Is the The Ashtiname of Muhammad real

[MariaJLM]

It's kind of mind-blowing that such a large and well-established communion of churches as the Eastern Orthodox would still be having this problem. I don't understand it at all. Why is it allowed?

Lack of interest most likely. In my city in particular most of the Orthodox are cradle Orthodox who are fluent speakers of the languages being used. We don't have many converts except for in the OCA parish(the only one that uses exclusively English).

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. That's distressing. I am influenced by my linguistics training, of course, so I can see the value in conserving the ancestral language, but I can't say that value can be appropriately measured against the potential loss in terms of subsequent generations who may not grow up speaking the language, or the appeal to any converts who might actually want to be able to understand what is going on. Though, weirdly, there is also the type of convert who seems to like it better if they don't know; these are generally the "I converted to Islam because isn't Arabic beautiful and exotic" types, though, so I don't imagine they're too numerous in EO Christianity...or at least I hope to God they aren't! I mean, I like Russian, too...spent 6 or 7 years learning it...but obviously that didn't factor into my choice of churches. All that stuff is the wrapping of the gift, y'know?

And every one of these languages that isn't Greek or possibly Aramaic got to be a 'sacred' language via translation in the first place, so it seems very counter-intuitive that this very natural process for which we praise Sts. Cyril and Methodius or St. Mesrob Mashtots or whoever would be halted, especially when in this case we're talking about translation into the current world language and native language of the majority of some of the most powerful (and Christian, by self-identification) nations in the world, and a second (third, fourth, etc.) language to millions, maybe billions of others around the world.

Lord have mercy! I hope whatever's causing this in whatever jurisdictions or areas you guys are in gets dealt with. I would think that to have any church turn into essentially an ethnic museum (which I don't believe the EO are) would be at least a shirking of the great commission.

 

[MariaJLM]

Hmm. That's distressing. I am influenced by my linguistics training, of course, so I can see the value in conserving the ancestral language, but I can't say that value can be appropriately measured against the potential loss in terms of subsequent generations who may not grow up speaking the language, or the appeal to any converts who might actually want to be able to understand what is going on. Though, weirdly, there is also the type of convert who seems to like it better if they don't know; these are generally the "I converted to Islam because isn't Arabic beautiful and exotic" types, though, so I don't imagine they're too numerous in EO Christianity...or at least I hope to God they aren't! I mean, I like Russian, too...spent 6 or 7 years learning it...but obviously that didn't factor into my choice of churches. All that stuff is the wrapping of the gift, y'know?

And every one of these languages that isn't Greek or possibly Aramaic got to be a 'sacred' language via translation in the first place, so it seems very counter-intuitive that this very natural process for which we praise Sts. Cyril and Methodius or St. Mesrob Mashtots or whoever would be halted, especially when in this case we're talking about translation into the current world language and native language of the majority of some of the most powerful (and Christian, by self-identification) nations in the world, and a second (third, fourth, etc.) language to millions, maybe billions of others around the world.

Lord have mercy! I hope whatever's causing this in whatever jurisdictions or areas you guys are in gets dealt with. I would think that to have any church turn into essentially an ethnic museum (which I don't believe the EO are) would be at least a shirking of the great commission.

Having non-English services actually turns a lot of potential converts off, in my experiences. Of course locally people seem to think there's a lack of interest in conversion to Orthodoxy so really it's one huge Catch-22.

 

[rusmeister]

it was froom me saying Christians and Muslims historically can work cordially.

Thanks!
Yes, of course they can.
If the Muslims are unable or unwilling to enact their own command of jihad, there are many examples of them living in relative peace with neighbors they cannot conquer. They do respect strength and the ability to resist them. Amd of course, nominal Muslims, like nominal Christians, are more interested in whatever relations can result in the most material benefit, and not in religious imperatives.

The thing that must be admitted is that we Christians are told to “go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every living creature” but Muslims are told to “then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent (i.e., submit to Islam) and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”.

 

[MariaJLM]

The thing that must be admitted is that we Christians are told to “go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every living creature” but Muslims are told to “then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent (i.e., submit to Islam) and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”.

That verse was actually referring to a specific battle, but of course it's easy to apply for any situation because the Quran is an utter mess. There's really no context, historical or otherwise, for most of the stuff contained within. At least with the Bible the context is usually more clearly defined.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thanks!
Yes, of course they can.
If the Muslims are unable or unwilling to enact their own command of jihad, there are many examples of them living in relative peace with neighbors they cannot conquer. They do respect strength and the ability to resist them. Amd of course, nominal Muslims, like nominal Christians, are more interested in whatever relations can result in the most material benefit, and not in religious imperatives.

The thing that must be admitted is that we Christians are told to “go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every living creature” but Muslims are told to “then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent (i.e., submit to Islam) and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”.

yep, it wasn't comparing theology, but I just pointed out that St John of Damascus and his father both worked for the Muslim civil government, and both for the most part worked well with Muslims.

 

[rusmeister]

That verse was actually referring to a specific battle, but of course it's easy to apply for any situation because the Quran is an utter mess. There's really no context, historical or otherwise, for most of the stuff contained within. At least with the Bible the context is usually more clearly defined.

That's a rabbit I pulled out of the "hat" (Koran) with hundreds of such verses, and not all that many of those refer to specific battles, and since out of all of that the common consensus of Islam has been to apply it generally, and not historically, it hardly matters that some quotes were purely historical. Their "Sola Scriptura" has a codified tradition, and it has generally always been interpreted to physically crush the kafir, which is us.

The only reason I'm even bringing any of this up is because it looks like you are promoting an "Islam is a peaceful religion" line. The West is under major assault from a combination of taqiyya, and suckers with fake public educations that have lost their own tradition, let alone Holy Tradition, and are ready to believe anything. They don't know history and so are clueless about the Battle of Lepanto and Siege of Vienna, let alone the conquests of the first millennium and the long occupation of Spain. The one thing we Christians should not be doing in regard to Islam is soft-pedaling it, or accepting that groups like the Ahmadi are representative of what awaits people should they convert to Islam. That pacifism won't be recognized by the rest of the Islamic world, and what is worse, backing out of THAT amounts to apostasy, which has always been punishable by death.

And stuff like this document is one of many lines taken to convince suckers that Islam is a peaceful religion. And it jolly well is not. It means nothing for us but either submission to Islam ourselves, or dhimmihood under Islamic rule for us and our children and grandchildren. Oh sure, the Truth will eventually triumph with or without us, but how and when it does has some relation to our own choices and reactions.

We absolutely should admit that not all Muslims are bad people, or even sincere believers in their own religion, and some have been downright honorable. But that doesn't change the fact that their religion is from the devil and spells no good for anyone determined to confess Christ.

 

[MariaJLM]

That's a rabbit I pulled out of the "hat" (Koran) with hundreds of such verses, and not all that many of those refer to specific battles, and since out of all of that the common consensus of Islam has been to apply it generally, and not historically, it hardly matters that some quotes were purely historical. Their "Sola Scriptura" has a codified tradition, and it has generally always been interpreted to physically crush the kafir, which is us.

The only reason I'm even bringing any of this up is because it looks like you are promoting an "Islam is a peaceful religion" line. The West is under major assault from a combination of taqiyya, and suckers with fake public educations that have lost their own tradition, let alone Holy Tradition, and are ready to believe anything. They don't know history and so are clueless about the Battle of Lepanto and Siege of Vienna, let alone the conquests of the first millennium and the long occupation of Spain. The one thing we Christians should not be doing in regard to Islam is soft-pedaling it, or accepting that groups like the Ahmadi are representative of what awaits people should they convert to Islam. That pacifism won't be recognized by the rest of the Islamic world, and what is worse, backing out of THAT amounts to apostasy, which has always been punishable by death.

And stuff like this document is one of many lines taken to convince suckers that Islam is a peaceful religion. And it jolly well is not. It means nothing for us but either submission to Islam ourselves, or dhimmihood under Islamic rule for us and our children and grandchildren. Oh sure, the Truth will eventually triumph with or without us, but how and when it does has some relation to our own choices and reactions.

We absolutely should admit that not all Muslims are bad people, or even sincere believers in their own religion, and some have been downright honorable. But that doesn't change the fact that their religion is from the devil and spells no good for anyone determined to confess Christ.

I didn't claim Islam is peaceful. It's just not as clear cut as you're claiming. I'd appreciate if you don't put words in my mouth. I have a bit of experience with Islam so I do happen to know what I'm talking about.

 

[rusmeister]

I didn't claim Islam is peaceful. It's just not as clear cut as you're claiming. I'd appreciate if you don't put words in my mouth. I have a bit of experience with Islam so I do happen to know what I'm talking about.

I’m not claiming anything is clear cut. I’m insisting that it is complicated. But I do say that there is an overall picture, and that there is a general rule, which the exceptions that do complicate that picture do not negate. So, I appreciate the desire to not have words put in another’s mouth; I share and echo your feelings on that. I used the critical word “seem” to indicate my own impression of what you are saying, which is not putting words in your mouth.
I’ve had my own experience with Islam, and I recognize that any given experience does not make a monolith. But the single biggest fact, the one that matters more than all others, is that Islam is spreading in the West by claiming to be peaceful, by denying the jihadic behavior of Muslims in the East as “extreme” and uncharacteristic, when in fact it is the norm dictated and taught in Islamic teaching throughout history. You seem, and I say “seem” to object to that fact, for which there is overwhelming evidence, and so I find myself driven to iterate what was once common knowledge.

 

[dzheremi]

so I find myself driven to iterate what was once common knowledge.

And still is, among those who are still suffering from the sharp end of Islam's 'peace', as all native MENA churches do to varying degrees. Let us remember the kidnapped bishops of Aleppo, for instance (may God return them in peace, no matter the outcome), among so many others. The Muslims have a saying in Arabic: "disbelief is one nation", the obvious implication being that we are all in cahoots against them (the Islamic nation/ummah/true believers), rather than the reality of wanting to be left the hell alone by Islam and and its false laws and edicts which punish the very people who built the societies that the Muslim ravagers took over and turned into hellholes in the name of their false god and religion.

May we never forget that. We ought to teach our children and theirs the true history (multireligious, multiethnic...enough "Islam is not a monolith" while simultaneously calling it "The Muslim World", thereby spitting in the face of every Copt, Eastern Orthodox or Melkite Catholic Arab Greek, Assyrian/Syriac person, Mizrahi Jew, Yazidi, etc.!), and not this "Islamic imperialism is the greatest thing ever, while anything done to stop it or even just akin to it but done to Muslims instead of non-Muslims is the most terrible thing" nonsense. The double standards and cognitive dissonance is absolutely insane.

I know I post this everywhere I get the chance to, but I quite like Egyptian writer Fatima Naoot's take on it with regard to her own country in particular (she's since been jailed for "contempt of religion", i.e. being deemed anti-Islam due to Facebook posts, which is against the law in Egypt):

The spread of Islam anywhere, East or West or North or South (but maybe particularly in the modern West, due to our foolish love of the perceived 'underdog' and desire to not be seen as 'racist') relies on being taught false history which over time becomes accepted as true history.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Against heretics, not Moslems. He was able to provide such a strong defense because he was protected by the Moslems. The heretics could do nothing physically to stop him.

sorry, gotta jump in here. St John actually wrote the first apology against Islam as a Nestorian sect.

 

[prodromos]

sorry, gotta jump in here. St John actually wrote the first apology against Islam as a Nestorian sect.

I guess I need to broaden my reading of St John. I wasn't aware of that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I guess I need to broaden my reading of St John. I wasn't aware of that.

if you wanna have a look, it's in his Against Heresies, which is book 2 of the Fount of Wisdom.

 

[dzheremi]

well, Medina was a trading town. so Mohammed would have ran into Nestorians, Orthodox, Jews, Zoroastrians and pagans. there is something I read that said he was influenced by a Nestorian monastic.

That would be Warqa ibn Nawfal, Khadija's (Muhammad's first wife's) first cousin. And he was supposedly a priest, at least according to some Islamic sources, though those same sources (hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim) also conflict with the historical record by in places claiming that Warqa read the NT in Arabic and also wrote an Arabic translation of it, when there is no evidence of the NT existing in Arabic prior to the rise of Islam, which Warqa died before the codification of (i.e., at or very near the beginning of Muhammad's so-called 'revelations').

Mecca was supposed to be the trading city, not Medina, as Mecca was supposedly the meeting place of the various tribes (being a religious center) and closer to the coast, while Medina was further inland and primarily inhabited by a few major Jewish tribes and that's about it. That makes it a bit difficult when Mecca doesn't appear in the historical record (outside of fabrications found in later Islamic histories) until after Muhammad in 741, but hey...somebody else's circus, somebody else's monkeys.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That would be Warqa ibn Nawfal, Khadija's (Muhammad's first wife's) first cousin. And he was supposedly a priest, at least according to some Islamic sources, though those same sources (hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim) also conflict with the historical record by in places claiming that Warqa read the NT in Arabic and also wrote an Arabic translation of it, when there is no evidence of the NT existing in Arabic prior to the rise of Islam, which Warqa died before the codification of (i.e., at or very near the beginning of Muhammad's so-called 'revelations').

Mecca was supposed to be the trading city, not Medina, as Mecca was supposedly the meeting place of the various tribes (being a religious center) and closer to the coast, while Medina was further inland and primarily inhabited by a few major Jewish tribes and that's about it. That makes it a bit difficult when Mecca doesn't appear in the historical record (outside of fabrications found in later Islamic histories) until after Muhammad in 741, but hey...somebody else's circus, somebody else's monkeys.

thanks for the info, and the correction. it's Mecca, not Medina.

 

[dzheremi]

It seems most reasonable to me that since there is a custom going back to the Constitution of Medina of Muhammad (through his scribes) setting terms which were meant to dictate the relations of the Muslim powers and the local non-Muslims that over time this same custom would be extended to others in other places (e.g., Najran, Jerusalem with the Pact of 'Umar, etc.), including those in prominent monasteries such as St. Catherine's. Whether or not the particular document as preserved today is actually from the period it is assumed to be could I guess be solved by relevant scientific testing, but whatever would result would probably not do damage to the idea that it may represent an authentic tradition of the Muslim power's dictation of the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims (one which is decidedly unfair to non-Muslims, of course; we shouldn't forget that this is a document promising 'protection' from future Muslim powers themselves) as they played out with regard to St. Catherine's at least since some point in the Middle Ages (when the document enters the written record).

I don't see why it can't be looked at dispassionately in that way. It would be nice to see a critical edition of the whole thing (I don't think the translations I've read, which are from Muslim sources, represent the entire text as found on the example you can see at Wikipedia), as has happened with similar period sources several times over, such the Syriac disputation between the Muslim Emir and the Monk of Bet Hale (from its details, assumed to be at least set in the 720s), which appears, e.g., in Hoyland's Seeing Islam as Others Saw It (1997), and Griffith's article in Hugoye Vol. 3.1 (2000). Maybe there already is such material out there, in which case I'd like to see it.