The name of "Allah"

TheImmaculateSlaveOfGod said:

You have no conception of words. I said the Qur'an contains all of the tawrah to a greater extent. It contains (although condensed) the same identical stories found int he torah. They have been altered for Islamic emphasis but nonetheless are intact. This does not mean anything else other then what it implies.



Hindus have many calenders.
The point is that the Islamic calender is modeled after the Judaic one. All things about Islam are modeled after Judaism. It is just an Arabic format with Islamic theology behind it. It is a copy.




But you are far to illiterate to read what I am saying as we are not talking about details. Details are what separate the religions.

Hence it is of no relevance. Must I really repeat myself this many times?



There is no way on earth you can be serious. You must have some burning hatred against Muslims and do not wish to be compared to them. No other explanation.

We are not talking about details but the general conception of Islam which was undeniably modeled after Judaism.

Click to expand...

You originally said:

"The Qur'an contains all of the Tawrat to a greater extent. The issue is not with content but with the literary style of the Qur'an which is far different. "

"Fiqh is even closer to Judaism"

Your newest replies have nothing to do with what I said. Not one of the facts I shared have been disproven. I think you are imputing motives onto me that are not related to my words.

"We are not talking about details but the general conception of Islam which was undeniably modeled after Judaism"
I am talking about details.

"Details are what separate the religions."
Indeed . . .

Like I said:

Few of the 613 Mitzvot (commandments) are actually found in the Quran. The theology is one thing, but the jurisprudence is very different.

When you don't have a knee-jerk reaction, you can see how this is fact. You basically re-state what I say when you say the "general conception" and the details are different.

I would have to say that I DISAGREE with Slave.

I totally AGREE with Hoshiyya. The Muslims try so hard to fit into the Jewish laws and what not. Or should I say they like to replace themselves with the Jews and claim their place as being Abraham's offspring. Which in a way is true but Ishmael gave away his birthright.

There is no similarities with the Islamic faith or the Jewish faith or even the Christian faith. They try so hard to make themselves fit.

Moriah Ruth

Moriah Ruth 777 said:

I would have to say that I DISAGREE with Slave.

I totally AGREE with Hoshiyya. The Muslims try so hard to fit into the Jewish laws and what not. Or should I say they like to replace themselves with the Jews and claim their place as being Abraham's offspring. Which in a way is true but Ishmael gave away his birthright.

Click to expand...

If I may say...


It should be noted that Ishmael (which is who Arabic people - including Arabic Christians - are connected to ) is not the same as all things pertaining to Ishmael. Moreover, there was NEVER any point in Biblical history where Ishmael was documented to either have been forsaken by the Lord or to have given away his birthright - and to claim such would be to blantantly speak PAST what the Word of God says when it comes to the multiple ways Arabic people were not only present in the scriptures - but utilized repeatedly by Him/called Covenant people as well ( 1 Chronicles 27:29-31 1 Chronicles 27:31 )...more discussed here as well as here, here and here in #19 /#45 / #494.

Simply because many Muslims (who happen to be Arabic - never mind where many others are non-Arabic and yet Muslim just like many within Messianic Judaism not being Jewish) may try to replace themselves with the Jewish people...that does not logically equate to all Muslims doing so - nor does it show BIBLICALLY where Muslims were off for noting where scriptures speak on things they were connected to.

TheImmaculateSlaveOfGod said:

I am an ex Muslim and very little of what you are saying is truthful.

They both have a calender. It does not matter if they have the same or different calender.

Islam is created as a mock form of Judaism. They both have similar concepts of temples. It does not have to be the same. This is why Islam is Islam and Judaism is Judaism.

How are you not getting this?

They also have very similar dietary laws as well.

I recommend you actually learn something about what you are opposing.

.

Click to expand...

On what you noted, I have to agree - as many times it seems people are quick to make claims ABOUT a system without really studying the full dynamics of what that specific system is about.

Everything from the claim of Dietary laws being 100% different to circumcision being 100% different and even the claims of Muslims universally denying the Crucifixion (which is hearsay and nowhere close to what the actual Quran says on the matter - and a matter of slander really since many have noted directly where it occurred in the same way as believers ) - it makes no difference trying to address a system if not dealing with it fully to show what it is ...or isn't like.

Many of the things you noted (as it concerns what the Quran says in comparison to the scriptures) have been addressed by other believers in Christ - some of the places being the following:

• Jesus a Muslim??
• Muslim Christians
• Jesus or Muhammad?
• Muslims vs Christians in Egypt
• Salvation of Muslims and Jews
• Sufism -The New Face of Islam?

Some examples of where I have sought to address the matter before (in light of where my grandmother was involved with it as well) can be seen in places such as #16 from Byzantine Bills/Gift Economy: What Religious Empire had the Best Economic System? ...and here as it concerns the ways the Muslim/Quranic view of Christ is essentially a mirror image of what Nestorian Christians held to when it came to Duality ( one of the reasons St. John of Damascus noted Islam to be a heresy WITHIN Christianity rather than a separate religion entirely when it came to seeing Islam in its development) and as it concerns Christ himself, more here:


The circumcision dynamic is always interesting when it comes to noting the similarities between circumcision in Jewish culture and Muslim culture - differences on some things but lots of connection as to common reasons behind why it was practiced.

Gxg (G²);64092285 said:

I have to agree - as many times it seems people are quick to make claims ABOUT a system without really studying the full dynamics of what that specific system is about.

Everything from the claim of Dietary laws being 100% different to circumcision being 100% different and even the claims of Muslims universally denying the Crucifixion (which is hearsay and nowhere close to what the actual Quran says on the matter - and a matter of slander really since many have noted directly where it occurred in the same way as believers ) - it makes no difference trying to address a system if not dealing with it fully to show what it is ...or isn't like.

.

Click to expand...

" Everything from the claim of Dietary laws being 100% different to circumcision being 100% different and even the claims of Muslims universally denying the Crucifixion (which is hearsay and nowhere close to what the actual Quran says on the matter - and a matter of slander really since many have noted directly where it occurred in the same way as believers ) - it makes no difference trying to address a system if not dealing with it fully to show what it is ...or isn't like."

If this is supposed to refer to something I said, I must says WOW.
That would be a banal mis-statement of what I said in this thread.
I would then challenge you to find a single mistake - factually - in my posts here, and please quote the exact wording I used.

"the claims of Muslims universally denying the Crucifixion (which is hearsay and nowhere close to what the actual Quran says on the matter"

Further, it doesn't matter what you or I think the Quran or Islamic doctrine says, if Muslims interpret it otherwise, and while I NEVER said the substitution interpretation is "universal" among Muslims many of them certainly do hold that opinion. If they interpret the Quran that way, that's the reality to deal with.

NO only that but what about that temporary marriage in the Quran or the fact Women in the Quran are allowed to be beat?

Hoshiyya said:

If this is supposed to refer to something I said, I must says WOW.
That would be a banal mis-statement of what I said in this thread.
I challenge you to find a single mistake - factually - in my posts here, and please quote the exact wording I used.
.

Click to expand...

Not interested (seeing where you already reacted/read into things no one was saying) - nor really concerned since it is a non-issue and what was noted was already covered before. As said to the individual I was responding to, many of the things he noted (as it concerns what the Quran says in comparison to the scriptures) have been addressed by other believers in Christ and in detail - some of the places being the following:

• Jesus a Muslim??
• Muslim Christians
• Jesus or Muhammad?
• Muslims vs Christians in Egypt
• Salvation of Muslims and Jews
• Sufism -The New Face of Islam?
• do some Christians (orthodox) pray similar as Muslims do?

Not really interested in rehashing anything due to the fact that I've worked with those involved in the Muslim world, studied the Quran and don't like going back-&-forth continually whenever claims are made that others don't really subscribe to.

Further, it doesn't matter what you or I think the Quran or Islamic doctrine says, if Muslims interpret it otherwise, and while I NEVER said the substitution interpretation is "universal" among Muslims many of them certainly do hold that opinion. If they interpret the Quran that way, that's the reality to deal with. 4th September 2013 11:09 PM

Click to expand...

Seeing that other Muslims have already noted that simple reality before when it comes to addressing what it says in context/knowing their culture, it doesn't really matter what other Muslims say when they don't deal with what's in their book and other believers (opposed to Muslims) simply parrot what other Muslims may've said in ignorance - just as it doesn't matter when Messianic believers or Christians do things based on CULTURA Christianity and say it doesn't matter what Non-Christians think and yet other CHrisitans have to address it from the perspective of BIBLICAL Christianity. Coptic Christians ( #54 ) have had to address the issue often whenever it comes to others making claims of Muslims and them having to note the reality of not misrepresenting what Muslims believe and what the Quran says because others in the name of Muslim activity do things counter to the Quran and what the scriptures say - and it doesn't even take one believing the Quran to be 100% the same as the Scriptures (which I don't subscribe to) in order to realize that simple reality.

Moreover, I never said YOU said the substitution interpretation was universal - and what was noted was the concept of what the Quran actually says of the death of Christ and how that actually goes hand-in-hand with what many Jewish believers felt of Christ when it came to the concept of not being able to defeat life itself in the ultimate sense. Thus, it'd behoove you not to speak assuming others are not addressing what other Muslims have already said on the matter...or speaking PAST what another said without asking questions.

Gxg (G²);64092336 said:

Not interested - nor really concerned since it is a non-issue and what was noted was already covered before. As said to the individual I was responding to, many of the things he noted (as it concerns what the Quran says in comparison to the scriptures) have been addressed by other believers in Christ and in detail - some of the places being the following:

• Jesus a Muslim??
• Muslim Christians
• Jesus or Muhammad?
• Muslims vs Christians in Egypt
• Salvation of Muslims and Jews
• Sufism -The New Face of Islam?

Not really interested in rehashing anything due to the fact that I've worked with those involved in the Muslim world, studied the Quran and don't like going back-&-forth continually whenever claims are made that others don't really subscribe to.

Seeing that other Muslims have already noted that simple reality before when it comes to addressing what it says in context/knowing their culture, it doesn't really matter what other Muslims say when they don't deal with what's in their book and other believers (opposed to Muslims) simply parrot what other Muslims may've said in ignorance - just as it doesn't matter when Messianic believers or Christians do things based on CULTURA Christianity and say it doesn't matter what Non-Christians think and yet other CHrisitans have to address it from the perspective of BIBLICAL Christianity.

Thus, don't speak assuming others are not addressing what other Muslims have already said on the matter.

Click to expand...

You were agreeing with what Slave said, and Slave was responding to me. So are you agreeing with what he said relative to me ?

He said to me "so many of the things you say are not true" and you said you agree ?

Gxg (G²);64092336 said:

Not interested - nor really concerned since it is a non-issue and what was noted was already covered before. As said to the individual I was responding to, many of the things he noted (as it concerns what the Quran says in comparison to the scriptures) have been addressed by other believers in Christ and in detail - some of the places being the following:

• Jesus a Muslim??
• Muslim Christians
• Jesus or Muhammad?
• Muslims vs Christians in Egypt
• Salvation of Muslims and Jews
• Sufism -The New Face of Islam?

Not really interested in rehashing anything due to the fact that I've worked with those involved in the Muslim world, studied the Quran and don't like going back-&-forth continually whenever claims are made that others don't really subscribe to.

Seeing that other Muslims have already noted that simple reality before when it comes to addressing what it says in context/knowing their culture, it doesn't really matter what other Muslims say when they don't deal with what's in their book and other believers (opposed to Muslims) simply parrot what other Muslims may've said in ignorance - just as it doesn't matter when Messianic believers or Christians do things based on CULTURA Christianity and say it doesn't matter what Non-Christians think and yet other CHrisitans have to address it from the perspective of BIBLICAL Christianity.

Thus, don't speak assuming others are not addressing what other Muslims have already said on the matter.

Click to expand...

"Thus, don't speak assuming others are not addressing what other Muslims have already said on the matter" Yeah that really relates to anything remotely relevant.


"it doesn't really matter what other Muslims say when they don't deal with what's in their book"

So when dealing with Muslims one should tell them what one thinks the Quran says, rather than dealing with their actual beliefs. Thus, the actual person's beliefs don't enter the discussion. lol?

visionary said:

You are right the birthright was not given away, it was sold.

Click to expand...

Esau, v- not Ishmael - and what he did was done with HIM specifically in Genesis 25:33....nowhere close to all who were of Edom (seeing how Caleb himself and others were from there and were blessed - and there's great difference when dealing with the entire story in context - #51 /#54/#69/ #71 #146 #147 , as well as noting the history of Arab believers throughout the scriptures and beyond - just as it was with believers connected to Egypt like Joshua - more in threads such as Was Joshua a Gentile? and The sons of Joseph ). . Edom is not the same as Ishmael ( #276 ) even though he intermarried into Ishmael's line just as other Jewish believers did with believers from Ishmael's line - and one must address all of scripture in order to be consistent on that

TheImmaculateSlaveOfGod said:

There is no way on earth you can be serious. You must have some burning hatred against Muslims and do not wish to be compared to them. No other explanation.

Click to expand...

I just want to take a time out for this one, which is especially strange to me.

Now I can really see you're imputing motives and words to me - what exactly was it I said that merited this reaction?
I have no burning hatred against Muslims, and no need to be opposite to them. Indeed, relative to most things, I probably have more similarities with Muslims than with any other religion.

I notice also you claim that Islam is something I'm "opposing" (you say to me: "I recommend you actually learn something about what you are opposing") which to me indicates you are not actually reading my words, but rather "reading between the lines", finding words, opposition even, that is not actually there.

Hoshiyya said:

"Thus, don't speak assuming others are not addressing what other Muslims have already said on the matter" Yeah that really relates to anything remotely relevant.
?

Click to expand...

Seeing that you already spoke irrelevant to what was said in context - as well as avoiding the context on what Muslims note - no surprise

So when dealing with Muslims one should tell them what one thinks the Quran says, rather than dealing with their actual beliefs. Thus, the actual person's beliefs don't enter the discussion. lol

Click to expand...

Seeing that it was already noted that other Muslims (as they explain the Quran) are who need to be heeded - false scenario on your part. For what was noted was that your view was nowhere close to what the Quran said as based on what other Muslims have noted - and what was noted was the bottom line reality that isn't difficult to comprehend when noting that what other Muslims merely claim the Quran says isn't the same as addressing what it notes - and actually squaring with other Muslims calling other Muslims to account (as it concerns others making wild claims in Islam like "Christ wasn't divine" while other Muslims have had to go back/note what the Quran actually says in context and not just hearsay based on what's said in Mosque or the community - no different than Christians making claims of what Christ says while other CHrisitans have to keep taking others back to the Torah or the Bible).

This is what St. John of Damascus had to contend with often in his day when battling the same reality.

Anything claimed further that even tries to argue "So you mean we shouldn't deal with actual beliefs as Muslims have it??!!" is choosing to ignore what was said (especially when it was already addressed) - and although humorous, it is not necessary for serious discussion.

You were agreeing with what Slave said, and Slave was responding to me. So are you agreeing with what he said relative to me ?
He said to me "so many of the things you say are not true" and you said you agree ?

Click to expand...

I was agreeing with the simple point of what he noted when it comes to where many often make claims of Islam that are not factual - from claiming the Quran denies the Crucifixion and Christ in Deity to other claims - some of them which you noted. If I felt all of what he noted on your own comments was accurate, I would've specified such - and as noted before, I agree with him that it doesn't take a lot of effort to note where much of what's in Islam was already present in Judaism - and noting that reality doesn't equate to either system HAVING to be 100% the same or not being allowed to differ.

Gxg (G²);64092482 said:

Seeing that you already spoke irrelevant to what was said in context - as well as avoiding the context on what Muslims note - no surprise

Click to expand...

Hmm don't think I did Good job answering the other things I wrote

As for that other stuff:
If a Muslim believes in substitution interp, then that's what I deal with. If one doesn't, then I don't. Nothing to argue.

I originally mentioned the substitution interp in my message to Slave, and you said you agreed with his message (where he disagrees with me), and then go off on this stuff about how the Quran doesn't really preach the substitution scenario. I think if a Muslim interprets the Quran one way, that's what you have to deal with. If he's a "substitutionist" that's just the way it is - if he's not, that too is just the way it is.

Hoshiyya said:

Hmm don't think I did Good job answering the other things I wrote

Click to expand...

Already addressed them - as well as before and in detail (regardless of you avoiding them in non-argument) - and sad to say, as TheImmaculateSlaveOfGod pointed out, good job demonstrating again where you really have zero demonstration on actually dealing with the Quran itself in what it says or on staying focused on what was said rather than reacting to what was never stated

Hopefully you can stop while you're ahead - but if not, pity.


Moreover, in the event that it's taken as such, I don't really care for sarcasm since it's not necessary for intellectual discussion. Generally, when I see someone respond in a certain way (such as using smiley faces or the "cool" smiley), after a term like "good job", I take that as a matter of playful banter if I feel I have a good relationship with someone that warrants that - and thus, I hope my using it isn't taken as if I'm intending to mock you. That's not really my focus - even though I do find some things worth chuckling to myself and noting irony at times in how they play out.

As it concerns the main argument of what Slave noted, I agree with him (as said before) that there are many things within the Quran and the Bible which find unison in general conception - and even on explicit details (in light of where many stories were lifted directly from scripture/placed into the Quran) - even though the Quran/hadiths themselves differed vastly from the Bible at several points......and it'd be intellectual dishonest for anyone to claim the Bible/Quran or Islam and Christianity are the same at all points - OR claim that they HAVE to be the exact same in order to have validity before the Lord.

For being a follower of the Lord doesn't require that one has to have grown up within the system of Christianity (just as it's not claimed that all within Judaism itself are not saved simply because of where knowledge on the Messiah may be incomplete) - and just as there are many versions of Judaism (as well as many Christianities), so there are many Islams.....some of them being closer (if not the same ) as what certain forms of Christianity are about.

As for that other stuff:
If a Muslim believes in substitution interp, then that's what I deal with. If one doesn't, then I don't. Nothing to argue.

Click to expand...

Cool to know - as no one was ever against that. What was noted, however, was that the Quran does not support explicitly the Substitution interpretation - and for anyone to claim that it does is a matter of not addressing the Quran. For any Muslims saying that the Quran is for that, of course that's one thing - but it's another when dealing with those Muslims and then claiming "Well, the Bible or Torah and the Quran are radically different on Christ because the Quran ITSELF is for the Substitution view" ......and ignoring what other Muslims have long pointed out when noting the context of the Quran/the MANY Ways it is avoiding the intent.

This is said in regards to your own claim about the Quran. From earlier:

Again, your EXPLICIT words were claiming that they (i.e. Muslims, Islam, etc.) reject the Crucifixion and claim that it never even occurred. That is not what the Quran itself says nor is it what other Muslims have claimed - and this is something I noted to him earlier in #64 ....as well as sought to address once before when it comes to the similarities to what is present in what Nestorian Christians held to when it came to Duality (something that often confuses many in the West not aware of the varieties of Eastern Christian thought - more shared in -) and this is something St. John of Damascus took much time to address when it came to noting what Islam itself was about.

You may disagree - but there's no evidence whatsoever in the Quran that Christ was never crucified or resurrected. That is a common cultural claim many believers make and it unfortunately happens without real addressment of the text.

I originally mentioned the substitution interp in my message to Slave, and you said you agreed with his message (where he disagrees with me), and then go off on this stuff about how the Quran doesn't really preach the substitution scenario. I think if a Muslim interprets the Quran one way, that's what you have to deal with.

If he's a "substitutionist" that's just the way it is - if he's not, that too is just the way it is.

Click to expand...

No different than Christians themselves who preach polygamy itself is to be promoted because the OT noted it...and then having the INTERPETATION accepted by other CHristians taken to be the same as addressing what the text of the Torah actually says and what the Gospels note. They are 2 different realities - and as said before, for any Muslim to hold to a substitution mindset is one thing - but to claim that's what the Quran says is a different matter.

Gxg (G²);64092537 said:

Already addressed them - as well as before and in detail (regardless of you avoiding them in non-argument) - and sad to say, as TheImmaculateSlaveOfGod pointed out, good job demonstrating again where you really have zero demonstration on actually dealing with the Quran itself in what it says or on staying focused on what was said rather than reacting to what was never stated

Hopefully you can stop while you're ahead - but if not, pity.

Click to expand...

Well I think I'm getting some negativity, but without having any of the statements I shared controverted - none of which were controversial, biased or unfair.

I note you used the term "good job" sardonically like I just did - it's very easy to be reactional, as you yourself see. I previously used the ironic smiley like you did too, and when I think about it that may have been somewhat reactional and petty. Sorry about that. But I never said anything un-factual or unfair about Islam, not once.

I btw think "Slave" ultimately agrees with me, since we agree that there is a distinction between "general conception" and the details, which is what I said. Haven't heard from him since I made that clear.

G said:
" What was noted, however, was that the Quran does not support explicitly the Substitution interpretation - and for anyone to claim that it does is a matter of not addressing the Quran. For any Muslims saying that the Quran is for that, of course that's one thing - but it's another when dealing with those Muslims and then claiming "Well, the Bible or Torah and the Quran are radically different on Christ because the Quran ITSELF is for the Substitution view" ......and ignoring what other Muslims have long pointed out when noting the context of the Quran/the MANY Ways it is avoiding the intent. "

I have no idea how this relates to what I said. Seems to be just a statement of your principles ?
(I think you genuinely believe you have a point, but I'm not certain how it relates to me, if at all.)

"What was noted, however, was that the Quran does not support explicitly the Substitution interpretation - and for anyone to claim that it does is a matter of not addressing the Quran."

OK? Yes?
And?

Hoshiyya said:

"What was noted, however, was that the Quran does not support explicitly the Substitution interpretation - and for anyone to claim that it does is a matter of not addressing the Quran."

OK? When does this become relevant to my statement?

Click to expand...

When you stop ignoring where you already claimed Islam/the Quran and Muslims believe that Christ did not resurrect.

As said before, your own claim about the Quran. From earlier:
There's ZERO evidence within the Quran (or the Muslim community) showing that the Crucixfiction is rejected - and it doesn't even deal with what the Early Church Fathers said on the matter, starting with St. John of Damascus. That is what was noted - and is said again when it comes to making claims of the Quran and Islam that were never accepted by all nor to be taken as evidence of what the text says simply because many hold to a view - as that'd again be like claiming "Christians claim to be allowed to sleep around due to being covered by grace - and use this scripture to do so - so that's what the Bible says and I don't want it!!!"..

Context.

I have no idea how this relates to what I said. Seems to be just a statement of your principles ?
(I think you genuinely believe you have a point, but I'm not certain how it relates to me, if at all.)

Click to expand...

I think you genuinely believe you understand the argument - but have failed to read properly or address what was said due to reading past what was noted. And the same goes to making things more complicated than they really are. What was noted plainly is that you didn't deal with what the Quran says in your claims (i.e. claiming the Quran and Islam denies the Resurrection occurred) - and then took the interpretation of what other Muslims said in agreement with you as evidence. That's not dealing with the Quran nor is it dealing with Islam as other Muslims have noted.

Not that difficult of a concept - and most of what you noted is really more a matter of your opinion.

OK? Yes?
And?

Click to expand...

And....so what?

As said before, doesn't much to comprehend and no need acting as if things were not clearly said. Either one deals with it -or they don't.

Gxg (G²);64092692 said:

When you stop ignoring where you already claimed Islam/the Quran and Muslims believe that Christ did not resurrect.

As said before:

This is said in regards to your own claim about the Quran. From earlier:There's ZERO evidence within the Quran (or the Muslim community) showing that the Crucixfiction is rejected - and it doesn't even deal with what the Early Church Fathers said on the matter, starting with St. John of Damascus. That is what was noted - and is said again when it comes to making claims of the Quran and Islam that were never accepted by all nor to be taken as evidence of what the text says simply because many hold to a view - as that'd again be like claiming "Christians claim to be allowed to sleep around due to being covered by grace - and use this scripture to do so - so that's what the Bible says and I don't want it!!!"..

Context.

Click to expand...

Sigh.

"Like I said, the theology of "who/what is God" is very similar, but everything else in Islamic tradition and Quran, especially social and legal, varies greatly as to what similarity it has to the Old and New Testaments.

As to the resemble to Christianity, there is one major point that obviates any resemble and it is this: They reject the Crucifixion. Now, they don't reject it's significance or interpret it differently, no no, they reject that it ever even occurred. "

I used the term Islamic tradition there. I also say "they" (individual Muslims), not "he" (Muhammad.)
It's very deliberate.

In any case, I think very few Muslims are opposed to the substitution view, it appears to be by far the majority view of Islam. (As an aside: If someone treats Trinitarianism like the standard or popular Christian view I'm not offended, even though I'm not Trinitarian. I know I'm not in the majority.) There are always exceptions to every rule, and there's probably even a Muslim out there who isn't a monotheist, yet monotheism is normative for Islam and that's what will be reflected in informal discourse.

Hoshiyya said:

Sigh.

"Like I said, the theology of "who/what is God" is very similar, but everything else in Islamic tradition and Quran, especially social and legal, varies greatly as to what similarity it has to the Old and New Testaments.

As to the resemble to Christianity, there is one major point that obviates any resemble and it is this: They reject the Crucifixion. Now, they don't reject it's significance or interpret it differently, no no, they reject that it ever even occurred. "

I used the term Islamic tradition there. I also say "they" (individual Muslims), not "he" (Muhammad.)
It's very deliberate

.

Click to expand...

Sigh..

And as said before - giving an opinion is NOT the same as dealing contextually with what a book (such as the Quran) or Islamic tradition actually says. Moreover, as others noted already where it was the case that not all forms of Islamic Tradition even came close to doing as you noted (and again, the Quran itself never rejected the Crucifixion), it is misspeaking to say that they reject the Crucifixion - as well as claiming it's not a matter of interpreting it differently. If speaking on Islamic Tradition of a certain group, one should state that plainly - as opposed to speaking overall with regards to Islamic tradition. For many who are believers and yet growing up within Islamic systems have long noted that many Islamic traditions are already in line with the Bible...

Of course it was noted/understood you were speaking of individual Muslims - and I never disagreed with that. What I noted was agreement with Slave when it came to claims that the exact details in many parts of the Quran are not found within Scripture - as well as noting that it's not necessary for details to be the same point for point in order to concepts to be present just as it's not necessary for things to be present point for point in the Talmud in order for it to compliment the Torah and what was said by the Prophets. Some things are paraphrased and were not written with the INTENT of being a point-for-point repeat - and this is what the Quran notes when it references the People of the Book (Christians and the Jews) in telling others to go back and read what the Torah and the Bible say collectively. It (the Quran) was never a book MEANT to convey it had all the details like the 613 elements present in the Torah - nor was it meant to look exactly the same as other things.

In any case, I think very few Muslims are opposed to the substitution view, it appears to be by far the majority view of Islam. (As an aside: If someone treats Trinitarianism like the standard or popular Christian view I don't offended, even though I'm not Trinitarian. I know I'm not in the majority.) There are always exceptions to every rule, and there's probably even a Muslim out there who isn't a monotheist, yet monotheism is normative for Islam and that's what will be reflected in informal discourse.

Click to expand...

Of course - just as it's currently the MAJORITY view in much of American Christianity that Christ doesn't require repentance and that much of the Bible is not relevant. Other periods have seen the same - from the era of Imperialistic Christianity (which often condoned colonialism and abuse/slavery of others) or Christianity of the Reformation being dominant around the world even as Eastern Christianity (and Christianity from an African or Mesopotamian/Asian context rather than European lens) was formerly where things began - or times where in the Dark Ages most of Christianity felt that the world was flat.

There've always been times where the majority of a group will hold a view and it's taken to mean that's how it has ALWAYS been or that that's the proper viewpoint. I tend to not really trip, for example, when many Muslims have no idea of others in their own camps who've never held to what they do - and assume they must be the anomaly or the problem when it could be that they in their majority have altered. It's the same concept with Christianity when it comes to Trinitarian thought being exalted as if that's how everyone in the Body of Christ ALWAYS had to see it - and yet not many consider the differing views present that went counter to it and yet were seen as Biblical ....as we previously discussed in threads such as What is a Non-Trinitarian Messianic? ......and the same goes for differing views on the nature of Christ which were debated frequently all throughout Eastern Christianity - the Assyrian Church of the East/Nestorians being radically different than those in the Byzantine Christian Empire and the way Christianity shaped up in Oriental Orthodox culture not being the same as what was present in Jacobite Christianity (more shared here and here /here /here ).

People who may not be considered a majority in one place are not necessarily seen the same in another - and often times, it takes time for info to catch up and for others to realize that those whom they felt were a small minority were really larger than they realized. Plenty choose to not take offense at others not seeing them as a majority - but neither do they apologize for noting that a majority view surrounding them was not necessarily how things always were. Even with things such as Monotheism - something many in the MAJORITY of the Early Jewish body of believers held to - there were many who noted that Trinitarianism was not opposite of monotheism even though other Jewish Monotheist felt such.....and it's the same for many Muslims who are Monotheist but are taken to believe something they don't.....and in informal discourse, you have to expect to take others where they're at and know they're not all the same simply because language/idioms and phrases may be similar.

This also goes with dealing with people graciously as it concerns salvation - for I don't go into discussion generally assuming that just because someone says they're Muslim means that they are automatically not saved - just as I don't choose to do that with everyone I know who's a Jew in Judaism (more shared here and here in #46 ) when it comes to knowing what it means to be a Child of God.

As another noted best (and I agree 100%):