Many Muslims believe that Christians are idolators (because they worship statues) and polytheists (because they worship three gods, namely the Trinity).
Where does this belief come from? Is it from the Qur’an or ahadith?
WRS
It’s probably because Christians have all sorts of statues and the Trinity.
Yep the concept of the Trinity is thought to be polytheistic. Ever try to explain the Trinity to a non-christian? Tough to do as I hardly understand it myself.
Then there are all the images of angles, saints and God himself. This is forbidden in Islam and sort of freaks people here out.
There are hadith that forbid the making of statues in the form of living creatures, and ones that command that existing statues have the head and limbs broken off so they resemble tree trunks (this is what the Taliban were trying to accomplish with the statues of Buddha that they destroyed). Other hadith say that flat representations of non-humans can be made, as long as they are on a pillow or rug or some other place that shows they are not idols. So for Christians to make statues or icons and bow and prostrate before them, cense them, annoint and crown them, and light candles before them, is to their eyes patent idolatry.
They also reject Jesus as being divine, or even the son of God, based on Surah 112, and so to worship Jesus as God is to commit shirk, or setting something up as a partner to God.
I could be wrong (having only read bits and peices of it) but I don’t think it’s in the Qu’ran, as such. I say this because as I understand it Mohammad (and the Arab world of the time) had very little communication with Christain culture. Obviously enough to know some of the stories and to consider them People of the Book, but not so much general Christian practices.
However I can’t see how Muslims could accept Christian theology as other than idolatry and pantheism, after all, Mohammad fought long an hard against the worrship of Allah’s daughters in Medina, if that has been established as idolatry, then so would the worship of his son.
Pantheism? Not even close. I don’t know why the Trinity is such a stumbling block. A thing can be one and still have composition.
Not pantheism, but polytheism. Doesn’t the idea of the trinity say that God, and Jesus, and the holy spirit are all God, but still distinct from each other? That seems vaguely polytheistic, at least.
A lot of Protestants say the same thing about Catholics. Basically, it does look like idolatry and polytheism from the outside. I grew up around Catholics and I still think some of that stuff looks like pagan rituals. The Trinity is easier to grasp, but when you think about it it is still a form of polytheism. Hindus are clear that their gods are all manifestations of the same Godhead, but they’re classified as polytheists. The different components of the Trinity are more closely bonded but you can’t deny that it’s more “polytheistic” than Protestantism or Islam, which don’t bifurcate (or trifurcate) their God at all.
Protestants believe in the Trinity. Their reasons for calling Catholics “polytheist” tend to revolve around the veneration of Mary and the Saints.
Only if they didn’t talk to themselves and their own neighbors, which admittedly they may have, since there were a lot of Christians in the area.
But Trinity is a hard concept to understand (that’s why we call it a Mystery). It was one of the most frequent sources of schisms and heresies during the first 15 centuries a.C. — and a lot of the schisms after 1500 have very little to do with Theology.
Well, the stumbling block part is probably because the Qur’an specifically says that Christ is not God nor the Son of God, and that there is no Trinity.
Cite? I mean I’d really like to know. What I’ve read (which has not been extensive) has suggested there weren’t many Christians…or certainly, established Christian communities…in his part of the world at the time.
Hmmm…beyond that, would Christians he was familar with have adhered to the idea of the Trinity or the divinity of Christ? They certainly weren’t established ideas in the 6-7th century A.D.
:smack: For what it’s worth I meant polytheism. I don’t know how that got in there.
There were plenty of Christians in Arabia at the time. They were mostly East Syriacs, and often held to one heresy or another, usually Nestorianism – Arabia was really a backwater at the time, only useful as a route for getting from one place to another. Recent studies have led some scholars to believe that parts of the Qur’an were taken from Syriac Christian lectionaries.
Slight aside, but the reason that Islamic art features elaborate geometric designs and vibrant colors (both color and geometry being major features of those gorgeous rugs) is due largely to providing a creative outlet that does not depict humans or divine beings. Calligraphy is a major art form for the same reason.
The Islamic conception of God is a far different concept that those of Christians. He is not remotely humanoid- no bearded man in the sky touching fingers with Adam- and to say that he would father a child would be as ridiculous as saying Time-Space fathered a child. This is another reason Christians are considered idolaters: the God they worship may be a corrupted version of Allah, but he is not Allah. Jesus is a Prophet no greater or less than other prophets, but he is most certainly not divine in the Muslim faith, nor for that matter was Muhammad (who became furious when devout followers collected his fingernail clippings or other relics for use in healing. He assured them “I am not divine, my hair and garments have no more power than your own- don’t you dare worship me, I am a human.” That Jesus (and Mary, and the saints) are venerated as almost magical beings is another sign of both idolatry and polytheism as the only divine beings in the Christian Bible as the Muslims would interpret it are God and the angels (and the latter are not worshipped).
There is a legend in Islam that Muhammad encountered Christian monks on his trade routes before the revelation of Jabril. One monk grabbed him, pulled up M.'s robe to reveal an egg-shaped nevus on his back, and said something to the effect of “the prophecy is fulfilled, it is him, the last of the Prophets is here!”, essentially acknowledging him (rather than Jesus) as the last messenger of God. This legend affected Christian-Muslim relations in the early centuries as Christians were seen by the legend’s believers as true believers in Muhammad- they just didn’t know it yet.
Fine and dandy, but what Paul in Saudi said was that “the concept of the Trinity is thought to be polytheistic”. I was explaining why it need not be thought of as polytheistic. That okay by you?
Intelligent Design seems vaguely anthropic, but only when interpreted anthropically. A proton, neutron, and electron are distinct entities, but they may comprise only one atom.
Well, the Trinity is not that big a mystery; it’s obviously a cheap construct to get around the issue of polytheism.
Having said that, I would like to see some Christians and Muslims actually debate each other on theological points rather talking past each other and third party analysts.
That doesn’t make any sense. Why should Christianity, a new religion being shaped by Roman politicians, have any need to get around the issue of polytheism? In fact, if anything, it would make more sense to say that the Trinity was designed to placate polytheists. Islam did not yet exist, and even setting that aside, why should Christianity give a flip what Islam thinks? I’m afraid that the only cheap construct here is the one built by you.