::Originally, I had more here about the torah, and the koran, but I see Tamerlane already covered that ground.::
Basically, I am saying a plain reading of the koran instructs them to pay attention to the tablets of the law, since god created them. You seem to be claiming that since the existence of the tablets is taken for granted in the koran, and left unprinted, it needs not be payed attention to. Obviously, you have never read Surah 7. The Heights. The fact of it is, muslim laws seems to say one thing, while in reviewing public sentiment, actual current muslims say another thing. Not irrelevant to the topic, but also a fine distinction. You yourself quoted what the actual Koran says, while ignoring it, and saying, “Note also that the man you quoted is not a theologian or scholar.”
Same to you.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t appreciate your attempt to pick a fight with me. I am here to discuss the factual question asked by the OP. My feelings about you are entirely irrelevant to that discussion, and I will kindly ask you to drop that matter entirely.
[/QUOTE]
I posted. You claimed I was wrong. You could have not disagreed with me, knowing how much we have argued in the past, but instead you said “No. Not right at all.” along with a multi-paragraph statement of why you claimed I was wrong. Is it any surprise that I would respond with a mult-paragraph responce of my own, when I believe I am correct on this matter?
[QUOTE=Crandolph]
The 5 pillars concept is Sunni and the Shi’a don’t cleave to it. QUOTE]
To the best of my knowledge that is incorrect. The 5 pillars are a universal concept in Islam. The addition of pillars by some sects ( like the Alawites who have a total of seven ) is controversial, but I’m pretty certain that no sect that refers to itself as Islamic subtracts or does away with them. Those Islam-derived sects that do dispense with them, like the Druse, are generally considered entirely seperate religions.
Thanks. That matches my understanding of the situation pretty well - Muslims believe that the earlier prophets were preaching Islam, in my understanding, but that their teachings were altered by their followers. I take your explanation to mean that the Torah would not be considered an authoritative source of Muslim belief. Is it correct to say that Muslims do not treat the Torah as scripture? Christians still consider the Hebrew Bible to be authoritative, in combination with the New Testament, but I don’t think anything similar could be said about the Hebrew Bible (or just the Torah) in relation to the Qur’an.
I should have been clearer; Zoroastrianism draws back to a completely different (originally polytheistic) belief system than the Semitic religions (which prior to Judaism was also polytheistic). I didn’t mean to underestimate the influence of Zoroastrianism on the development of Judaism - many people consider it to have originated many Jewish beliefs, monotheism among them. The relationship between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu is pretty similar to the Bible’s discussion of God and Satan. I was mainly getting at the historical origins of Indo-Iranian and Semitic religion, which are different; the influence among them is undeniable. Do Muslims consider the Zoroastrian God to be the same as the God of Abraham? It’s indisputable that Christians, Jews, and Muslims (along with the various smaller Semitic religions) worship the same God. Would Muslims say the same is true of Zoroastrians?
Apparently I was mistaken in my understanding of the term, then. I understand that particular tolerance was granted to Christians and Jews in Muslim-ruled areas (for instance, in medieval Spain.) I take it to mean this is true of Zoroastrians as well? It’s interesting, too, that there is a particular tradition of respect for monotheists; it seems like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share a particular disgust for “paganism” and any kind of idolatry - the Noahide Covenant, for instance, accepts that not everyone is Jewish but still forbids all people from worshipping idols. It sort of seems as though any form of worship of one God, even if it was ‘wrong’ and degenerate, amounts to worshipping the right dude, which is automatically better than worshipping idols. (But I digress, and may well be beyond the limits of my knowledge here . . . )
I’m not really familiar with any form of Hinduism that I would describe as henotheistic, but there are a lot of forms of it and I’m certainly not familiar with all of them. What Hindu sects are, or in what sense is Hindu belief, henotheistic?
I wouldn’t question the statement that the original Hebrew religion was henotheistic, but I would argue that neither Jews nor Christians are henotheistic today. I’m not sure when the switch from henotheism to monotheism was; I’ve only ever read the Bible in translation, but the Pentateuch can easily be read that way. By the time the Torah was written down, were the Hebrews still henotheistic?
‘Henotheistic’ looks funny when you write it over and over.
Right. They’re not authoritative because they are considered to have been somehow corrupted and they aren’t used for ( everyday ) scripture because the Qur’an supercedes and corrects them as the final word of God.
However they do hold a somewhat ambiguous position in Islam in that they are regarded as divinely inspired, if flawed. So Muslims don’t follow the Ten Commandments per se, but they are pretty much incorporated into the Qur’an anyway.
Those that regard Zoroastrians as ‘People of the Book’, yes. While the ‘Book’ in mention refers to Abrahamic scripture, at least some Islamic scholars take a more universalist view, so belief in a singular God/creator can only refer to God, since there is only one God ;). Kinda circular perhaps, but that seems to be the way it is sometimes looked at.
By and large. There were certainly exceptions, but then there were exceptions with Jews and Christians as well. I have read that of past authoritative sources, maybe 80-90% considered Zoroastrians ‘People of the Book’, following Umar I. Almost certainly a much smaller number would extend that status to Hindus.
It’s debateable - a lot of folks disagree ( including, far as I can tell, more than a few Hindus ). The belief in helper deities that function (semi-)independently, even if stemming from a single supreme source, could be defined as henotheistic and many do. Some have made that argument for the Christian Trinity as well. Not sure I agree, but it has been out forward.
I believe that is usually dated from the Babylonian captivity ( virewed by some as punishment for accepting other gods ).
I appear to have oversimplified; upon further research it does appear that most Shi’a recognize 5 pillars. Also:
The second largest group of Shi’a today appear to have 7 pillars:
The first pillar, Iman (faith), is generally shorthanded to the honest recitation of the shahada, or statement of faith, which is amended among all of the Shi’a: “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, Ali is the Friend of Allah. The Successor of the Messenger of Allah And his first Caliph.”
There are differences in interpretation of how to fulfill some of the other pillars as well, but we’re still left with 5 writ braodly.
Hmm. Don’t we have an Ismaili tucked away somewhere? (Can’t remember her name, for the life of me.) I wonder what the significance of “jihad” is, given that it sounded like they’re particularly disinclined to bellicosity. (Yes, I’m aware that “jihad” has other meanings besides ‘holy war’ in Arabic, but that’s the one that’s famous in English.)
). The belief in helper deities that function (semi-)independently, even if stemming from a single supreme source, could be defined as henotheistic and many do. Some have made that argument for the Christian Trinity as well. Not sure I agree, but it has been out forward.