christianity is in automatic violation of Islamic beliefs. Similarly, take the Muslim statement of faith: “There is no god worthy of worship except God and Muhammad is His messenger.” Christians explicitly reject the latter part, and by extension everything Muhammad wrote in the Koran. Anyone want to take a guess what an imam would say to a Christian claiming Islam would be fine if they ditched the Koran?
Now it would be nice to say that it should not matter if two religions claim to worship the same God but in a different way. But when we get the familiar cries of “death to the infidels”, make no mistake about it: Christians are included in the set of infidels, for the reasons listed above. And when Christians pray for the unconverted or talk about anti-Christian forces in the world, they include Muslims in those sets. Ahmadinejad is either being cute or facetious, both undesireable traits at this point of international tension; you can write off his appeal for religious solidarity as spin, grandstanding, political code, or (less charitably) general madness.
(And incidentally, Christianity does claim to worship the same exact God as Judaism, the main theological distinction being that Judaism does not believe Jesus was the promised Messiah whereas Christians do. Has Ahmadinejad explained to the Iranian mullahs his apparent belief that Allah is the same as the Jewish God? Christians and Jews generally get along just fine; someone want to give us an update on Islamic-Jewish relations?)
Why assume this letter is sincere?
reading the bits and pieces translated reminds me most of all of Sarumans’ appeals to Gandalf and Theoden.
I believe that in Islam, all humans are born innately disposed to Islam. The problem is that we forget the true faith, grow and learn other ways and can be misled by corrupted religous text (the Bible). The key problem then is forgeting and the solution is to be reminded. The Prophets were sent as reminders. The Koran, which always existed, is repeated to remind us of the original message.
To become a Christian or Jew is to fall away in part since the Bible is partly true. To become a polytheist or atheist is to go over the deap end. But even atheists might believe in certain moral truths, like it is wrong to murder, but this does not make the atheist moral, it is merely evidence that Islamic beliefs are innate and not everything is forgotten.
There are aspects of the letter that serve to remind President Bush of commonly held, universal beliefs, that are Islam.
IIUC, the Muslims consider worship of the Holy Trinity to be polytheism, and the call for monotheism is implicitly a call to reject Christianity in toto.
Of course, they won’t set the barb on that theological hook until converts have swallowed the worm of “the same god”.
At the risk of being simplistic, anyone who “invites” me to abandon the principals of the Enlightenment can go screw, no matter what the pretext.
Seriously, what is the point of this jaw-jaw? Who really cares whether Ahmadinejad wants us to submit to Sharia or some hypothetical Christian or Talmudic equivalent? (And who really thinks plan “A” isn’t the only plan in play for Ahmadinejad, Ridicule Be Upon Him?)
Any good revolutionary knows that if you can get the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois on a good wank, the fight is pretty much over. Consider the letter as pornography for the fatalistic/narcissistic corner of the cocktail party and be done with it.
Is it a fundamentalist Allah, or an Allah who would be comfortable taking worship in a Unitarian church?
Well, given the number of Baha’i (basically fundamentalist Unitarians) who have been executed in Iran for ‘religious offense,’ I’m betting against the latter.
I will be interested to see how it plays with Hindus, Animists and other polytheists.
Well, for this polytheist it plays as ‘same sh*t, different day.’
#4 from Richard Carpenter: “I know very little about Islam, but it seems to me that “Armed Liberal” knows even less than I do, making this commentary almost worthless.”
If he was writing a learned commentary, our discussion in this thread would be worthless. But I think that’s not Armed Liberal’s purpose.
Now I’m going to put words in Armed Liberal’s mouth and speculate as to his motives. Armed Liberal: speak right up if I’m wrong.
Being a sane man, Armed Liberal doesn’t want to be at war with this many people, on the terms that are emerging. Wars of opinion are nasty. Wars of opinion involving weapons of mass destruction and colossal numbers of people must be very nasty. It’s reasonable, and moral, to look at each major move or public statement by the enemy and ask: “Might there not be some ray of hope here? So wriggle room? Something we can split the difference on?” It does no harm to think, and better now than when hot war has begun.
For this kind of thinking, you need to look at the primary evidence. As far as you can. (We can’t get away from the need for translation.) You have to think for yourself. You want all the scholarly help you can get of course, but in the end you have to think for yourself, because the decision “I accept this war. I believe to the depth of my conscience that we could not get out of it on acceptable terms.” is a personal one. It’s not something you can delegate the whole of to any scholar, leaving no remainder.
So Armed Liberal is looking at the letter itself (as far as we can read it), and not just taking some scholar’s word for it as to its gist and what the proper reaction would be. And he is inviting other people to look at the evidence too, and think for themselves.
I agree with all this, if I understand the intent rightly.
For myself, I don’t want to be in a war of opinion, or any war, with that many people. And I find it repulsive that the enemy line-up for the total war includes Egypt, and the hostile line-up for this subordinate war includes the Persians. And we’ve already kicked over a regime in Mesopotamia, and demolished a “Hammurabi” division. It’s like we are being forced to beat up the descendants or at least the successors in place of the greatest peoples of ancient times. A decent respect for the history of civilisation suggests: if you can get out of it reasonably, avoid this.
Armed Liberal has been criticised (in other threads) as a stereotypical liberal for his ever-renewed preference to see this not as “war” but as several rungs below it, for seeking silver linings to clouds that obviously don’t have any, for preferring soft measures in the face of looming danger and so on. I disagree with such criticisms.
The Spartan embassy informed the Athenians that “Sparta wants peace. Peace is still possible. if you will give the Hellenes their freedom.” …
There is no weakness in the temperament that says that.
David, you nailed it exactly.
I’m hoping that we have a discussion that enlightens us on some of the points of interpretation in the letter, specifically so that I (and anyone else interested) can better understand what we’re facing.
I think I know – and again, you stated my position exactly – but I’m always trying to check my assumptions and beliefs.
A.L.
I will point out that the Spartan demand was more than slightly disingenuous, and that their definitions were calculated to destroy the Athenian league while leaving their own intact. Their demands in this instance were not about a search for accomodation, but a search for pretext.
Revisiting my post #3: possibly a better example of a prophet would be Joseph Smith (the main founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). If Mormons can’t live with Muslim definitions of who’s a false prophet (anybody after Muhammed (pbuh) for starters) and what counts as monotheism and a divine religion by Muslim standards, then as a practical matter America can’t. Not just shouldn’t. Can’t.
Also, I should have said: “we should behave like civilised and civilising people.” Proof reading seems not to be my strong suit.
–
#6 from arrasmith “As for myself I see Allah as the moon god of Muhammed’s tribe. Not the God of Abraham. And just because Muhammed came out with a vision saying … “Hey our moon god is the same as the Jewish and Christian God” doesn’t make it so.
Yup.
Just as when the Apostle Paul that the “Unknown God” they worshiped was his God, that didn’t make it so, and it didn’t mean the ascendancy of Christianity was compatible with the survival of Classical Greek religion.
–
#9 from kobi konshtok: “Why assume this letter is sincere?”
If we dismiss it as propaganda – which there is every reason to do – we’re ignoring the possibility that there is some possible good news in it.
#9 from kobi konshtok: “reading the bits and pieces translated reminds me most of all of Sarumans’ appeals to Gandalf and Theoden.”
Well, yeah. All the more reason to hear him out. There was a good reason for Gandalf to let Saruman speak.
Of course for polytheists, we cut straight to the part at the end where Saruman proposes to these guys to sell out those other guys who are still standing in earshot.
–
Re: #13 from Achillea, ditto, and double-ditto from me.
Revisiting my post #14, that should have been: “It’s reasonable, and moral, to look at each major move or public statement by the enemy and ask: “Might there not be some ray of hope here? Some wriggle room?”
#16 from Joe Katzman “Spartan […] definitions were calculated to destroy the Athenian league while leaving their own intact.”
Since what I want is to strengthen the bonds of friendship and armed alliance among the English-speaking peoples (United Kingdom, United States of America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and ideally India and others), and if possible the West in general (starting with Poland, and Russia too if only that could happen), while disassembling international Islam as a force, I’m not in a position to criticise.
There’s no mystery here. Ahmedinejad isn’t calling on Bush to adopt Islam, or pretending to any principle of ecumenism. He’s writing out of the traditional Muslim view that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are three religions with a common god, and the Muslim tradition of qualified respect for Christianity and Judaism, as partial sharers in the truths of religion. He’s gently chiding Bush for failing to live up to the creed he professes — As a Christian, shouldn’t you be led by the principles you share with us to behave better than you have done? As David Blue says, it is a skilful document.
Re three religions one god: Ahmedinejad writes:
Cf Muslim witness 1:
and Muslim witness 2:
And finally a certain familiar non-Muslim:
The point of Ahmadinejad’s Jesus quote is, first, to demonstrate Muslim respect for Jesus, and second, to cite him as a witness to the principles that he (Ahmadinejad) and Bush alike profess.
Certainly, by the “Holy Book” he means the Koran, and the “Good Book” is his courteous denomination for the Christian Bible. This part is saying, “Look, here’s a bunch of stuff out of our Book that you can agree with. Doesn’t your Book say the same?”
Re abstract and particular principles, he’s not saying “principled people can come together, though their principles differ”, but “we should be able to come together, because we have many common principles: monotheism, justice, final judgement, etc.”
“we have many common principles: monotheism,”
…So long as you all accept your dhimmi status under the one true religion of Islam. Just like the Qu’ran says.
“justice, final judgement, etc.”
…both of which are coming to those pesky Jews. Hey! I know! Why don’t you help us?
The level of contextual ignorance re: Iran’s current role, actions, and rhetoric; historical ignorance re: Muslim practices of war; and simple-minded credulity on display here is jaw-dropping.
In light of the clarification, I think the pertinent questions aren’t really the religious ones, they are the political ones. He clearly rejects liberalism and Western-style democracy as two failed concepts. What does that mean? What system would he have in its place? What system should Bush join?
I see two interpretations. Given the religious language, its a religious political system. (Since Christianity doesn’t really have a political system, its quite possibly an Islamic republic.) On the other hand, the smooches to Hugo Chavez suggest a second interpretation, which is that the U.S. join the club of “just” autocrats that focus on their people and don’t interfere with other countries.
WOW LOTS OF NONSENSE HERE… heres the truth about Islam.
People get so caught up by the wording that they lose the main picture. Allah IS the Almighty. Its no different than saying “Dios” in spanish or “Khodah” in Farsi. Its just the arabic word for THE God. its THAT simple i have no idea why that throws SOOO many people off. 2nd Muslims believe that we are born pure free of sin. There is no predisposition to Islam or anything like that. In Islam there is not just one prophet or messiah. In Islam there are roughly 1024 profits of which 25 are listed in the Final Testament (the Quran), and the 5 most important (strongest) are Abraham, Jesus, Noah, Moses and Muhammad. Muhammad is the last. Muhammad is not a son of God or anything of the sort he and the other 1024 are just NORMAL human beings who are messengers of God, their only objective is to deliver the message as best they can. To associate anyone or anything on the same level as god is Idoltry & polytheism by Islamic theology standards. This is why some scholars to not like how in judaism and christianity they both have “Son of God” written in the texts (ezra & jesus), this is not proper.
Also In islam there are two discintions between the texts. When God refers to people of “The Book” its all 3 testaments, the old, new, and Final (quran). The Quran is the last of the 3 testaments and it finishes off where the other two left off and completes the message. The reason sometimes it distinguishes between the other two texts is b/c the Quran is the only one that is still the unfiltered unchanged direct word of God, the other two have been changed so many times the original message is no longer in tact which is why the Quran was sent (3rd times the charm as the old saying goes). This is not to offend anyone, don’t kill the messenger just stating the facts.
President Ahmadinejad is just trying to say that Jews & christians & muslims should not be fighting with each other, they should be fighting the pagan worshipers and the non-believers together in unison and unite on their common interests and not get consumed by their differences.
with that said Jesus is one of the most important prophets in Islam and it is also prophesized in teh Final testament that Jesus will return (but not exactly how the christans believe it) but this does confirm it will happen, and the prophecy also was told that one of the greatest armies the world has ever seen will go to war in the desert and that that army would fall in the desert and lose and when it did it would signal the beginning of the end and how Jesus would return soon there after and that the end of days would near. so if this is the prophecy coming true, looks like the USA will lose and the end is coming.
Islam also does not necessarily believe
#22 from Omeed: “WOW LOTS OF NONSENSE HERE… heres the truth about Islam.”
OK, shoot!
“People get so caught up by the wording that they lose the main picture. Allah IS the Almighty. Its no different than saying “Dios” in spanish or “Khodah” in Farsi. Its just the arabic word for THE God. its THAT simple i have no idea why that throws SOOO many people off. 2nd Muslims believe that we are born pure free of sin. There is no predisposition to Islam or anything like that. In Islam there is not just one prophet or messiah. In Islam there are roughly 1024 profits of which 25 are listed in the Final Testament (the Quran), and the 5 most important (strongest) are Abraham, Jesus, Noah, Moses and Muhammad.”
OK.
“Muhammad is the last. Muhammad is not a son of God or anything of the sort he and the other 1024 are just NORMAL human beings who are messengers of God, their only objective is to deliver the message as best they can.”
Normal? But wasn’t Jesus – Isa the prophet – created without a biological human father, not conceived, before being born? Only a normal human being after he was created, sure.
And there were miracles, though only by the will of Allah, right?
Allah made it appear to Isa’s enemies that he had been killed, but he never was. Rather, he ascended bodily – and those who say otherwise are spreading a garbled and corrupted message, right?
Fortunately, with no “original sin” there was no need for Jesus to die to “save” anyone.
“To associate anyone or anything on the same level as god is Idoltry & polytheism by Islamic theology standards.”
Yes. That’s a vital point, with practical implications. People should think far more than they do about how serious this is.
“This is why some scholars to not like how in judaism and christianity they both have “Son of God” written in the texts (ezra & jesus), this is not proper.”
Yes. It’s in the Koran: Christians say Jesus is the Son of God and the Jews say Ezra is the Son of God. They may deny it, but it’s in the Koran – and Allah does not approve. This is Islam all right.
“Also In islam there are two discintions between the texts. When God refers to people of “The Book” its all 3 testaments, the old, new, and Final (quran). The Quran is the last of the 3 testaments and it finishes off where the other two left off and completes the message. The reason sometimes it distinguishes between the other two texts is b/c the Quran is the only one that is still the unfiltered unchanged direct word of God, the other two have been changed so many times the original message is no longer in tact which is why the Quran was sent (3rd times the charm as the old saying goes). This is not to offend anyone, don’t kill the messenger just stating the facts.”
Sure thing. 🙂
“President Ahmadinejad is just trying to say that Jews & christians & muslims should not be fighting with each other, they should be fighting the pagan worshipers and the non-believers together in unison and unite on their common interests and not get consumed by their differences.
Yes.
Or, I don’t think he’s “just” saying that. He said other things as well. But he did present that invitation, though not in so many words. And it is pure Islam.
This will never change while the world endures, as it is the glory of the lofty religion of Islam not to let Allah’s message get corrupted, forgotten or finally ignored.
“with that said Jesus is one of the most important prophets in Islam and it is also prophesized in teh Final testament that Jesus will return (but not exactly how the christans believe it) but this does confirm it will happen, and the prophecy also was told that one of the greatest armies the world has ever seen will go to war in the desert and that that army would fall in the desert and lose and when it did it would signal the beginning of the end and how Jesus would return soon there after and that the end of days would near.”
All fascinating stuff! And what great expectations!
“so if this is the prophecy coming true, looks like the USA will lose and the end is coming.”
If.
I’m sure that’s what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and many other Muslims want though, and it’s an enthralling possibility!
It’s worthwhile to bear such things in mind.
It’s wonderful Omeed: often people butt in and say Islam is being misrepresented. but then they say deceptive things. As far as I can see, with the exception of a slight issue about how normal Jesus is, and the word “just” as to what President Ahmadinejad was saying – which I would put down to normal, casual speech and not any deceptiveness, because I make loose statements and things that could use more proof-reading and typo-hunting too – you seem to tell the truth, straight.
So bravo to you on your message.
Have a wonderful day.
_2nd Muslims believe that we are born pure free of sin. There is no predisposition to Islam or anything like that._
Not only born free of sin, but with a natural belief in Allah called the _fitrah._
bq. Since Allâh’s fitrah is engraved upon the human soul, mankind is born in a state in which tawhîd is integral. Since tawhîd is intrinsic to man’s fitrah, the prophets, peace be upon them, came to remind man of it, and to guide him to that which is integral to his original nature. The âyah describes a fitrah of primordial faith which Allâh Himself implanted in human nature. It implies Islâm’s essential message of submission to the will of Allâh as taught as practised by the prophets.
“Fitrah: The Islamic Concept of Human Nature.”:http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=74
Perhaps my terminology is inexact and perhaps the extent of that predisposition is arguable, but the point I was trying to make (to what is probably an audience most familiar with Christian concepts of conversion) is that Islam operates with a different set of assumptions about human nature and man’s relationship with G*d. The Christian belief in original sin and a fallen world is a relatively negative view of the human predicament which requires more active engagement than Islam, which is premised on entirely different version of the Creation.
Which is not to say that personal conversion of President Bush is Ahmadinejad’s particular goal. If he was interested in coverting nonbelievers he would be working on the dhimmi in his own country. He wants the American government to submit to Allah.