The three monotheist religious traditions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, have more in common than in contention. All three believe God is one, unique, concerned with humanity's condition. Each takes up the narrative of the others' -- Christianity and Islam carrying forward the story begun in the Hebrew scriptures of ancient Israel that define Judaism.
Christianity affirms the vocation of Israel after the flesh, and Islam affirms the validity of the antecedent monotheist revelations, regarding Muhammad as the seal of prophecy and the Quran as a work of God.
Falling into the genus of religion and forming a single sub-species of theistic religions, the three monotheisms among all theistic religions bear a unique relationship to one another. That is because they concur not only in general, but in particular ways. Specifically, they tell stories of the same type, and some of the stories that they tell turn out to go over much the same ground.
Judaism, with its focus upon the Hebrew scriptures of ancient Israel, tells the story of the one God, who created man in his image, and of what happened then within the framework of Israel, the holy people. Christianity takes up that story but gives it a different reading and ending by instantiating the relations between God and his people in the life of a single human being. For its part, in sequence, Islam recapitulates some basic components of the same story, affirming the revelations of Judaism and then Christianity, but drawing the story onward to yet another climax.
We cannot point to any three other religions that form so intimate a narrative relationship as do the successive revelations of monotheism. No other set of triplets tells a single, continuous story for themselves as do Islam in relationship to Christianity, and Christianity in relationship to Judaism. What demands close reading is this: Within the logic of monotheism, how do Islam, Christianity and Judaism represent diverse choices among a common set of possibilities?
The three religions of one God concur and contend. The basic categories are congruent, the articulation of those categories is not. By showing the range and potential of a common conviction -- that God is one and unique, makes demands upon man's social order and the conduct of every day life, distinguishes those who do his will from the rest of humanity and will stand in judgment upon all mankind at the end of days -- the three religions address a common program.
But differing in detail, each affords perspective upon the character of the others. Each sheds light on the choices the others have made from what defines a common agenda, a single menu: the category-formations that they share.
What are the theological issues subject to debate?
• Does the interior logic of monotheism require God to be represented as incorporeal and wholly abstract, or can the one, unique God be represented by appeal to analogies supplied by man?
In line with Genesis 1:26, which speaks of God's making man "in our image, after our likeness," and the commandment (Ex. 20:4), "You shall not make yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything" in nature, what conclusions are to be drawn?
At one end of the continuum, Islam insists that God cannot be represented in any way, shape or form, not even by man as created in his image, after his likeness. At the other end, Christianity finds that God is both embodied and eternally accessible in the fully divine Son, Jesus Christ. In the middle Judaism represents God in some ways as consubstantial with man, in other ways as wholly other.
• God makes himself known to particular persons, who, in the nature of things, form communities among themselves. God addresses a "you" that is not only singular, a Moses or a Jesus or a Muhammad, but plural -- all who will believe, act and obey. Islam, Christianity and Judaism concur that the faithful form a distinct group, defined by those who accept God's rule and regulation. But among all humanity, how does that group tell its story, and with what consequence for the definition of the type of group that is constituted?
Judaism tells the story of the faithful as an extended family, all of them children of the same ancestors, Abraham and Sarah. It invokes the metaphor of a family, with the result that the faithful adopt for themselves the narrative of a supernatural genealogy, one that finds within the family all who identify themselves as part of it by making its story their genealogy too.
Islam dispenses entirely with the analogy of a family, defining God's people, instead, through the image of a community of the faithful worshipers of God, seeing Muslims as supporters of one another and caretakers of the least fortunate or weakest members of the community.
Where Judaism speaks of a family among the families of humankind or of "Israel" as a nation unlike all others, sui generis, Islam takes the diametrically opposed view. Its "people of God" are ultimately extensible to encompass all humankind within the community of true worshipers of God.
Here Christianity takes a middle position. Like Judaism, it views the faithful as a people, but like Islam, it obliterates all prior genealogical distinctions, whether of ethnicity, gender or politics. So Christians form "a people of the peoples," "a people that is no people," using the familiar metaphor of Israel. At the same time, they underscore, like Islam, a conception of themselves as comprised by mankind without lines of differentiation.
• God has set forth what he wants from his people, which is the love and devotion of his creatures. This comes to realization in a program of actions to be carried out and to be avoided. These concern acts of prayer, study, contemplation and reflection on divine revelation (in the case of Judaism, study of Torah; in the case of Christianity, the realization and enactment of the image of Christ within the individual believer and the community; in the case of Islam, particular prescribed ritual acts of piety and worship: testimony of faith, ritual prayer, almsgiving, fasting, pilgrimage as well as recitation of God's word, calling upon him in personal prayer and obedience to His will).
All three also require deeds of philanthropy in charity and acts of loving kindness, above and beyond the requirements of the law. Judaism and Islam share certain food laws (e.g., not to eat carrion but to eat only meat from animals that have been properly slaughtered), and Christianity in its formative age forbade the faithful to eat meat that had been offered to idolatry. Where Islam requires a pilgrimage to Mecca, the observance of the festivals of Judaism encompassed a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem when it still stood and Christianity portrayed all the faithful as pilgrims to the new, heavenly Jerusalem that God was preparing for his people.
In these and comparable ways, the three religions aim at defining acts that realize God's will and that sanctify God's people.
How is God's people to relate to everybody else? What are the consequences of the conviction that the one and only God has made himself known to humanity at large through one community or person or family? Specifically, what is the task of the believer vis-à-vis the unbeliever?
At one end of the continuum, Judaism asks the faithful to avoid participating in, or in any way affirming, the activities of the idolaters in their idolatry. Amiable relationships on ordinary occasions give way to strict isolation from idolatry and all things used in that connection. At the other end of the continuum, Islam, for reasons equally systemic, takes the most active role, undertaking to obliterate idolatry by wiping out its worshipers.
Judaism in its classical statement defined its task as passive avoidance, joined with a willingness to accept the sincere convert. Islam called for active the extermination of idolatry, joined with an insistence that, to live, the idolater must renounce his error and acknowledge the one true God and his own.
Yet, early Islam took a very different position vis-à-vis Jews and Christians and a few other "people of Scripture." These were to be largely tolerated so long as they did not threaten Muslims or the practice of Islam.
Christianity found its position in the middle. On one hand, like Judaism and Islam, Christianity forbade the faithful to utilize anything that could serve idolatry and to refrain, even at the cost of death ("martyrdom"), from all gestures of complicity with idolatry. On the other hand, like Judaism and unlike Islam, Christianity in its formative age contemplated not a holy war of extermination but an on-going campaign of evangelism, to win over idolaters. True, in due course, Christianity would slide over to the Islamic side of this continuum, but that happened many centuries beyond the classical age.
In its formative centuries, Christianity's logic dictated a policy toward unbelievers that placed the religion in the middle, between Judaic passivity and Islamic activity.
• What of the end of days? Here is where the interior logic (as well as the articulation) of the three monotheisms both converges and diverges. As told in common, the story finds the resolution of the dialectic of how the one omnipotent and just God can account for a world of manifest injustice.
All three religions concur that God will bring the end of days, when all mankind will be raised from the dead and judged, and those found worthy will enter Paradise. At issue is, what do the faithful have to do to advance the end-time?
Predictably, Judaism, at its end of the continuum, asks the faithful to carry out God's will as stated from the beginning, sanctifying the Sabbath of creation one time in accord with the Torah. So Judaism looks inward, within Israel, for the salvation of humanity through Israel's own act of sanctification. Then who is saved at the end, if not all those who acknowledge the one true God? And that will encompass, the prophets say, all of humanity.
At the other end of the continuum, Islam holds that no human effort can advance or retard the Last Day. God alone will recall His creation to Himself in His own good time. All human beings can do is prepare themselves for the Day of Resurrection by living daily lives of piety and probity. At the Resurrection all who have died before will be called forth with all who are living to face the accounting of their earthly lives and inherit accordingly either Paradise or the Fire as their eternal abode.
And Christianity takes a middle position, insisting that the world as we know it, down to the very bodies we inhabit, is to be changed definitively. But in that transformation, a metamorphosis from flesh to spirit and death to life, the identities that we have crafted during the course of our lives are to endure. All people, with or without an explicit knowledge of the Son of God, have known his image in their human experience: So from the point of view of the eschaton they have fashioned or have refused to fashion an existence which is commensurate with eternity.
These topics show us similarity and difference: a series of single continua, different positions within each continuum.
The interior logic of monotheism raises for the three religions a common set of questions. But then each religion tells the story in its way, and the respective narratives -- in character, components and coherence -- shape the distinctive responses spelled out here.
That is how the three religions of one God converge and diverge: They converge in their basic structures, which are more symmetrical than asymmetrical, and they diverge in the way their systems work out the implications of monotheism as monotheism is embodied in the continuing narratives, those of Judaism, then Christianity, finally Islam.
The New York Public Library: Languages of God: The Word as Decoration
Monotheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Global Connections . Religion | PBS
Jacob Neusner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Go figure.
religious appurtenances as the auto-da-fe and burning at the stake."
-- Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., speech at the inauguration of Vartan Gregorian as president of Brown
University, 1989
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, aka Mormons) should have been included. Like Islam, it is a further development of Christianity, incorporates the old material, and adds a new "testament" added by a prophet after Jesus' death.
I wonder if it was omitted by accident, or because the Professor hasn't studied it enough to include it here, or because he doesn't think it counts?
i mean, the writer said 'Christianity' above, not 'Orthodox', 'Catholic', 'Protestant', or 'Mormon'. to me, that encompasses all divisions/denominations of the faith, whether or not there are those who don't recognize any but their own.
But you're right that in keeping Jesus as the the main guy, Mormon looks more like Christianity than Islam does. And Islam isn't entirely derived from Christianity, though it borrows a lot of it. So I stand corrected.
Religious people often can't hear this though as it undermines their delusion. Religion can help one to spiritually evolve if one knows how to use it (that means finding an awakened teacher - very, very difficult) but the vast majority of religious people use religion to keep themselves peacefully asleep. That's why there are so many arguments and misunderstandings - sleep! If people were awake they would understand each other and know that All Is One. Then there would be no need for religion except as a reminded to stay awake.
They originally stem from Egyptian Ismailism. And many regard them as Muslims.
And then there are the Mandeans mentioned here in these postings and the syncretic religion of the Yazidis.
It's very simple:
If they're divisive, they're false.
If they're unifying, they're true -- or, rather, they indicate truth, symbolically -- like a map, a menu, or a road sign.
Many people confuse the map with the territory, and the menu with the meal, and, well -- hence all the trouble.
Seriously, you need to write articles for huffpo!
I appreciate your kind words and your comments.
For example, whenever the Apostles were teaching, everything was well until that external divisive element showed up.
Pogrom pogrom: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary ( pə-grŏm ' , pō ' grəm ) n. An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group ..
the change is intentional. People assume that the abrahamic religions are decent all they want, but the more I hear about Africa and the Middle East, the more I raise my eyebrow at this blatant attempt at trying to show themselves up as something they are not, and have never been, and that is decent, tolerant and compassionate.
If you've follow Muslim-related news lately, any actual teaming up appears ....... how shall I put this ..... "unlikely at best".
Second, while Jewish people may have their own sets of religious and political issues, dominance doesn't seem to be one of them (Palestine notwithstanding).
Third, while Islam may have is own sets of religious and political issues, dominance also doesn't seem to be one of them, many anti-Muslim rumors to the contrary. Muslims are a lot more concerned about what is happening in their own countries - Muslim-majority nations, I mean - as opposed to what is happening elsewhere - and this is reflected in suicide terrorism, globally. In the minds of extremists, theirs is a defensive action, not an action of aggression or dominance. I disrespectfully disagree with them on that point, but that's how they see it.
Also, rumors of Islam's interest in conversion, have also been greatly exaggerated, and/or flat-out made up.
We had an interesting discussing a few days ago in and Islam related thread, and many people chimed in, with 100% of people who commented saying that they had never had a Muslim try to convert them; even people who had lived in Muslim-majority countries.
Christians on the other hand -- well, you know. Literally.
All three religions have mostly-cool people.
Fundamentalists notwithstanding.
Looking at your post.
Dont match, sorry.
1) Validation. "If all three groups believe the same thing, it must be true." (Shoddy logic: truth is not democratic.)
2) Acceptance: "If we all worship the same God, we should tolerate each other as brothers." (Failure to learn from history: sibling rivalries among religions are the bloodiest. If the author isn't willing to convert to one of those "brother" faiths, they aren't truly equal in his eyes.)
3) Tribalism: "If we three worship the same God, we have more in common with each other than we do with atheists or people who worship other gods. We should combined forces against them." (This reveals that it's less important to unite all people than it is to ensure the sucess of your particular religion.)
This last is about the same as Ninetail described, but more about dominance than wiping out. I observe that, apart from the standard "can't we get along" homilies, there is one topic that unites Jews, Muslims, and Christians in America. New Atheism. Since atheism became loud and unapologetic, all three faiths have been attacking it. They know they will always struggle for dominance between each other, but first they're going to make sure atheism can never rise to challenge any of them.
It's rather like Democrats and Republicans uniting to squash a third party.
Emperor Akbar tried to revive this tradition in the later half of his life.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar)
This practice sorely needs to revived.
The same is true of Advaita Vedanta (Non-Duality) - its founder, Adi Shankara, had quite a few famous debates with various sages of other paths.
The whole idea that "if you don't think like I do, you're going to Hell", seems to be a fairly modern innovation, and for the most part, a specifically Christian one.
Seriously; even the freakin' Taliban will engage in spirited debate without getting violent about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxmZZa__XUk
(Debate segment starts at 1:30 in the video; the long-haired guy is Salman Ahmad, the world's biggest Muslim rock star).
You know what would be really funny, if the people who made up the bible were completely aware that it was fiction akin to the Iliad, and was never intended for anyone to take it as truth.
If we could bring them to this time to see whats become of their myth and they laugh and go, "Wait wait wait, you guys think this is true!!?? That,...is...HI-LARIOUS!!!"
Faved.
And ...
"if the people who made up the bible were completely aware that it was fiction akin to the Iliad, and was never intended for anyone to take it as truth."
I don't think that's terribly far from the truth, in that those who compiled all scriptures compiled them as myths involving symbol-sets which can be utilized to open to fulfilled consciousness; they were never meant to be taken as literal/historical documents.
Which, come to think of it, I'm pretty sure applies to the Iliad (and the Oddysey) and other stories from Greek/Roman mythology, as well.
That whole deal of taking scripture literally/historically is the purview of some very confused minds, and well .... hence all the trouble.
Hinduism, for instance has myths about its Gods and Goddesses, some of which are the same story varied, some which featured one God "leading" in one instance, and another in another instance --- and no one trips, or even cares .... because they're understood (by all but the most uneducated, at least) to be myths designed to instruct.
Ditto the Torah, the Bible and the Quran (see: Jewish Kabbalah, Gnostic Christian Kabbalah and Islamic Sufism for details).
Obviously fundamentalists and mainstream of adherents of religion don't understand this for the most part, but kabbalists, sufis, yogis, etc. most certainly do.
And those are the people who get the results, and it's the only way the "math works", at all.
"Hm."
He stated that prior to the Enlightenment, people had not trouble with understanding that "stories" and "myths" had "truths" to them, even though they were not factually so. And, that after the Age Of Reason people moved to things either being true or false. We lost the idea of non-dualistic thinking and cannot understand that things can be true, even if not a literal fact.
“… in the hadith collections the prophet Muhammad himself is credited with the aspiration of conquering India. Participants in the holy war against al-Hind [the Hindus] are promised to be saved from hell-fire… Thus also an eschatological work which is called the('Book of Trials Kitab al-Fitan ') credits Muhammad with saying that God will forgive the sins of the members of the Muslim army which will attack al-Hind, and give them victory.”
can anybody comment on the validity of these statement?
“The Making of the Indo-Islamic World. Volume I – Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7th-11th Centuries”, by Andre Wink. Oxford University Press, New Delhi 1999. p.144-146.
Zakir Naik: In religious matters only we know for sure that we Muslims are right. They (non-Muslims) are not sure. Thus, in our country we can’t allow preaching other religions because we know for sure that only Islam is the right religion. However, if a non-Muslim likes to practise his religion in an Islamic country, he can do so inside his home — but he can’t propagate his religion. It is exactly as if a teacher thinks in his mind that 2 plus 2 equals 3. He has the right to do so, but we can never allow such a person to teach this to our children. Non-Muslims are no doubt experts in science and technology. But they (non-Muslims) are not sure about religious truths. Therefore, we are trying to get them to the right path of Islam
Zakir Naik: I ask the non-Muslims, suppose you are the principal of a school and you intend to select a mathematics teacher. Three candidates come and you ask them, what’s the total of 2 plus 2? The first replies: 2 plus 2 equals 3. The second answers: 2 plus 2 equals 4. And the third one answers that 2 plus 2 equals 6. Now, I ask these non-Muslims, will you allow the candidate to teach in your school who says that 2 plus 2 equals 3 or that 2 plus 2 equals 6? They’ll say, no. I ask, why? They’ll say, because he does not have correct knowledge of mathematics. Similarly, as far as matters of religion are concerned we (Muslims) know for sure that only Islam is a true religion in the eyes of God. In the Holy Quran (3:85), it is mentioned that God will never accept any religion other than Islam. As far as the second question, regarding building of churches or temples is concerned, how can we allow this when their religion is wrong and when their worshipping is wrong? Therefore, we will not allow such wrong things in our Islamic country.
so now a formless god has all the mental attributes of humans, jealousy, rivalry.. and man created god in HIS image, Interesting.
can you provide a reference for this, how many are named, place of origin etc. Also 1 question is it implied that it was Allah that sent all these prophets? if so is it implied that Rama and prophets from all other the religions were also sent by Allah.that would be an extraordinary claim and would require extraordinary proof. And then in the same vein if you claim that Muhammad is the final and last prophet that supersedes all previous prophets, the it follows that only Islam is the true religion. And we are suppossed to accept this?
Are you not curious what the Yemen document will reveal?(http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99jan/koran.htm)
and no it is not anti islamic website.so easy to stop secular discussion: ur not (presumably) muslim so have no right to comment, u quote from allegedly hate websites so no need to repudiate or disprove, and lastly it is not easy to understand quran, words have multiple meanings that cannot be translated, so does it mean that the message was only for classical arabic speakers, and the rest of the non arab population should just memorize quran with out understanding? kind of ironic for a message that is suppossedly aimed at all mankind, or are only some translations approved
Islam is simply asserting the unity of all messages and "messengers" in all of human history and saying that they are all valid and were send by God. "To each nation was sent a messenger and a way according to the needs of the people." It means that throughout human history, God according to his wisdom has given thousands of messengers, religions, paths to reach Him and each in a manner appropriate to the needs of a given people. Whether these agencies are called avatars, prophets, messengers, etc....does not matter neither does the specific language. Its the underlying message that has been the same and that is the point.
To use the Hindu term they all had one message in common which is the Sanatan Dharma, or according to Islam the Deen al Fitrah(the primordial religion) which is simply Unity and oneness with the God(Yahweh, Wakan Tanka, Om, Allah, Supreme Dao, the Father, etc....)
But dont u think that even after 12,400 prophets+1 prophets humans still kill each other in the name of religion. Maybe it will stop if we all follow the only true religion, and not follow lesser or false religions.
so lets us now decide upon the only true religion and the only true god