Those who worship the Supreme Being who calls Himself "I AM " generally fall into 3 categories:
Jews-followers of the teachings of Moses
Christians-followers of the teachings of Jesus
Muslims-followers of the teachings of Muhammed
All are said to be the Seed of Abraham.
Are there any Faiths of Yahweh/Jehova/Allah which do not fit into the above 3 categories?
Are you looking for other faiths that can trace themselves back to Jewish monotheism? How about Samaritans? Druze? Ba’hai? Sikhs, maybe?
Well, Christians love to argue over who is and who isn’t a Christian, so the question might be better phrased by asking if there are people who worship a unique omnipotent creator god who do not consider themselves to be either Jews or Christians or Muslims.
I think some Unitarians would fall into that category.
Zoroastrians may fit the bill as well. And Sikhs also worship only one god. However neither Sikhs nor Jews/Christians/Muslims would identify that god with the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god.
There are offshoots from those big three that are now more or less considered distinct religions.
The Baha’i for example split off from Shi’a Islam. Though there faith still appears superficially Islamic in some respects ( and acknowledges the divine origin of Islam ), they believe among other things that the Qur’an has been superceded, which rules them out from being considered as just another sect of Islam.
Another example, the Druse ( who call themselves Muwahhidun or 'monotheists ) are a little harder to categorize, but insomuch as they have abandoned most of the ‘Pillars of Islam’ and follow a rather esoteric path, they are probably properly categorized as a separate religion as well.
Then there are groups of more complex origin, like the Yazidis ( often erroneously referred to as “devil-worshippers” because they believe Lucifer was reformed and now oversees the universe for a disinterested God ) and the ( presumably extinct in the original form, though I’m open to correction ) Manichaeans ( who acknowledged Jesus as being in a line of prophets culminating in Mani ).
What about the Latter Day Saints or Nation of Islam? Both religions are based on earlier faiths but were supplemented by additional revelations.
Well, this is the point I made earlier. The Latter Day Saints consider themselves Christians, although some other people who consider themselves Christians do not consider the Latter Day Saints to be Christian. And the Nation of Islam is in a similar position with respect to other Muslims.
Being dualists, the zoroastrians don’t fit the bill. They don’t believe in only one omnipotent god.
Plus (though I’ve read unconvincing statements to the contrary) there doesn’t to be a link between the zoroastrian and Jewish religions.
Actually, they do :). They are not “pure” dualists. This is one of the reasons they were later declared ‘People of the Book’ by Muslims.
Though Zoroastrians ( some of them ) subscribe to a current state dualism in the sense of a constant battle between the forces of light and darkness, they posit the eventual triumph of God. The spirit of evil, Angra Mainyu is definitely subordinate, importance-wise, to God.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm
I’d argue otherwise from what I’ve read ( perhaps I’m more easily convinced 
), but I’m not really an expert on the issue. But it seems that there might have been some cross-fertilization of ideas ( which need not have been unidirectional ).
Here’s one discussion of this: http://www.pyracantha.com/zjc3.html
Oh and by link, I don’t think one derived from the other. Just that it is quite conceivable that a few ideas/concepts may have been propagated between the two faiths.
I see the Nation of Islam as more like the Posse Commitatus, or those who equate Christianity with White Power.
Little Nemo:
We LDS are part of Christianity. The full name of the church is not “Latter Day Saints.” It’s “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
The Qur’an answers this question for you by citing four monotheistic Middle Eastern religions: Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and … al-Sâbi’ûn (the Sabaeans). Huh? you say. Never heard of the fourth one?
Historically, Muslim exegetes have identified the Sabaeans with either of two groups: 1) the Mandaeans, a small sect in Iraq, who baptize in river water and are said to follow John the Baptist as their prophet. They are of pre-Islamic and probably even pre-Christian origin and no doubt represent a survival of some ancient, little-known religion from Babylonian times. That they are associated with star worship suggests some kind of connection with ancient Babylon, the land that first developed astronomy and astrology. I think a few members of this sect still exist.
In addition, there is a very obscure sect in Ethiopia named Qemant that follows an ancient religion quite similar to Judaism in some respects, but is not connected with Judaism. Living in remote rural mountain and hill areas, they are pretty well unknown to the outside world, but they lived alongside the Jewish Falasha. Frederick C. Gamst’s study The Qemant was published by Holt, Rinehart, & Winston in 1969, if you want to know more. “The Hebraism of the Qemant is an ancient form, unaffected by the Hebraic religious change in the past two millennia.”
Tamerlane,
I checked more thoroughly the history of Persian religion this night, and I do admit that the Zoroastrian religion can’t be considered as really dualist. But is there or was there any religion which could be considered as truly dualist? What could we call “dualist” if Zoroastrianism is excluded? Ahriman isn’t just in a subordinate position since for instance he seems to actually take a part in the creation (very bad translation ahead) :
“I (Ahura Mazda) created an universe where nothing existed […]. In opposition to this world, which is life, Angra Mainyu created another one, which is all death, where summer is only two months long […] Then I created Ghaon, home of Sughdra, the most beautiful place on earth [he creates also flowers and birds there] Angra Mainyu then created the insects which harm the plants and the animals. I created Mouru, the holy and most beautiful city, and Angra Mainyu introduced there the lies and the evil speeches [then Ahura Mazda goes on creating pastures, faith, etc…while Angrya Mainyu creates dangerous beasts, doubt, laziness, etc…]
So, despite being eventually vanquished at the end of times, Ahriman isn’t subordinate to Ahura Mazda in the way Satan is subordinate to God in the christian religion, and I still wouldn’t put it in the same category than pure monotheism (assuming that Christian religion can be called " monotheist”) Though this refers to the religion under the Sassanides, so it’s perhaps totally out of touch with the current teachings of Zoroastrians.
By the way, I also read that in an earlier form of this religion, Ahura Mazda was the creator of both the evil spirit (Angra Mainyu) and the good one (Spenta Mainyu), before being assimilated to the latter. That looks like a monotheistic system and seems to point out to an interesting evolution of this religion: first polytheist, then monotheist, and eventually dualist.
As for the lack of links between the Jewish and the Zoroastrian religions, after having read your link, I felt embarrassed by my utter lack of knowledge on this topic, which seems extremely interesting. I was basing my statement on the fact that the Jewish religion was derived from/influenced by semitic henotheist cults, while Zoroastrianism was derived from/influenced by aryan polytheist cults. I totally oversaw the exchanges which could have taken place latter and which seem indeed to be of the highest importance in the history and evolution of Jewish beliefs. I could say that I indeed never read before anything else than unconvincing statements (as opposed to arguments) but it would be a poor defense for my ignorance and lack of research on this topic which seems very basic.
So, I bow my head to your superior knowledge and (temporarily) dissapear in a puff of embarassment.
On that topic here’s an interesting little essay comparing the related relgions of Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism which notes that the Manichaeists seem more profoundly dualist of the two:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/npnf104/htm/iv.ii.IV.htm
Well, I think we can speak of a continuum. Note that in the Manichaen tradition above, the Ahriman figure actually gets involved in creating man, something that doesn’t happen in the Zoroastrian ( if I’m reading correctly ). Likewise in Christianity we still have a dualism of sorts between God and Satan, only Satan is even lesser than the Ahriman figure, not having a hand in creation at all.
…and then monotheist again ;). Check out this brief article which notes that the dualist impulse seems to have been downplayed in modern Zoroastrianism as an artifact of Muslim hostility towards the concept ( it also briefly goes into how Zoroastrian monotheism and dualism co-existed in the same system ):
http://www.iranian.com/Iranica/June97/Dualism/index.shtml
Thanks for the links.
That’s a hijack, but since nobody seems to be posting here :
Would you have by chance some links about the possible connections between Manichaeism, the Bogomiles and Catharism, since the beliefs seem extremely similar (up to the rules concerning food), according to your first cite . I noticed a short mention of the Bogomiles in the second text you linked to, but I would be interested in more detailled infos.
clairobscure: Well the connection is still slightly controversial.
The standard argument is that Manichaeism ( founded by Mani around 250 CE as an apparent synthesis of Christian, Zoroastrian, and Buddhist thought ) spread throughout the Near East in a limited way, despite persecution by both the Romans and the Sassanians ( Mani was martyred in 276 ). Among its adherents was St. Augustine, who was a Manichaen for nine years in the 4th century and who’s writings were the main source on heresies in 11th century Europe ( more on that in a sec ). About the time Manichaeism per se started to fade in the 6th century, a heretical Christian sect known as the Paulicans ( they held the Apostle Paul in particularly high regard ) emerged in Armenia that apparently incorporated some elements of Manichaen philosophy within a more ostensibly Christian framework. This group reached the peak of their influence in the 9th century, but was persecuted by the Byzantines among others and a sizeable number were deported to the Balkans ( Thrace ). It was these deportees that transmitted elements of the heresy to the tenth century Bulgars were under the harsh conditions of the time it flourished and morphed into ( or merged with an earlier movement ) Bogomilism, which caught on - Spreading not only back into the Byzantine state, but also westwards where it merged with local groups to become the Catharism of the twelth and thirteenth century ( this last connection seems certain, though the exact sequence of when the missionaries began their work in the west is obscure - Catharism in the records emerges fairly full-blown in the mid-12th century ).
I don’t really have a single good, all-encompassing link for this, I’m afraid, but googling will give snippets, like this excerpt:
*As Prof. Dr. Edwin Yamauchi has pointed out in his important article Manichaeans: “The Paulician movement, which spread in Armenia from the seventh to the twelfth century --though it repudiated Manichaeism – resembled it in its dualistic views. The Paulicians came to Bulgaria in the tenth century and helped to develop the Bogomils, who flourished in the Balkans in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The latter in turn stimulated the important Manichaean-like heresy of the Cathars or Albigensians in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.”
In 1012, neo-Manichaeans appeared even in Germany. A group in Treves rejected infant baptism. These were the so- called Cathari – called ‘Bogomils’ in the East, and ‘Albigensians’ in the West. Instead of Biblical baptism, they substituted their own rite (called the consolamentum) – which also women were allowed to administer. Thereby, they laid on hands – and imposed John’s Gospel onto the candidate’s breast.
As Prof. Dr. Paul D. Steeves has indicated in his article The Paulicians and the Bogomils, "the Paulicians…held that only the Gospel and letters of Paul were divinely inspired. An evil deity…had inspired the rest of the New Testament, and the Old Testament. The Paulicians claimed that this evil deity was the creator and god of this world. The true God of heaven, they said, was opposed to all material things… Physical and material…sacraments…must have come from the same evil spirit…
"Some of the Bulgars adopted Paulician ideas into a new religious system that acquired the name ‘Bogomilism’… *
from here: http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/anab_002.html
However there are dissenting views that hold that the Bogomil/Cathar heresy was homegrown in Europe and that the only reason it has been identified with Manichaen tradition ( other than some superficial similarities ) was that a.) the only real writings that survive on them were written by their enemies and b.) authorities of the day leaned heavily on St. Augustine’s work to identify and categorize heresies - therefore they referred to the Cathars as ‘Manichees’ without really understanding the difference. This is the tack taken by Malcolm Lambert in his book The Cathars ( 1998, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ) - A decent read by the way, if you’re interested in this sort of thing.
Here’s a brief web article on the Cathars that takes note of this scholarly dispute and mentions some other adherents of this minority view:
http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ListOfCollatedArticles/TheCathariOrAlbigenses.html
Myself, I like the standard view, but I am so far from an expert on the topic that MHO is hardly worth considering :).
I understand that the Latter Day Saints consider themselves Christians and the Nation of Islam consider themsleves Muslims. But both religions undeniably go beyond the revelations of the faiths they are derived from.
Jews base their religion on the Old Testament. Christians base theirs on the Old Testament and the New Testament. Muslims base theirs on the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Quran. LDS base theirs on the Old and New Testaments and the Book of Mormon. NOI base theirs on the Old and New Testaments, the Quran, and the revelations of Wallace Fard (along with Noble Drew Ali and Elijah Mohammed).
These are not trivial differences. Martin Luther, for example, did not claim to have a new message from God; just a new interpretation of existing revelations. Many other religious founders and reformers believed likewise. But Christians, Muslims, LDS, and NOI all believe that their faiths are directly derived from original divine revelations. If you feel that these religions are variations of earlier faiths because they are derived in part from earlier scriptures, then all of them are simply sects of Judaism.
Once in a while some strongly monotheist tendencies crop up in Hinduism. I don’t mean henotheism that looks like monotheism, I mean actually robustly monotheist.
The one that I know of is the religion of the Virasaiva, who predominate in the South Indian state of Karnataka. They believe Shiva is the only god. They got their nickname “Lingayat” from wearing the Shiva lingam around their necks. As far as I can tell, this religion’s impetus is entirely indigenous Hindu in origin, and is not connected with any of the Semitic monotheisms. Many Lingayats refuse to be considered part of Hinduism, as they reject polytheism. The main guru of the Virasaiva religion was a 12th-century saint named Basavanna. One of his most famous disciples was the naked woman saint Mahadeviyakka. Her bhakti love poems for Shiva in the Kannada language are renowned to this day, and A. K. Ramanujan’s translations of them are published in the book Speaking of Siva (Penguin, 1973).
*He bartered my heart,
looted my flesh,
claimed as tribute
my pleasure,
took over
all of me.
For a similar example of monotheism cropping up within a polytheistic system, consider Akhenaton’s cult in Egypt. Akhenaton taught that the solar disk was the One God, and made that the exclusive cult.
Obviously, it’s tempting to somehow connect this short-lived outbreak of monotheism with the sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt. People have speculated, but no one really knows if they ever had any contact. Thomas Mann, in his great novel Joseph un seine Brüder, assumed that Akhenaton was the pharaoh who hired Joseph to be his agriculture czar. Unfortunately for Thomas Mann, the chronology doesn’t seem to match up. Mann is still one of my favorite writers, anyway.