The religion of Islam

1. 60

   daeemominposted 15 years ago

   The religion of Islam
   
   The major religions of the world can be divided into two broad categories—the Aryan and the Semitic, with Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism in the first and Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the second. So far as their theological aspects are concerned, there is a difference between these two kinds of religions. While the Aryan religions are basically philosophy based, the Semitic religions are revelation based. The former represent the culmination of the philosophical pursuit of truth by the great minds of the world. In the quest for reality, meditation and contemplation brought these saintly souls to the conclusions which gave rise to the principal, organized religions of the eastern hemisphere.
   
   The creeds of the Semitic religions on the other hand, are based on divine revelation. That is, God chose a series of Semites to be His apostles and then imparted to them His commandments, frequently in the form of Scriptures, through His angels. These messengers were not only the bearers of divine scriptures but also their interpreters. It was these revelations and their divinely inspired interpretations which provided the fundamentals of the Semitic religions as they exist today.The basic difference in respect of beliefs of the Aryan and Semitic religions can be briefly described in terms of monism and monotheism respectively.
   
   Although both traditions—monism and monotheism—have the idea of God in common, there are fundamental differences in their conceptualization of God. In the Aryan tradition, God is an all-pervasive force rather than an independent reality. Monism posits the totality of a single reality, with all the diverse phenomena of the natural world seen as different manifestations of the same reality, according to this concept, therefore, there is no real difference between the creator and the creature. Thus in monistic theorizing, the concept of an individual, personal God does not exist.
   
   In Semitic religions, particularly in Islam, the concept of God is entirely based on monotheism. This concept can also be termed dualism, that is, the Creator and the creature, in their nature are completely different from one another. God has a real and eternal existence. As the Creator of all things, he is distinct as an entity from all that He has created. His creatures in their seemingly independent existence totally depend upon the will of God. The sole possessor of all power, God has created man to live for a specific period of time, during which he is sent into the world to be tested. It is this concept of the Creator as totally distinct from creature, which sets the Semitic religions apart from the Aryan.
   
   The philosophy of Islam is explicitly that of monotheism. It is true that the Sufi system has, to a great extent, incorporated monistic concepts. This is in actual fact, a deviation from the original and real Islam. It is therefore held by the majority of Islamic scholars to be an incorrect interpretation, not truly representative of Islam.Other presentations of Islam also figure in the books produced in the later period of Islam. But all of these, based as they are on personal interpretations, do not have the status of sacred books. In Islam, it is only the Qur’an and Sunnah (the Prophet’s words and deeds) which enjoy the status of the only authentic sources, and it is to them that we must turn if we are to have a true appreciation of the essence of Islam.
   
   The mainstay of Islam is its monotheism—tawhid—that is, belief in the oneness of God in the complete sense of the word. God is One. He has no partner. He created all things and has complete control over the universe. We should serve Him and submit to Him alone. In Him should we repose our hopes and to Him should we pray. Though He cannot be seen, He is so close to us that He hears and answers us when we call upon Him.
   
   The distinctive aspect of this monotheism is that no intermediary link exists between the Creator and the creature. By remembering Him, any individual at any point in time may, quite independently, establish contact with God. There is no need for any go-between. Indeed belief in an intermediary link with God is alien to the Islamic religious system. Called shirk (associating others with God) it is deemed to be an unpardonable offence.
   
   According to the Qur’an God in Islam is not a symbol, but a reality. God has not been conceived of as a kind of working hypothesis on which to found a religious system. On the contrary, God in Islam is a Personality. He has a real and independent existence. He is alive and self-sustaining, self-perpetuating. He is near us; He cares for us; He hears and sees. He has knowledge. He takes decisions. He rewards and punishes. He is the Controller and Sustainer of human history.
   by :Moulana Wahiduddin Khan

   replyreport
   1. 62

      RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting.
      
      While I was reading this one name came calling in the back of my mind.
      
      Star Treks "Q".

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Odd - a whole other two letters came to mind for me.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            lol, I couldn't remember how it was spelled.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               BS

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Took me a minute.  Thanks for spelling that out!

                  replyreport
   2. 61

      calebdposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      This hub has many inaccuracies and betrays an incomplete understanding of these religions. I'm not sure Aryan's the right word to describe Eastern religion to begin with but to say that they are philosophy based is not entirely true. All religions have their attendant philosophies. If my understanding is correct, revelatory texts and epics exist in Hinduism and wisdom was revealed to Buddha and the Jains. Contemplation is a historically important part of the Semitic religions as well. Jewish philosophy is particularly well developed and the concept of Tzimtzum, which I'm quite partial to, proves quite clearly that monotheism includes a variety of beliefs. At various points in time, elements of monist, deist and various other schools of thought have crept into Western religion just as various elements of Western thought have crept into the Eastern ones. I can't speak for Islamic philosophy but your points aren't entirely valid for the other religions you cite.
      
      When you say God sent man into the world to be tested, the question is tested against what? A creed? Well then, God and man are not entirely separate then because arguably, God has an interest in the result and process of the test.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Monotheism is of 1 belief.  The doctrine underneath is the variety.  I believe your words to be...  Never mind, I'll just leave it at that.  1 belief.  1 being.  1 divinity.  All else is a staged show bent on milking you out of money.  The misingenuous creeps.  But still- Monotheism is 1.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            calebdposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Nope. Christianity divides this divinity into three, doesn't it? One of the criticisms other monotheistic religions level at Christianity is this split. Judaism and Islam say this is not possible. Over time, there have been schools of thought that were panentheistic. Baruch Spinoza, for one. Bonhoeffer's another. The founding fathers of America were deist yet fell mostly within the Christian tradition. Those are all covered under Western religion and monotheism. For that matter, Eastern religions claim a single divinity as well, Hinduism's Brahman and Buddhism's concept of a God so great he does not need to exist. Both these religions claim a single being, single divinity subsumed perhaps into multiple forms. How on Earth did you come to the conclusion that milking people out of money was the sole reason these philosophical disagreements exist? Hell of a logical leap there, Henry.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               OMG!  Did I make a claim that Christianity was a monotheistic religion?  No.  Dude, read before you write.  READ

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  calebdposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Nice dodge. You were agreeing with the premise of the article, which says as much. You might want to take your own advice.

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Dodge?  No dodge ball played here.  You are assuming and taking on to much in doing so.  I dodged nothing.  Be a man, for Christsake[pun intended], you can't READ ENGLISH clearly.  It's okay, but for "Godsake"{] fella, don't pon your shit off on me.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        calebdposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        You might want to work on your English spelling and grammar. "To" does not mean the same thing as "too." "Christsake" is the incorrect spelling of the phrase. "Pon" is not a word, unless you mean upon in Middle English. Being a man somehow requires reading English eh? That's nice. You're suggesting different rules for being a woman, maybe? I wonder how you ever manage to speak to women? Or do they not read where you live?
                        
                        I teach English and Creative writing to university students for a living. In fact, I'm writing a book about rhetoric and pedagogy. If you're going to accuse me of being unable to read, you might as well spell right.
                        
                        Let's work with your logic for a second here. Premise of the article: There are two different kinds of major religion, those that are monotheistic and those that are not.
                        I said: This is inaccurate. Eastern and Western thought cannot be that neatly separated.
                        You refuted my point by some 1 being, 1 whatever formulation. I pointed out how that's inaccurate as well. You objected. Parsing your logic, you've somehow managed to argue that Christianity is not monotheistic at the same time while arguing that the article is correct. That's quite a feat but clearly shows you don't understand your own argument.
                        
                        Either reading comprehension in English is not your strong suit or you're incapable of logical thought. Take your pick.

                        replyreport
                        1. 62

                           RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           Personal attacks your forte?  Since it seems you have no knowledge of good debate spirit and effort.  Is it often your practice, in order to get ahead in life you must make a constant argument not base on fact, but rather using your unbearable rhetoric?  Which is not only unbearable, but boring.  Since you are so well schooled- do you think it is possible that you could fine tune your writing skills and make your blabber faster to weed through? Instead of this painstakingly ssssssssslllllllllllooooooooooowwwwwwwwwww shit you produce and expect us to read?  Do you think you might get past the personal attacks, as to which in your case, only ssssssllllllloooooooowwwwsssssss the process of finally making what you have to write not nonsense, but actual discuss logic?  Your shit is rather a boring one to read.  If I had paid money to go to school and you were my teacher and this is how you went about your business- I'd ask for a refund or sue the fucking school for hiring such an idiot as yourself.  Cheers.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                              Hi there I was just reading over this "tiff" you two are having here and I think but not entirely sure, that you two got off on the wrong foot of understanding each other because I think RK quoted daidom (something like that ) and I think that calebd thought you, RK, were the original poster of the what that other person wrote.
                              
                              Though, your guy's low blows are pretty funny.  
                              
                              I think back to the topic now... calebd was saying that monist divides God into three parts and RK you were saying that mono still means 1.  Whether it be 1 belief, 1 being, 1 divinity...
                              
                              Is this what was going on? 
                              
                              PS.  no need to thank me, lol   Just kiddin' that was a joke. 

                              replyreport
                              1. 62

                                 RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                 You know, Sandra that could be.  I was wondering why I kept getting blasted by Caleb I Teach English. Damn.  When you do reread all of this, it is pretty funny.  Thanks for the laugh Sandra.

                                 replyreport
2. 86

   gamergirlposted 15 years ago

   Thank you for the information.
   
   Folks who'd like to read the text in it's whole form can look to the following links:
   
   www.scribd.com/doc/2030568/The-Religion-of-Islam
   http://www.goodwordbooks.com/faq.php
   
   From which the above was directly copied.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      SiddSinghposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly. That is substantially what I was about to post!

      replyreport
3. 63

   Mishaposted 15 years ago

   LOL Charlotte, nice new pic

   replyreport
   1. 62

      RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Hey Misha- can you help me out with that other post?

      replyreport
   2. 86

      gamergirlposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Misha! I wanted to post a scowling picture (plus it's freakin' bright behind my office building.)

      replyreport
4. 63

   Mishaposted 15 years ago

   RK, you firmly placed you foot on the road to ban

   replyreport
   1. 62

      RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well Misha, this coming from the man who puts a smiley on as a post that is flipping the original poster off is different how?  Whether in sign language or written in English- its all the same. 
      
      At least I was in one to one discussion with Caleb, unlike yourself with that MakeMoney guy.
      
      Time will see.  If I am banned, I will surely miss your smilies.

      replyreport
5. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   Yep, it is sad and kinda funny when smart people basically on the same side, for all intents, blast each other. 
   
   I've taught writing, write for a living and have published three books, :p, and I say youse guys didn't catch the nuances between the lines and are itchin' fer a fight er somethin.'  (I'm takin' poetic license with my spellin' and grammer today writin casual, that OK?)

   replyreport
6. 56

   Dame Scribeposted 15 years ago

   o my

   replyreport
7. 63

   Mishaposted 15 years ago

   You are obviously missing a bunch of subtle details that make a difference. It comes with experience

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Gosh Misha, leave him alone.  How you gonna tell him he is missing a bunch of subtle details and then tell him he put his foot on the road to ban because he hasn't experience? 
      
      My goodness, sometimes you meta gods forget that not everyone knows all the same things. I tell ya, if I had a smiley with a finger it would be shaking it's finger at you. lol  not the middle one though.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Love "Meta Gods," Sandra!  I'm going to use that from now on.    lol

         replyreport
         1. 63

            Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Lita, would you at least bother to check where it is coming from? It has meanings you obviously are missing

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               NAH!  I don't need to bother with all the innuendo stuff with youse guys.  If I like a term, I'll confiscate it for my own use!
               
               I think it is EXCELLENT.  I'm gonna use it for a couple of you.  ha!

               replyreport
8. 63

   Mishaposted 15 years ago

   You can borrow one from Mike's bitching thread Your Majesty Ah, you said not the middle one... That's disappointing

   replyreport
9. 59

   Silver Freakposted 15 years ago

   I believe someone has made an error. Not all religions are monist or monotheistic. There are several religions that are "Nature based" or pantheistic. Don't lump everyone into the same narrow basket you've chosen, please.

   replyreport