I understand what you are saying. Perhaps my OP requires asking in a different way. I am fully aware that the majority of Muslims do not behave in this way. I understand that those who have been radicalised in some way. It may be precisely correct to argue that ultimately their motives are political. However, many who do commit atrocities do so because they believe they are doing the will of Allah. They believe this is what Islam requires of them. Radicalised they may be but those who radicalise them must use some aspect of the Muslim faith on which to base their indoctrinations. What I am asking is what is it in Islam where they find some foundation for their interpretation of Islam?
The basis is probably (1) the traditional teaching that Islam should be politically supreme (in some sense), combined with (2) a profound sense of victimhood that has taken hold in many Islamic societies since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the end of colonialism. There have always been radical movements within Islamic society just as there have been in every other religious culture, but the sense that Islam itself was in retreat within Muslim societies/countries is something that didn't really happen on a large scale until the 20th century. That combination, I suspect, is what has led to a lot of the violent radicalism emanating from that part of the world (and initially much of that radicalism was secular in orientation, prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1979). A lot of toxic ideologies were also imported into Muslim societies from the West via the various secular movements in the 20th century - e.g., anti-Semitism, racialism, etc. - that had a kind of multiplier effect on the perception of preexisting differences and hostilities (e.g., Sunni vs. Shi'a, Jew/Israeli vs. Muslim/Arab, etc.).
I'm currently reading No God but One: Allah or Jesus?, by Nabeel Qureshi. The author was raised in Islam and he studied his religion closely, the more so when his faith became challenged in intellectual discussions with a Christian friend. In Chapter 8, Qureshi answers the question, "Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?" His conclusion: they do not. Here's why. "Christians worship Yahweh, a Trinity, whereas Muslims worship Allah, a monad...Islam makes every attempt to condemn the Trinity as blasphemy." Fundamentally, Qureshi says, the deity of Islam is nothing like the Christian deity; the former neither needs nor wants relationships and does not have selfless love for human beings, but our God reveals Himself as a relational being who both loves us and desires that we love Him (with agape). Islamic doctrine teaches "tawhid": Allah is absolutely one. Christianity teaches that Yahweh is three Persons; "God is love," and He foremostly shows this by revealing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all love one another. Indeed, this very fact shows that Yahweh actually is the deity who is truly self-sufficient and independent (for He was love from eternity, long before He ever created any people to share love with, and His love was not contingent upon man's existence). On the other hand, the tawhid doctrine (ironically) does not teach that Allah is intrinsically gracious, merciful, or any of the other attributes identified by the Quran's 99 Names for him, which implies that Allah needs his creation to define him since he is supposedly a monad that existed alone prior to the creation. (Example: for Allah to be intrinsically merciful, something else needs to exist, toward which he can show mercy). Qureshi goes on to point out: since mankind was made in the image of the triune God, love was woven into our very nature (our redeemed nature, that is). This is why the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one another, rather than to do 'this' or 'that'. Love and relationships are at the center of both Christianity and Yahweh Himself. This causes Christians to have a worldview that is totally different from that of the Muslim. Islam teaches obedience at the threat of punishment and as a means to (possibly, potentially, but without assurance) earn Allah's (grudging?) acceptance and reward, but love has little or nothing to do with it; the Muslim is commanded to take care of widows and orphans in order to avoid punishment, not out of any love from either the actor or Allah. In other words, the Muslim's motivation is selfish even when it appears (or when the person feels) altruistic, whereas by contrast the Christian's motivation is to demonstrate God's love working through the believer. As Qureshi says, "Humans are made in the image of a selfless God; loving others is what makes us truly human." But Muslims model themselves after a selfish deity. Thus, Qureshi writes, the Christian God is categorically different from the Muslim deity. The nature of the Trinity reveals that God is relational, His love is eternal, and He created man in His image to be relational and loving like He is. The Trinity is how God can be all of this: in us by the Holy Spirit, over us by the Father, and suffering/victorious for us as the Son. Meanwhile, Allah the monad is cold, distant, self-centered, and neither intrinisically loving nor desirous of relationships; if one wants his mercy, one must labor for it in enlightened self-interest (and hope for the best). The fact that Christianity and Islam are both monotheistic is not indicative that the two worship the same Theos, but is merely indicative that they both insist upon the existence of only one Theos (whomever that might be). Nor can their mutual tracing of lineage to Abraham be truly indicative, because the image Islam has of their god is so corrupted and so far removed from the genuine God who revealed Himself in the Bible and to His followers. Islam did not cast a physical idol, but essentially they created a mental and conceptual idol that bears no more relation to Yahweh than the golden calf.
It will not, of course, be possible to evaluate all of Qureshi's arguments without having studied the Qur'an itself, the great teachers of the Islamic tradition, etc. These kinds of comments reveal more about Qureshi than they do about the religion of his upbringing. I have no doubt that his conversion and convictions were sincere, and made public with some risk. It is also continually refreshing to see converts to Christianity emphasizing the central, indispensable roles that the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection have to play in Christian belief in practice. These things are usually more apparent to converts than they are to those who were raised in Christianity from birth. That being said, Qureshi was a young man when he converted, and his life was tragically cut short. His observations strike one as those of a zealous convert, rather than the product of mature reflection of long years. In that vein, there are a number of problems with the assertions he makes, some of which I'll touch on briefly: He appears to assume a social view of the Trinity, with all the problems of anthropomorphism and vulnerability to accusations of psychological projection, that have troubled theologians since Feuerbach. Qureshi's understanding of the Trinity, at least as it is reported here, tells us more about Qureshi's ideal of the human person and the human community than it does about what Christianity has traditionally understood by the term. Qureshi appears to assume that the Islamic doctrine of tawhid implies that God is understood in Christianity to be less "absolutely one" than in Islam. Actually, as far back as one can trace statements by prominent Christian theologians (orthodox and heretic alike), one finds an uncompromising belief in the absolute simplicity of God. The Pre-Nicenes believed this, the Athanasians and the Arians both believed this, as did the Cappadocians, Augustine, Hilary, Boethius, John Damascene, Photios, Lombard, Albert, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Palamas, Scholarios, Duns Scotus, Luther, Calvin, etc. The Articles of Religion explicitly endorse this view. What began with Augustine and, in the view of many, culminated in Aquinas, was a systematic theory that could reconcile the distinction of the Divine Persons with the absolute unity of the Divine Nature. Summarizing this tradition, Brian Leftow put the matter most succinctly, "Each Person just is God". Or in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be both God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords". Leaving to the side whether the project was a success or not - and it continues to have its proponents and detractors today - it is clear that at no point in the Great Tradition was the commitment to absolute monotheism understood to be something 'qualified' or 'mitigated' by the doctrine of the Trinity. Not only is this the case, but it is also true that the traditional Christian and Jewish understanding of divine simplicity was in fact stricter that the mainstream Islamic understanding: Judaism and Christianity made no distinction between God's existence and God's attributes; Islam explicitly and intentionally did so, holding the view of divine simplicity endorsed by Christians and Jews to be fundamentally irrational. So, Qureshi has it exactly backwards here, at least as a matter of history. Qureshi's account of God according to Islam simply doesn't square with what the Qur'an actually says, to say nothing of centuries of Islamic mysticism, and it creates a false contrast with the Christian God. Every single chapter of the Qur'an begins by referring to God as the "the Lord of Mercy (or "the Compassionate"), the Giver of Mercy", and these ascriptions are repeated numerous times throughout the day in the obligatory daily prayers. Because Qureshi appears to have assumed a social view of the Trinity, this led him to state that God in Christianity is intrinsically loving while God in Islam is not. Imagining the Divine Persons as separate psychological centers of consciousness appeals to the modern mind, but the premodern Tradition knows no such theory, and ascribed the Divine love to God's Nature as the most perfect Being, not to the three Persons reciprocally loving each other. No less an authority than Aquinas observed, "So love is called the unitive force, even in God, yet without implying composition; for the good that He wills for Himself, is no other than Himself, Who is good by His essence" (ST Ia, Q. 20, art. 1, ad 3). The primary object of God's love is God Himself, because love is the first act of will, the nature of the will is to intend the good, and nothing is more perfect than the Divine Nature. There is simply nothing in the Qur'an that corresponds to, for example, passages from the Book of Joshua, in the sense of divine vindictiveness. The depiction of God in the Old Testament is often quite bloody in a way that the Qur'anic depiction simply is not. God in the Qur'an in desirous of fellowship with human beings, and this is why He is depicted as communicating with prophets throughout history, so that they might share His message with their own communities. His commands are few, and His requirements are light. One does not need to learn 613 commandment to convert to Islam. Qureshi is mistaken that God in Christianity and God in Islam are different Gods. This is incorrect, despite being often repeated, and confuses far more than it clarifies. Persons can be identified in two ways: attributes, and actions. The attributes of God are the same in the two religions: eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, just, merciful, loving, unoriginate, providential, etc. There's a broad enough overlap in action to make it clear that the same Being is referred to: creator of the universe, fashioner of mankind, sender of the prophets Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Job, etc., judge of the world, etc. There are some differences here, to be sure, e.g., Muslims would of course say that God sent Muhammad whereas Christians would say He did not. But this observation need not be fatal to the thesis, as the same is true of Roman Catholics and Calvinists, with the former's lineup of post-Reformation saints and miracles, and the latter's denial of them. If Roman Catholics and Calvinists can be said to worship the same God, then Christians and Muslims certainly can. The two theological hinges that actually make Christianity absolutely distinct from both Judaism and Islam, rather than the issues cited above, are: Original Sin Substitutionary Atonement Without Original Sin, there is no need for Atonement (not in the Anselmian sense, anyway). Without the Atonement and the rigorous requirements for it to be effective, there is no reason to suppose a Divine incarnation, or the consequent crucifixion and resurrection. Without the resurrection, there is no reason to work out any theology of the Trinity. All of the Christian distinctives, as a matter of everyday practice and belief, work their way back to Original Sin and the Atonement. These are precisely the two traditional Christian doctrines which have been progressively watered down in the West over the last century, and they are the two Christian doctrines that have no counterpart in Islam. There are parallels in Islam to divine plurality (the eternal existence of the Qur'an in heaven), incarnation (the giving of the eternal Qur'an in time, through a human medium), and resurrection (certainly Islam teaches a general resurrection at the Last Day just as Christianity and Judaism do), but none to Original Sin and Atonement. This means that those Christians who reject Original Sin and Atonement are particularly vulnerable to Islamic apologetics, and it is fair to predict that the majority of converts to Islam in the 21st century will be Christians. It is very much in vogue among Eastern Orthodox living in the West today, for example, to reject these two doctrines (even though they're just as essential to, and explicitly part of, traditional Eastern Orthodoxy as they are to Western Christianity), on the grounds that they're merely "Western" or "Augustinian". In a strange convergence, the liberal theology of the mainline Churches (including my own, unfortunately) arrived at the same conclusion nearly a century ago, as exemplified by the removal of references to Original Sin in the Rite of Baptism in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. Such changes were novel enough to be controversial at the time, but are now widely accepted. These are not good leading indicators. These neglected part of the Christian Tradition are thus precisely the areas where Muslim-Christian dialogue should be focused, at least on the Christian side. If we get those things right, the rest will take care of themselves.
I certainly can understand when a lifelong Christian says he knows more about Christianity than a young convert from Islam knew about it. But I find it truly remarkable when a person who has been raised as a Christian (and has never been a Muslim, am I correct?) represents himself as knowing more about Islam than the person who was catechized and raised as a Muslim all through his childhood and youth. Disagreeing with Qureshi's view of the Trinity is one thing, but contradicting Qureshi's statement that the Allah of Islam does not portray himself as either loving or relational toward mankind seems questionable. As far as Yahweh and Allah being "the same God" in your view, if some people worshipped Zeus and believed that he is "eternal, omnipotent, omniscient..." etc. etc., would you then state that Zeus and Yahweh are the same God? Your list of attributes does not make Yahweh and the Islamic god the same Being, for the simple reason that a difference in just one attribute proves they are not the same, yet there are many such non-identical attributes which Qureshi identifies.
It would appear the one actual Muslim on the thread disagrees with you. Zeus and the God of the Bible are obviously not the same being. There is no significant overlap in their attributes and none at all in their actions. Allah and the God of the Bible are the same. With respect, please go back and re-read what I actually said. I already explained that the overlap in attributes and actions need not be 100% in order for the identity to be conclusive. The denial of the latter is a product of general Western ignorance of Islam (and Christianity), enhanced by the culture wars. It’s not actually a serious argument. Qureshi was not a scholar of Islam, nor did his upbringing make him an authority on Islam. As I do not own any of his books and have not read anything he’s written for a number of years, I am relying here solely on your representation of his arguments. Every single one of the arguments cited can be found in prior Christian treatments of Islam. Qureshi’s arguments are nothing new. Baptists and other American evangelicals have been presenting them for decades. To the extent that they’re engaging the Islamic tradition at all, that’s a good thing. The problem is that they don’t seem to have moved beyond a mindset that searches for different answers, to one that searches for different questions. The lack of any teaching on Original Sin in Islam means that some questions simply do not occur naturally to Muslims, despite their occurring quite naturally to Christians. This is an enormous hurdle in any kind of propositionally-based evangelism toward Muslims. Despite the Qur’an’s harsh depiction of Hell (though certainly by no means any harsher than medieval Christian depictions of it), Muslims historically and as a rule today are not overly anxious about the afterlife. This is because the relationship of God to believers in Islam is based on acceptance of repentance in lieu of the failure to obey a divine command; no other atonement is needed. This is another major hurdle. So, Christians have made themselves vulnerable to proselytization in precisely the two areas that make Islam the most resistant to Christian evangelism. That ought to be an alarming reality for anyone concerned about the future of Christianity in the West. Out of respect for longstanding Jewish convention regarding the prohibition of taking the Lord’s name in vain, I neither say nor write the vocalization of God’s revealed name in Hebrew, represented by the English consonants YHVH. For reasons of ecumenism and evangelism, along with a strong suspicion that the Jewish tradition on this subject is correct, I encourage all Christians to do the same. I encourage you to re-read the final portion of my post. If Christians focus their apologetic and evangelistic efforts on easily debunked statements like “the God of the Qur’an is not a God of love”, the results will be disastrous.
Concerning the notion that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) does not portray Himself as either loving or relational toward mankind: As you know, every day of their lives – many times a day – Muslims recite the following sūrah: ‘In the name of Allāh, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy! Praise belongs to Allāh, Lord of the Worlds, the Compassionate, the Merciful, Master of the Day of Judgement. It is You we worship; it is You we ask for help. Guide us to the straight path: the path of those You have blessed, those who incur no anger and who have not gone astray.’ (Al-Fātiḥa). Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) is Lord (‘Rabb’). He is the ‘Compassionate’ (‘al-Raḥmān’); and the ‘Merciful’ (‘al-Raḥīm’). These are the Beloved’s Names. We did not give them to Him, He chose them for Himself. Of all His Names, these are His favourite. That is why we are asked to recite them so often – so that we do not forget Who it is that loves us; Who it is that binds us to Himself to us with ties of tenderness, mercy and forgiveness. Islam places great emphasis on the nature of this forgiveness. These sacred names are derived from the same root as the Arabic for ‘womb’ (‘raḥim’). They confirm the Beloved’s nourishing and sustaining nature; akin to the nurturing and loving care of a mother for her child. As you know, it is a teaching of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that the Beloved (the Creator) is present in all created space. His Omnipresence is necessary because He is not only the creator of all things, He is also their sustainer. The act of creation wasn’t a one-off event in some far distant past. It is an ongoing process of development and renewal. It is for this reason that the Beloved gave Himself the name: ‘Al-Musawwir’ (The Fashioner, The Shaper, The Designer). It is He who brings about the evolution of the Universe; and of all life within it. The Beloved is pure spirit, devoid of parts. This means that He cannot be divided; that wherever He happens to be (and He is everywhere) He is there in His entirety. This is why He is able to say: ‘We closer to (man) than his jugular vein.’ (Qaf: 16). This is why it is possible for Him to have a personal relationship with each and every one of us. It is a source of immeasurable wonder that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) – Master of the Universe – should say to each of us – fashioned as we are from the dust of the earth: ‘Remember Me; I will remember you.’ (Al-Baqara: 152). What is this, if not an invitation to enjoy a loving relationship with Him? Concerning the notion that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) is not the God of the Bible: You wrote a wonderful post some time ago: ‘The Quran refers to Jesus as “the Messiah”. One could just easily substitute “Muslims” for “Jews” and “God” for “Messiah”, and end up at the same conclusion. ‘There are two ways to identify a person: actions, or attributes. If you ask a Muslim, “is God the one who revealed Himself to Abraham?”, he would say, “yes, this is who God is”. A Christian (or a Jew) would say the same. If you ask a Muslim, “is God the one who gave Moses the Law at Sinai?”, he would say, “yes that is who God is”. A Christian (or a Jew) would say the same. If you ask a Muslim, “is God the one who sent Jesus, the Messiah?”, he would say, “yes, that is who God is”. A Christian would say the same. Likewise, if you ask a Muslim, “is God omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and ever the same?”, he would say, “yes, those are God’s attributes”. A Christian would say the same. If you ask a Muslim, “is God the creator, upholder, ruler, and judge of the world, in this life and next?”, he would say, “yes, those are God’s attributes”. A Christian would say the same. Bearing in mind that each of the persons of the Trinity just is God, each and all bearing one and the same set of attributes and actions (cf. Athanasian Creed), on what grounds do you claim that the object of worship in Christianity and Islam consists of different Gods? That doesn’t make any sense.’ End of quote. (Not at all bad, for an Episcopalian!!!). You will be familiar with the Ishihara colour blindness testing system. On one of the test plates the number ‘74’ will be clearly visible to viewers with normal colour vision. Viewers with red-green colour blindness will read it as ‘21’; while viewers with monochromacy will see no number at all. Are there three testing plates; or just the one – understood in three different ways? Just the one, of course. Is there more than one Creator; or just the One – understood in different ways? Just the One, of course. May Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) bless you, and all you love; and may He reward you for your honest – and comprehensive – scholarship.
Beautifully written. I see you also use the Abdel-Haleem translation (in my opinion, it is the best). The Fatiha is a beautiful prayer and can be said profitably by anyone. I’ve always thought it bore more than a superficial resemblance to the 1st Psalm, which restarts the Psalmody cycle every Saturday evening at Eastern Orthodox Vespers.
What you have cited does not actually state that Allah loves selflessly or seeks a close, intimate relationship with humans. Mercy and compassion can easily be exhibited by one who is unloving and distant; for example, I might show compassion for an injured dog, but I need not (and do not) love the dog or want to take it home to live with me. But the Bible says, "God is love." "God so loved the world, he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." God shows His desire to be intimately relational many times in the Bible; He appeared to Abraham and made a covenant with him, He accompanied the Israelites during their sojourn, He told them to make a dwelling for Him so He could come and stay among them (and when it was completed the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle), and He even formed a mortal, flesh-and-blood body to live and walk among His people. Now He shows intimacy by taking up residence inside each of His faithful followers, indwelling us so He can guide, assist, and comfort us. This is what a loving, relational God looks like! This is what Yahweh reveals Himself to be. Can you say the same of Allah? Of course not. You have to interpolate an assumption of motherly love from the fact that certain words derive from the same root as the word for womb.... not that any of those names mean "womb," but you must grasp a tenuous link to try to prop up Allah's attributes so they hint at something akin to motherly love. How can 50:16 have any reference to a loving, relationship-oriented Being, when it is bracketed by threats? 14. And the Dwellers of the Woods, and the people of Tubba. They all rejected the messengers, so My threat came true. 15. Were We fatigued by the first creation? But they are in doubt of a new creation. 16. We created the human being, and We know what his soul whispers to him. We are nearer to him than his jugular vein. 17. As the two receivers receive, seated to the right and to the left. 18. Not a word does he utter, but there is a watcher by him, ready. 19. The daze of death has come in truth: “This is what you tried to evade.” 20. And the Trumpet is blown: “This is the Promised Day.” 21. And every soul will come forward, accompanied by a driver and a witness. 22. “You were in neglect of this, so We lifted your screen from you, and your vision today is keen.” 23. And His escort will say, “This is what I have ready with me.” 24. “Throw into Hell every stubborn disbeliever. 25. Preventer of good, aggressor, doubter. 26. Who fabricated another god with God; toss him into the intense agony.” No, Allah is not saying he loves people. He is telling you that he is so close to you, he well knows your subversive thoughts and the penalty waits at the door. There is nothing in "being closer than the jugular vein" that should comfort the Muslim; it's more like your jugular vein lies exposed to a waiting blade. I can admit that, logically, it is not completely necessary to regard Allah and Yahweh as 'not the same God,' because there is a legitimate alternate possibility. Let's look at that possibility. Keeping in mind that the true God is three Persons, yet one Being, it is theoretically possible that Muslims worship the Trinitarian God while being ignorant of His Trinitarian nature; but this would require us to conclude that their sacred Quran (which they see as the perfect "Word of Allah", but which explicitly denies the Trinity) is wrong. Tell me, is that really a possibility? Christians worship the God who personally came to earth as a human being (fully Man yet also fully God) and who, after living 30+ years of sinless life, freely gave his life on the cross in redemption for all human beings (even those who spit on him and nailed him to the wood), rose out of the tomb on the third day hence, and later ascended from the earth with the promise that He would return to resurrect and judge all of humanity. Is it possible that Muslims worship this very same God, yet deny both His most loving, selfless act done on their behalf and His resurrection & ascension? Can Muslims worship the God who suffered for them on the "tree" while refusing to accept that he is their God? I suppose it is theoretically possible, but only if we assume mere ignorance about the nature of their God rather than willful disbelief, and only if we assume that the Quran (which teaches that Jesus never rose from the dead, never took the penalty for our sins, and is merely a prophet inferior to Muhammad) is fatally flawed. Are you prepared to admit to those things? Or would you prefer to say that you and I do not worship the same God?
That certainly is your privilege. I view the "longstanding Jewish convention" of neither saying nor writing God's name, in fear that they might somehow take it in vain, as a legalism. If you'll recall, we say an abbreviated form of Yahweh's name in every Sunday service (and I say it dozens of times during the week): HalleluYAH! There is nothing wrong or bad about saying the holy name of Yahweh, any more than there could be anything bad about saying the precious name of Jesus (and His name is taken in vain more often in that form, by far). If by chance some Jewish people happen to read my posts and also happen to get their underwear in a wad because of it, IMO they should just 'get over it.'
I think that position is quite wrong, as well as uncharitable. Christian Bibles have traditionally respected the convention of substituting another word for the Divine Name. Pronouncing the Divine Name outside its traditionally proper context is either an instance of taking His name in vain, or it isn’t. Its faddishly casual (and frankly often annoying) use by American Christians is either a hindrance to communicating constructively with Jews, or it isn’t. Saying “Alleluia” is not the same thing as pronouncing the Divine Name. Cries of “legalism!” are just manifestations of antinomianism. I’ve never recognized that attitude as having a legitimate role to play in Christian practice, and neither did the Reformers.
I'll make a couple of minor points concerning this post. While I concede that Qureshi's theological understanding was not complete or refined in many areas, and he could have been wrong about some things, there are some observations to be made. My impression from the book is that Qureshi assumes this, not about Christianity, but about Islam. IOW, the Islamic doctrine being discussed implies that God is understood in Islam to be less "absolutely one" than Allah. And his reasoning pushes back against this. Please see my reply to Niblo concerning this point. Mercy and compassion do not necessarily imply, let alone prove, love. That sounds very good, until you look at scripture. In John's Gospel alone, we see the love between the Father and the Son: 1:18 The Son is in the bosom of the Father. 5:20 The Father loves the Son and shows Him all that He does. 14:31 The Son loves the Father and does His commandments. 16:14 The Holy Spirit will glorify the Son. 17:1 The Father glorifies the Son, so that the Son can glorify the Father. 17:24 The Father loved the Son before the foundation of the world. 17:26 The Son has loved the Father. From this, it is not hard to conclude that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit love one another. God is unchanging, so this love has been intrinsic to His nature from before the creation. An "authority"? Don't make me laugh.
Well, I'm only writing the Divine Name within proper context, referring respectfully to Him, so it certainly isn't a violation of the Commandment. I wasn't being "casual" about it in this thread, but I felt it important to distinguish His Name from the name used by Muslims (yes, "Allah" is used generically for deity in the way we use "God", but it also is used as "The Name" of their particular deity).
[QUOTE="Rexlion, post: 54345, Are you prepared to admit to those things? Or would you prefer to say that you and I do not worship the same God?[/QUOTE] Would you say that Jews worship a different God than you? Please justify your reply. If you and I worship a different God, then you are not a Christian. By the way, Arabic speaking Jews and Christians have referred to the Beloved as 'Allah' for centuries longer than Muslims. In Arabic, that is the only word they can use. It is in their respective Scriptures.
Thank you. Yes, Abdel-Haleem's translation is my favourite. I agree with your comment on the Fatiha. Peace.
Would you say that Jews worship a different God than you? Please justify your reply. If you and I worship a different God, then you are not a Christian. By the way, Arabic speaking Jews and Christians have referred to the Beloved as 'Allah' for centuries longer than Muslims. In Arabic, that is the only word they can use. It is in their respective Scriptures.[/QUOTE] I asked you first. Go ahead with your answer, I'll wait.
After further contemplation, I think the question of whether the same God or different deities are being worshiped is probably a matter of perspective. Since there is only one Creator, those who intend to worship Him are at least trying to do so. From that standpoint one could say they all are worshiping the same God. There must be some point at which people fail to worship the actual Creator, however the point where the line is crossed is not entirely clear. Certainly there are gradations. A case in point is the Mormons, a/k/a "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." At first glance one might say they are pretty close on the spectrum. But whence did they arise? They arose from a man, Joseph Smith, who claimed to be a great prophet. He claimed to have been visited by an angel and shown some gold plates with 'ancient Egyptian' writing. He wrote several books (Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, etc) and convinced people that they were equal to the Bible (actually greater than the Bible, for he taught that modern prophets' words supersede those of prior prophets). Smith benefited greatly from his efforts; he convinced the people that polygamy was important to one's eternal future and he "married" over two dozen women, sometimes by commanding his followers to give their wives over to him because God allegedly had decreed it. Prior to establishing his "church," Joseph Smith worked as a "money digger": claiming to be able to located buried treasure in farmers' fields for a fee. The similarities to Islam are interesting. Muhammad also claimed to have been visited by an angel and given scriptures to write (dictate, actually, since he could not read or write). Muhammad became powerful and well-off through this enterprise (prior to this he was what one might call a failure in life, but he caught a break when his father secured a marriage for him to a wealthy widow). Muhammad taught that his message superseded previous prophets and much of what is in the Bible. Muhammad was able to marry many women; he married Aisha when she was only 6, but to his credit he did not consummate the marriage until she was 9. Hadiths tell that when his men returned from a raid with captive women they'd taken as wives, he sometimes would tell a man to give up his new wife to Muhammad, and Allah supposedly had decreed it. The hadiths also say (or so I've read elsewhere) that Muhammad personally beheaded many captives, allowed women to be raped, kept slaves, and did other things that do not seem righteous. Even so, it seems that Islam has always taught that there is only one God (Allah). By contrast, Smith and the Mormons have taught that God is but one of many; that God was once a man like us and he evolved through personal effort, and that men through personal efforts may become exalted beings (gods) in their own right. The LDS teach that Lucifer and Jesus are brothers. These aspects of Mormonism suggest that they may actually be further away from the truth than Islam, even though they use words and names that seem closer and more familiar to Christianity. Of course, it's important to note that this is looking only at the institutional religions and not at the individuals. God judges people not by what the sign over the door says, but by the content of their hearts. The key is this: does any given person look to the Creator alone for his salvation, serving Him in obedience founded in love? Or does the person trust himself, believing that he is (or will be or can be) good enough to merit paradise through his own efforts? To address the question posed by the title of this thread: I do not think we can rightly say that Islam produces murderers. Rather, it is the sinful inclinations of unredeemed, "uncircumcised" hearts that produces murderers. People commit murder out of rage, jealousy, envy, desire for personal gain, etc.; all these motives are rooted in sin. If there are more murderers who claim allegiance to Islam than to Christianity, that fact might tell us something about the overall, prevailing spiritual condition of the members within a given group.
I'd like to add one more point to my previous post. In the last 2 millennia, countless people have claimed to be the Messiah or a prophet from God. What makes any one of them better than the next? Joseph Smith and Muhammad each claimed they were a prophet, yet they each contradicted previous teachings about God. What makes either one better than the other? But what about Jesus? Jesus is the only one who produced his "bona fides" to prove that he was different. Jesus quoted and taught extensively from the law and the prophets. Jesus went about doing good, healing everyone who asked of him, raising the dead, and feeding thousands with a few loaves of bread. Jesus exercised authority over demons. Jesus foretold the manner of his future death and foretold that he would rise from the dead. Neither Joseph Smith, nor Muhammad, nor any other can rival what Jesus said and did. Smith's body and Muhammad's body remain in their graves. Jesus' tomb is empty. Therefore, any "prophet" who contradicts the teachings of Jesus cannot be a true prophet. And any holy book that contradicts the teachings of Jesus cannot be a true scripture from God.