Would you change your religion for "love"?

[Elin]

A personal question.

Recently Miss Turkey ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=sfEs-RG7S2w ) converted to orthodox christianity just to marry a Greek actor. Orthodox Church doesn't allow marriages persons of different religions. She decided it within two weeks.

First whould you change your religion for a man or woman or just to marry someone from other religion?

Or if a famous Israeli model convert to Islam to marry a Palestenian and change her name from Hebrew to Arabic how would Israelis feel?

[Mil]

Before or after her Jewish mother would have a heart-attack?

[Kenneth]

Sure I would. As an atheist I'd gladly change to any other form of atheism for the sake of love. Who's the Greek actor she's converting for anyway?

[bararallu]

I think some people would be upset but life would go on and she may even keep some of here friends and family.
Now, it s incomparable if the situation was the other way around; a Palestinian Muslim woman (any woman not just an actress) would be nearly immediately and summarily slaughtered for marrying a Jew and converting to Judaism (most prob. Christianity or Druse as well). There are murders for just marrying out of your families/fathers opinion of choice much less to a guy from another religion/ethnicity. Thats why you occasionally see some of these famale suicide bombers... there are no 72 houris for them, it's: you shamed us now go blow up yourself in that yahood wedding party, or.. we'll rape and kill you right here and now.

[andak01]

People always assume I changed my religion for love and I did, fisabillilah, for the love of Allah.

Bararallu, Muslims don't kill people at the drop of a hat. I know a family that is currently about to lose their daughter to a non-Muslim. They are very upset, but hardly murderous. It happens.

[Agnosthiest]

Or if a famous Israeli model convert to Islam to marry a Palestenian and change her name from Hebrew to Arabic how would Israelis feel?

Its normal to feel upset over someone changing religious allegiances. but to threaten someone's life, or for disowning somebody who does so, now that is religious EVIIIIL.


I know a family that is currently about to lose their daughter to a non-Muslim. They are very upset, but hardly murderous. It happens.

Are they going to continue seeing her as their daughter? Or is she getting disowned?

People always assume I changed my religion for love and I did, fisabillilah, for the love of Allah.


Everything we do we do for the love of ourselves. You changed your religion because you found the islamic god to be more realistic. so to save your skin you converted.

[Christian_Iran]

To greek ortodhox, maybe.
Catholics or protestants or evengelicals or even mormons never.

[bararallu]

Bararallu, Muslims don't kill people at the drop of a hat. I know a family that is currently about to lose their daughter to a non-Muslim. They are very upset, but hardly murderous. It happens.

In the Middle East things are different than what happens in the United States (even though there have been honor murders there as well). I'm also afraid, your definition of drop-of-a-hat and mine are completely different. Nearly no one likes intermarriage, but few kill and maim for it.

How many dead women are the result of this? What is the typical treatment of apostates, much less females who "shame" their families in addition to apostasy? It's not only Muslims, but it happens almost always in Muslim predominating areas. Closer to the point of this post- When is the last time a Jewish father or brother has slaughtered a daughter or sister for marrying out? You're good at digging stuff out of the Internet... show us, show us some cases.

[bararallu]

Everything we do we do for the love of ourselves. You changed your religion because you found the islamic god to be more realistic. so to save your skin you converted.

This begs an interesting ethical question; by 'skin' I gather you mean soul or something like it. But wouldn't you have to buy-in first that you have a soul to in order to have it saved? Or, indeed, that even if you believe in a soul that it is savable generally, and specifically by joining another religion? not to divert the thread to much...

[Mil]

People always assume I changed my religion for love and I did, fisabillilah, for the love of Allah.

Funny. Generally people don't fall in love with Gods. Well - I heard that Athena was quite hot at least looking at the statues.

[Kenneth]

Once Miss Turkey converts to the OC will she have to wear a bra? If she was marrying me my mam would slap her upside the head for dressing like that.

[bararallu]

People always assume I changed my religion for love and I did, fisabillilah, for the love of Allah.

Funny. Generally people don't fall in love with Gods. Well - I heard that Athena was quite hot at least looking at the statues.

No dude that was Aphrodite, synchrenistic with the west semitic Ashoret, Athena was stoic and warrior like... unless you like girls that way....

[Yala]

People always assume I changed my religion for love and I did, fisabillilah, for the love of Allah.



I thought we all believe in the same G-d so I'm not sure why you would have to convert because you fell in love with G-d. Didn't you love the same G-d when you were a Christian?

[Yala]

Recently Miss Turkey ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=sfEs-RG7S2w ) converted to orthodox christianity just to marry a Greek actor. Orthodox Church doesn't allow marriages persons of different religions. She decided it within two weeks.

Were the Turkish people upset about it? Can you send us a picture of this Greek actor so we can see if it was worth it? :)

First whould you change your religion for a man or woman or just to marry someone from other religion?

I would not, personally. Would you?

Or if a famous Israeli model convert to Islam to marry a Palestenian and change her name from Hebrew to Arabic how would Israelis feel?

Well this is not really comparable to what happened with Miss Turkey as Greeks and Turkish people are not currently at war like Israelis and Palestinians. IMO, it's not the religion that would bother Israelis, as most are secular. I think an Israeli marrying a Palestinian of any religion would p**s people off.

FYI many Israelis have an Arabic last name, maybe even 1/3 of Israelis.

[Ariksan]

People always assume I changed my religion for love and I did, fisabillilah, for the love of Allah.

So how is Allah in bed? Are you craving for his blow- (up) jobs, any good? Don't forget the condoms even if you're just taking it up the arse.

But to answer your question Elin, it's difficult to say. You do all sort of crazy things when you fall in love. So I won't categorically say no. Pretty sure that I won't convert to Islam though ;).

[Habibullah]

Never, not for love not for my life.

[dayag]

A personal question.

Recently Miss Turkey ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=sfEs-RG7S2w ) converted to orthodox christianity just to marry a Greek actor. Orthodox Church doesn't allow marriages persons of different religions. She decided it within two weeks.

First whould you change your religion for a man or woman or just to marry someone from other religion?

Or if a famous Israeli model convert to Islam to marry a Palestenian and change her name from Hebrew to Arabic how would Israelis feel?

I think that Tuğçe Kazaz (Miss Turkey 2001) is so pretty she could convince the Pope to convert.

[dayag]

But to answer your question Elin, it's difficult to say. You do all sort of crazy things when you fall in love. So I won't categorically say no. Pretty sure that I won't convert to Islam though ;).

I have zero desire to leave Judaism, but if I did, I would pick Islam over Christianity. They only worship G-d. I could NEVER pray to or worship Jesus. Not even to save my life.

[Justcurious]

To greek ortodhox, maybe.
Catholics or protestants or evengelicals or even mormons never.

But they all only believe, don't they? (In other words, they have no exact knowledge, just beliefs.)

[Agnosthiest]

This begs an interesting ethical question; by 'skin' I gather you mean soul or something like it. But wouldn't you have to buy-in first that you have a soul to in order to have it saved? Or, indeed, that even if you believe in a soul that it is savable generally, and specifically by joining another religion? not to divert the thread to much...

Some religions fool you into thinking that you are sick, and then they sell you the cure.

[Agnosthiest]

I thought we all believe in the same G-d so I'm not sure why you would have to convert because you fell in love with G-d. Didn't you love the same G-d when you were a Christian?

Excellent point!

[Kenneth]

I have zero desire to leave Judaism, but if I did, I would pick Islam over Christianity. They only worship G-d. I could NEVER pray to or worship Jesus. Not even to save my life.

Quick question, no agenda attached, honest to goodness. Why is it so far fetched to believe that himself above (or herself) could not come to us below in the form of a man (or woman). Is it because it was not foretold or runs contrary to a something which was once written regarding himself above (or herself) never taking the form of man (or woman)?

Also, out of curiosity, which branch of Islam would you the most palatable for yourself if such a conversion were to happen. I'm guessing Sufi or Baha'.

[Kenneth]

But they all only believe, don't they? (In other words, they have no exact knowledge, just beliefs.)

Haven't you heard, god is in the details.

[Kenneth]

Some religions fool you into thinking that you are sick, and then they sell you the cure.

Kinda like lifestyle marketing?

[Justcurious]

Haven't you heard, god is in the details.

Never heard. Incidentally, which one of the many gods do you mean? Some Indian religion has many and I understand the Mormons also have more than one (two for reserve?).

[dayag]

Quick question, no agenda attached, honest to goodness. Why is it so far fetched to believe that himself above (or herself) could not come to us below in the form of a man (or woman). Is it because it was not foretold or runs contrary to a something which was once written regarding himself above (or herself) never taking the form of man (or woman)?

Also, out of curiosity, which branch of Islam would you the most palatable for yourself if such a conversion were to happen. I'm guessing Sufi or Baha'.

Sufi.

[andak01]

Sufi.

Sufis are Catholic Muslims. They honor relics and Saints and won't do anything without their imam's consent. Having been Christian, I can see the analogy. The extremist Muslims are iconoclasts just as the first Protestants tore the sculptures off the monasteries. When you go into some Protestant churches, there are no images, no stained glass and the walls are white, just as in Wahabbi style mosques.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=840

[bararallu]

FYI many Israelis have an Arabic last name, maybe even 1/3 of Israelis.

I'd think it's more that many Arabs took Hebrew names (then Arabized them overtime) rather than vice versa.

[dayag]

Sufis are Catholic Muslims. They honor relics and Saints and won't do anything without their imam's consent. Having been Christian, I can see the analogy. The extremist Muslims are iconoclasts just as the first Protestants tore the sculptures off the monasteries. When you go into some Protestant churches, there are no images, no stained glass and the walls are white, just as in Wahabbi style mosques.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=840

Andak,
I'll be honest, I know very little about the Sufis. I was basing that choice solely on the fact that Sufis seem the most respectful towards other relgions and Baha'is are persecuted in many places.
There is very little likelyhood that I am going to become a Sufi. I am very happy being Jewish.
Eytan Dayag

[bararallu]

I have zero desire to leave Judaism, but if I did, I would pick Islam over Christianity. They only worship G-d. I could NEVER pray to or worship Jesus. Not even to save my life.

Islamic metaphysics, (including eschatology and demonology/angelology) are as widely different from Judaism as is most Christianity. If your talking just visceral quality it's a matter of taste. But if you look at the nature of both religions they both resemble Zoroastrianism far more than Judaism as they were both syncretic with Zoroastrianism and it's various derivatives (mythraism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythraism) etc). Arguably, from the Jewish perspective any religion that has a true heaven and hell, with rulers on both planes (irrespective of justification), cannot be a monotheism nearly by definition (If Judaism indeed concerned itself with metaphysics as much as Christianity and Islam did). More important still (objectively) is the rewriting of the Itshak/Ishmael narrative and general revision of our canon- whereas the Christians (those that don't void their "old Testament") tack on their own "oral tradition" in the form of their Gospels, and leave the Tanach relatively unscathed, the Muslims fully write their own "revelation" only borrowing a bit here and there from Jewish and Christian sources. So neither choice is "closer" IMHO, it's just a different choice, perhaps like choosing Buddhism over Hinduism.

[Agnosthiest]

^ Andak, is there any way of distinguishing muslims from the way they dress?

Like which ones favor the hijab, which ones cover everything but the eyes, which ones don the burqa. Which sect are more adaptable to western styles?

[Kenneth]

Never heard.

Yes, it's an old saying, haven't the foggiest as to what it really means though.


Incidentally, which one of the many gods do you mean? Some Indian religion has many and I understand the Mormons also have more than one (two for reserve?).

Don't know, any of them, all of them, apparently an angel can fit onto the head of a pin so surely a god can squeeze into the details of anything. Perhaps the Hindus even have a god of details.

I never knew the Mormons had more than one god, are you sure about that? IIRC a good Mormon gets his or her own planet in the after life.

I remember being told by countless Catholic types while growing up that Mormons families where spooky brain washers and should one of them every give me one of their foul bibles I should burn it without reading the words within (this despite being told not to play with fire) lest it warp my fragile little mind. When I did finally get to meet some of these brain washers they turned out to be as bland and run of the mill as everyone else, and not very interested in converting anyone. True story.

[Agnosthiest]

I have zero desire to leave Judaism, but if I did, I would pick Islam over Christianity. They only worship G-d. I could NEVER pray to or worship Jesus. Not even to save my life.

do you really have to take on a religion? cant you just believe in God and not in the many little details that people wants you to believe?

[bararallu]

do you really have to take on a religion? cant you just believe in God and not in the many little details that people wants you to believe?

Some people will say all you're doing is making your own religion (which in turn, can spread and convert other people). In terms of details... if you're a car mechanic, then the details of car engines is important. Same with the theologians/priests/rabbis/imams/witchdoctors/ etc..., which exist in every religion, including religions that are oral in nature like many of the Aboriginal and native American ones. If you create your own religion then there is a chance someone will try to be it's interpreter at one point or another... depending how capable you are in spreading it in your life time :D. So it's not only what others are trying to make you believe it's what you yourself are trying to believe as well... consequently it's not unlike the butterfly effect.

[bararallu]

I remember being told by countless Catholic types while growing up that Mormons families where spooky brain washers and should one of them every give me one of their foul bibles I should burn it without reading the words within (this despite being told not to play with fire) lest it warp my fragile little mind.

Come on everyone knows thats the Christian Scientists...:D

[Mil]

In any case she is better be pretty hot for me to take up some sort of a religion - though for us Jews it's easier. A Jew is always a Jew. I can always come back :)

Though, why would I marry someone if this also requires for me, or is demanded of me, to change my believe system? What else will be required?

[bararallu]

The problem with semitic influenced regions AND the cycle of conversions is the following: there are only so many snips to the pecker a typical man can take before his love of God, and even hot wife, will dissipate.

[dayag]

Islamic metaphysics, (including eschatology and demonology/angelology) are as widely different from Judaism as is most Christianity. If your talking just visceral quality it's a matter of taste. But if you look at the nature of both religions they both resemble Zoroastrianism far more than Judaism as they were both syncretic with Zoroastrianism and it's various derivatives (mythraism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythraism) etc). Arguably, from the Jewish perspective any religion that has a true heaven and hell, with rulers on both planes (irrespective of justification), cannot be a monotheism nearly by definition (If Judaism indeed concerned itself with metaphysics as much as Christianity and Islam did). More important still (objectively) is the rewriting of the Itshak/Ishmael narrative and general revision of our canon- whereas the Christians (those that don't void their "old Testament") tack on their own "oral tradition" in the form of their Gospels, and leave the Tanach relatively unscathed, the Muslims fully write their own "revelation" only borrowing a bit here and there from Jewish and Christian sources. So neither choice is "closer" IMHO, it's just a different choice, perhaps like choosing Buddhism over Hinduism.

I disagree. Islam may have borrowed for Zoroastrianism, but Allah is definately "Akbar". Satan is not free to do whatever he likes in Islam and is definately not on a par with Allah.

[dayag]

do you really have to take on a religion? cant you just believe in God and not in the many little details that people wants you to believe?

Do I have to take on a religion? No, not at all. I am merely speaking hypothetically.

[Agnosthiest]

Do I have to take on a religion? No, not at all. I am merely speaking hypothetically.


oh ok. me, if i had to choose a major religion, this will be my order of choice:

1. buddhism.
2. judaism.
3. christianity.
4. mormonism.
5. islam.
6. hinduism.

[Mil]

I thought Zeus was cool :)

[Mediocrates]

Odin, Thor, Valhalla FTW.

[Kenneth]

Johnny Carson

[dayag]

Johnny Carson

LOL

If I was going to worship a tv personality, I would pick Jami Gertz. She's a lot cuter than Johnny. But to each their own.
:D

[Kenneth]

Odin, Thor, Valhalla FTW.

Speaking of Valhalla, did anyone see this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLEY_Dr7nHw) for the John Cox 2008 presidential campaign? The immigration song, geddit?

[KettleWhistle]

A personal question.

Recently Miss Turkey ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=sfEs-RG7S2w ) converted to orthodox christianity just to marry a Greek actor. Orthodox Church doesn't allow marriages persons of different religions. She decided it within two weeks.

First whould you change your religion for a man or woman or just to marry someone from other religion?

Or if a famous Israeli model convert to Islam to marry a Palestenian and change her name from Hebrew to Arabic how would Israelis feel?
What you're talking about is not religion. It is religious affiliation. There is a difference between believing something and having something written on a piece of paper. Like being a virgin and being like a virgin.

[Yala]

I have zero desire to leave Judaism, but if I did, I would pick Islam over Christianity. They only worship G-d. I could NEVER pray to or worship Jesus. Not even to save my life.

Is the way Christians view Jesus really that different from the way Muslims view Mohammed? I know Muslims don't think of Mohammed as the son of G-d or anything but they certainly look up to him as a guide as Christians look to Jesus, IMO. And if you had to look up to someone would you rather it was Mohammed over Jesus? I don't like the idea of looking up to any person (Moses included) to follow. We can certainly learn from some of their examples but to think they were w/o sin or perfect people makes no sense to me. IMO only G-d can exemplify such things.

[andak01]

Is the way Christians view Jesus really that different from the way Muslims view Mohammed?

Yes, it really is.

I know Muslims don't think of Mohammed as the son of G-d or anything but they certainly look up to him as a guide as Christians look to Jesus, IMO. And if you had to look up to someone would you rather it was Mohammed over Jesus?

Depends on what you are looking for. If you wanted a model for head of state or general of an army, Jesus didn't have any experience at all. If you wanted to know how to run business affairs, run a household with children, free slaves, make laws and pass judgement, Jesus didn't do that, Muhammad did. On the other hand, we know Jesus (SAW) to have lived without sin. Therefore, contradicting what he did or going in the opposite direction would be wrong.

I don't like the idea of looking up to any person (Moses included) to follow. We can certainly learn from some of their examples but to think they were w/o sin or perfect people makes no sense to me. IMO only G-d can exemplify such things.[/quote]

[Kenneth]

[I]s the way Christians view Jesus really that different from the way Muslims view Mohammed?

The way I was thought it was Jesus was god made man, and was therefore god, but that's the Catholic view. Protestants may have a different view of Jesus regarding him being god made man or not. I imagine Anglicans are somewhere in the middle.

[Justcurious]

I never knew the Mormons had more than one god, are you sure about that? IIRC a good Mormon gets his or her own planet in the after life.


You may find more details about gods in the following link. It might even be of help, if you searched the material in Hebrew. I can't.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Latter-day-Saints-958/god.htm

[Kenneth]

[D]epends on what you are looking for. If you wanted a model for head of state or general of an army, Jesus didn't have any experience at all.

Render onto Caesar that which is Caesars.

He had socialist leanings with a liking for big government, this much we know.

[dayag]

The way I was thought it was Jesus was god made man, and was therefore god, but that's the Catholic view. Protestants may have a different view of Jesus regarding him being god made man or not. I imagine Anglicans are somewhere in the middle.

I believe that Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, and Anglicans all believe in the Trinity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

[Elin]

Sure I would. As an atheist I'd gladly change to any other form of atheism for the sake of love. Who's the Greek actor she's converting for anyway?

George Seitaridi (not Seitaridis he is footballer).

Their marriage picture:

http://www.ucankus.com/img/imgyeni/tugce_yorgos_evlilik.jpg

[Kenneth]

George Seitaridi (not Seitaridis he is footballer).

Google says no. Show us a picture if you can. It's hard to know if he's worth jumping ship for going by that wedding photo alone.

[Yala]

Yes, it really is.

But most Christians would allow Jesus to at least be analyzed or questioned while most Muslims do not allow the same for Mohammed. Doesn't this imply that Mohammed is worshipped ( I know you don't like that word, but I can't think of anything more appropriate) on at least the same level, if not more?



Depends on what you are looking for. If you wanted a model for head of state or general of an army, Jesus didn't have any experience at all. If you wanted to know how to run business affairs, run a household with children, free slaves, make laws and pass judgement, Jesus didn't do that, Muhammad did. On the other hand, we know Jesus (SAW) to have lived without sin. Therefore, contradicting what he did or going in the opposite direction would be wrong.

So Muslims believe that Mohammed committed sins? What were they?

[Elin]

...

[Agnosthiest]

Depends on what you are looking for. If you wanted a model for head of state or general of an army, Jesus didn't have any experience at all. If you wanted to know how to run business affairs, run a household with children, free slaves, make laws and pass judgement, Jesus didn't do that, Muhammad did.


* without doubt Mohammad was a brilliant general. but warlords & religion is a very bad combination.
* it was his first wife who made business a success, not mohammad.
* what good examples can be derived from the way he ran his household?
* he made a heck of a lot more slaves than the ones he freed.
* his laws are backwards and often barbaric. his passed no law that can be of value in todays superior standards.
as a total nonbeliever i can see 1 or 2 bad things that jesus did. like when he demolished the stalls of those poor temple peddlers.

what i find admirable are the timelessness & wittiness of most of his teachings. especially that he lived up to those ideals that came out of his mouth.

[Elin]

Google says no. Show us a picture if you can. It's hard to know if he's worth jumping ship for going by that wedding photo alone.

George (Yorgo) Seitaridi & Tuğçe Kazaz

http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=3597078&tarih=2005-12-05

[dayag]

But most Christians would allow Jesus to at least be analyzed or questioned while most Muslims do not allow the same for Mohammed. Doesn't this imply that Mohammed is worshipped ( I know you don't like that word, but I can't think of anything more appropriate) on at least the same level, if not more?

So Muslims believe that Mohammed committed sins? What were they?

I think venerated would be a more appropriate and accurate word for the way most Muslims look on Muhammad.

[Yala]

George (Yorgo) Seitaridi & Tu?çe Kazaz

http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=3597078&tarih=2005-12-05

Nothing special, IMO she's much better looking than him.

[Yala]

I think venerated would be a more appropriate and accurate word for the way most Muslims look on Muhammad.

OK, so is this less offensive to you than the way Christians view Jesus? Is what bothers you that Christians pray directly to Jesus as well as to G-d?

[Yala]

The way I was thought it was Jesus was god made man, and was therefore god, but that's the Catholic view.

I thought we were all G-d made (wo)men? And don't most of our religions teach us that we are made in G-d's image? And aren't we all G-d's children? But then again we humans are not considered divine, whereas in Christianity, Jesus is.

[Anatolia]

Google says no. Show us a picture if you can. It's hard to know if he's worth jumping ship for going by that wedding photo alone.

He is not that bad I think.

Berti Pane posted Tuğçe Kazaz's pics on Istanbul (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=12746&page=3) Thread.

[Kenneth]

I thought we were all G-d made (wo)men? And don't most of our religions teach us that we are made in G-d's image? And aren't we all G-d's children? But then again we humans are not considered divine, whereas in Christianity, Jesus is.

Of course but - am I'm unsure at best here as religion was not my favourite class in school - Jesus was supposedly god in human form, or at least the son of god. I think it's like being someone who posts a parcel, the actual parcel and as the parcel can still make reference to the one who posted you. The Velvet Undergrounds song the gift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mr9LtlMsFM) springs to mind. But like I said not my favourite class.

[Anatolia]

A personal question.

Recently Miss Turkey ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=sfEs-RG7S2w ) converted to orthodox christianity just to marry a Greek actor. Orthodox Church doesn't allow marriages persons of different religions. She decided it within two weeks.

First whould you change your religion for a man or woman or just to marry someone from other religion?


Maybe I would change, maybe would not. I don't think it's neccessary to convert. In my opinion, marriage between people of different religions is quite normal. But it`s her decision... I hope she will be happy at the end, and hope she will not regret.

[Anatolia]

I read somewhere in IF only a child born to a Jewish mother is counted as Jewish. How about if mother is non-jew?

[bararallu]

I read somewhere in IF only a child born to a Jewish mother is counted as Jewish. How about if mother is non-jew?

It is true. By Jewish Law the child is not Jewish. This was flipflopped sometime in the early middle ages BTW. The old system (still a little existent, like in my family) sees that both need to be Jewish, but the fathers "nationality", clan, family, etc.. is what is being passed on not the mothers... pretty much in line with the traditional semitic model (still found among Assyrians, Arabs, Ethiopians etc), or really the model for much of the old world.

Our law of return is more modern and more understanding of ethnicity, you can be a quarter Jewish, say, which ever side, and still be given citizenship; the Rabbis will not consider you Jewish though, at least orthodox rabbis. This is very important, keeping a division between "church" and state. In the middle east, like in Israel, maybe the most important thing....

[andak01]

* without doubt Mohammad was a brilliant general. but warlords & religion is a very bad combination.

Joshua, Moses, David, Solomon are you saying those folk never went to battle? Never engaged in violence?



It was he who commented on proper business practice.



He shared the household chores with his wives and was kind to his children and children in general.



Personally? I don't think so. I see no evidence that he ever owned more than a couple of slaves at a time. He publicly decreed that certain sins could only be paid off by freeing a slave. He freed slaves and assisted others to do so.



That's a blanket statement as well as quite subjective. Who died and made you the judge of barbaric? Secondly, what do you know about Sharia? Have you studied it?



That's exactly how we feel about Muhammad (SAW).

[bararallu]

I disagree. Islam may have borrowed for Zoroastrianism, but Allah is definately "Akbar". Satan is not free to do whatever he likes in Islam and is definately not on a par with Allah.

You can make the same argument about even say Hinduism; there are many gods but there is defined pecking order. Read the Icelandic or German sagas.. they too will show that the "all seeing father" top god (Wotan/Odin) orchestrates everything, from his sons (e.g., Thor) adventures, to his "enemies" motivations and actions. Zoroastrian duality is very austere compared to Hinduism or Euro paganism. It was and is, however, considered "monotheist" by both Christians and Muslims but not Jews, in the classical period. Furthermore, it's dualism came over nearly unscathed into both Islam and Christianity. That doesn't mean that Satan is as powerful as God, but that he is a power and he has dominion; pretty much in line with Avestan Ahura Mazda vs. Ahriman. Very different from the snake in the garden. The devil here is in the details ;) .

What I'm saying is not as much of a stretch as it may seem, if you take the time to sit down and parse the texts, which I have for reasons other than this. Even Judaism has had a "hierarchy", mostly because it didn't start of as a monotheism, among the "Lord of hosts" : check out Bresheet 6:4. Still, even if there is some serious theological confusion, given a number of redactions to the canon, the Jews never bought into the dualistic model. In fact they quite consciously rejected it. Accepting it, means accepting a mild polytheism. I would even argue that some of the indigenous Arab religions predating Islam would have more structural similarity to ancient and even some modern Judaism than both Christianity and Islam, just on the basis that it would resemble Ugaritic or Akkadian pantheons which were the fodder for the early Hebrews. I'd also like to add that our motivation and drive towards monotheism is the direct result of abandoning (however temporally) corporate monarchy (= per the Book of Judges), something that was not I think fully understood by the early Christians and Muslims.

Many Jews are actually confused by "satan" in Judaism (and his shockingly innocuous role by comparison...), that confusion is directly proportional to their exposure to Christian and Islamic thought on the subject.

BTW, I dont mean to imply that Judaism is the best religion in any sense whatsoever.. merely that once set to the task of becoming monotheists they were careful to not enter into any self contradictions that both the Arabs and original Mediterranean basin Christians incorporated, academically speaking.

[Kenneth]

There's a Spanish Train... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eESjofjpdw0)

[dayag]

You can make the same argument about even say Hinduism; there are many gods but there is defined pecking order. Read the Icelandic or German sagas.. they too will show that the "all seeing father" top god (Wotan/Odin) orchestrates everything, from his sons (e.g., Thor) adventures, to his "enemies" motivations and actions. Zoroastrian duality is very austere compared to Hinduism or Euro paganism. It was and is, however, considered "monotheist" by both Christians and Muslims but not Jews, in the classical period. Furthermore, it's dualism came over nearly unscathed into both Islam and Christianity. That doesn't mean that Satan is as powerful as God, but that he is a power and he has dominion; pretty much in line with Avestan Ahura Mazda vs. Ahriman. Very different from the snake in the garden. The devil here is in the details ;) .

What I'm saying is not as much of a stretch as it may seem, if you take the time to sit down and parse the texts, which I have for reasons other than this. Even Judaism has had a "hierarchy", mostly because it didn't start of as a monotheism, among the "Lord of hosts" : check out Bresheet 6:4. Still, even if there is some serious theological confusion, given a number of redactions to the canon, the Jews never bought into the dualistic model. In fact they quite consciously rejected it. Accepting it, means accepting a mild polytheism. I would even argue that some of the indigenous Arab religions predating Islam would have more structural similarity to ancient and even some modern Judaism than both Christianity and Islam, just on the basis that it would resemble Ugaritic or Akkadian pantheons which were the fodder for the early Hebrews. I'd also like to add that our motivation and drive towards monotheism is the direct result of abandoning (however temporally) corporate monarchy (= per the Book of Judges), something that was not I think fully understood by the early Christians and Muslims.

Many Jews are actually confused by "satan" in Judaism (and his shockingly innocuous role by comparison...), that confusion is directly proportional to their exposure to Christian and Islamic thought on the subject.

BTW, I dont mean to imply that Judaism is the best religion in any sense whatsoever.. merely that once set to the task of becoming monotheists they were careful to not enter into any self contradictions that both the Arabs and original Mediterranean basin Christians incorporated, academically speaking.

In Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda and Ahriman were twin spirits (i.e. both deities). You mention other religions (Norse, Hindu, Euro paganism) which have a chief deity under whom are other deities.

But nowhere in Islam is Satan described as a deity. Iblis is just a Djinn who rebelled. He is just a created being in rebellion against his Creator. This isn't a pecking order of deities. The fact that he is temporarily allowed to act as an agent of evil, doesn't change the fact that in Islam, "there is no deity but Allah".

I do not doubt that there was an Zoroastrian influence on Islam (as well as Jewish and Christian influences), but it is a pale imitation. I am with Maimonides on Islam being a strictly Monotheistic faith.

[bararallu]

In Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda and Ahriman were twin spirits (i.e. both deities).

Not per their "orthodox" doctrine and certainly not in all historic Zoroastrianism (& they did have a bunch of "heretical" sects), only from our perspective. From their normative perspective, Ahura Mazda is predominant over an weaker, evil, entity. In effect Good being stronger than evil.:


There is one universal and transcendental God, Ahura Mazda, the one uncreated Creator and to whom all worship is ultimately directed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism)



I do not doubt that there was an Zoroastrian influence on Islam (as well as Jewish and Christian influences), but it is a pale imitation. I am with Maimonides on Islam being a strictly Monotheistic faith.

LOL. I could only imagine what would happen to Maimonides if he said otherwise!

My gut feeling is that all religions are variable or contingent, no true polytheisms and no true monotheisms.. only more or less. Judaism is a lot more than Islam IMHO... yes most Muslims are zealous iconoclasts but they tuck the polytheistic themes into inaccessible metaphysics, that of course you are not privy to till you croak. :rolleyes:. There is also the factor that they recognize the Zoroastrians as monotheists... that says a lot don't you think? I love that there are still Zoroastrians don't get me wrong (I hope they exist to the end of time)... but from a Jewish perspective, they are not monotheist. Judaism at one point or another is also not terribly monotheistic. We unconsciously worship today the elder god of a proto semitic pantheon, academically speaking. The rabbis and the Priests before them did a nice job in compacting the "host" and abstracting and unifying the division of cosmic labor that were well represented in early Judaism. Job well done.

The key here is a very definite confusion in Jewish theology about this. Perhaps we can agree on some of the following. Aside from metaphors and metonymy read into the Tanach (aka old Judaism), there are massive and stark transformations. Mostly as you say due to Persian influences but also Greek, esp Pythagorean thought in the areas of: eschatology, angelic agency, and religious metaphysics and cosmology generally. Judaism, like pretty much all Semitic and Hamitic peoples religions is "physicalist". To the ancients, a god is what we would call as superhero today, but not altogether fictional. They were larger than life but actually alive. There were no far flung astral realms but the earth the sun, moon and Shaol (shadows literally under your feet). The gods resided on the highest points, on earth: mountains.

The Indo European pattern was, in juxtaposition, completely different, and metaphysics were well developed and cherished, from the Persians to Plato. They had their concepts of nous and aether etc., long long before we incorporated them haphazardly, first complimenting and then supplanting material substance vitality (=blood) and other much more aboriginal belief.

Later Judaism had a schizophrenic response to I-E innovations: 1. mainstream Rabbinical Judaism ignored it. And 2. the Kabalists basically invented a new religion based on it. Thusly, today we have a sort of "heaven" and a physical "world to come" and a "resurrection of the dead"... yes you can contrive for all three to work but it is a serious contrivance. We don't have a hell though. They thought about it and rejected it I'm sure. We have a soul and soul mates, but we don't know (internal to Judaism) why we shecht things or why a Kappura (which was performed on me till I moved to the US bytheway) works just that it's commanded to be done. Why we can be made tamei by certain things but not others all while only our spirits are untarnishable, eternal and "atomic", for lack of a better word. These are fundamental things that religious Jews typically don't concern themselves with... :D . Because our MO, as it has always been; is keeping our noses close to the ground or to the book... Like Rambam and Ibn Ezra and Rashi and the rest of the greats.

But when we look at other religions, or compare religions, we should not assume they have 1. the same ethno behavioral MO as us, 2. the same monotheistic epigenesis as us (I'm not talking about Revelation) and 3. that they don't have "more closet space" than us to relegate to, excepting the kabbalists. I'll leave it at that, maybe we can move this discussion to the Religion forum, unless some here feel like I'm proselytizing :D, since I'm feeling quite bad right now diverting this thread- yet again!

[Agnosthiest]

Joshua, Moses, David, Solomon are you saying those folk never went to battle? Never engaged in violence?

of course they did. and look at what they did to amalekite infants. butchered without mercy. Remember what the Old Testament is notorious for? Im sure you know.


It was he who commented on proper business practice.

yeah after learning from his wife.


He shared the household chores with his wives and was kind to his children and children in general.

oh, I thought there was something more spectacular than that.


Personally? I don't think so. I see no evidence that he ever owned more than a couple of slaves at a time. He publicly decreed that certain sins could only be paid off by freeing a slave. He freed slaves and assisted others to do so.

he enslaved more than 500 children from one tribe alone. so what if he only kept a couple for himself.


That's a blanket statement as well as quite subjective. Who died and made you the judge of barbaric? Secondly, what do you know about Sharia? Have you studied it?

You can only complain on blanket statements when used on people. I was referring to the laws originated by Mohammed. prove me wrong. show us one islamic law (one which mohammad introduced to the arabs) that is equivalent to a modern law being used by a progressive & freedom-loving nation today.



That's exactly how we feel about Muhammad (SAW).
of course.

[andak01]

In Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda and Ahriman were twin spirits (i.e. both deities). You mention other religions (Norse, Hindu, Euro paganism) which have a chief deity under whom are other deities.

But nowhere in Islam is Satan described as a deity. Iblis is just a Djinn who rebelled. He is just a created being in rebellion against his Creator. This isn't a pecking order of deities. The fact that he is temporarily allowed to act as an agent of evil, doesn't change the fact that in Islam, "there is no deity but Allah".

I do not doubt that there was an Zoroastrian influence on Islam (as well as Jewish and Christian influences), but it is a pale imitation. I am with Maimonides on Islam being a strictly Monotheistic faith.

I agree with your comments. If there is any Zoroastrian influence, it is more prevalent among Shiites who lived in the areas where Zoroastrianism was common.

[dayag]

Not per their "orthodox" doctrine and certainly not in all historic Zoroastrianism (& they did have a bunch of "heretical" sects), only from our perspective. From their normative perspective, Ahura Mazda is predominant over an weaker, evil, entity. In effect Good being stronger than evil.:

LOL. I could only imagine what would happen to Maimonides if he said otherwise!

My gut feeling is that all religions are variable or contingent, no true polytheisms and no true monotheisms.. only more or less. Judaism is a lot more than Islam IMHO... yes most Muslims are zealous iconoclasts but they tuck the polytheistic themes into inaccessible metaphysics, that of course you are not privy to till you croak. :rolleyes:. There is also the factor that they recognize the Zoroastrians as monotheists... that says a lot don't you think? I love that there are still Zoroastrians don't get me wrong (I hope they exist to the end of time)... but from a Jewish perspective, they are not monotheist. Judaism at one point or another is also not terribly monotheistic. We unconsciously worship today the elder god of a proto semitic pantheon, academically speaking. The rabbis and the Priests before them did a nice job in compacting the "host" and abstracting and unifying the division of cosmic labor that were well represented in early Judaism. Job well done.

The key here is a very definite confusion in Jewish theology about this. Perhaps we can agree on some of the following. Aside from metaphors and metonymy read into the Tanach (aka old Judaism), there are massive and stark transformations. Mostly as you say due to Persian influences but also Greek, esp Pythagorean thought in the areas of: eschatology, angelic agency, and religious metaphysics and cosmology generally. Judaism, like pretty much all Semitic and Hamitic peoples religions is "physicalist". To the ancients, a god is what we would call as superhero today, but not altogether fictional. They were larger than life but actually alive. There were no far flung astral realms but the earth the sun, moon and Shaol (shadows literally under your feet). The gods resided on the highest points, on earth: mountains.

The Indo European pattern was, in juxtaposition, completely different, and metaphysics were well developed and cherished, from the Persians to Plato. They had their concepts of nous and aether etc., long long before we incorporated them haphazardly, first complimenting and then supplanting material substance vitality (=blood) and other much more aboriginal belief.

Later Judaism had a schizophrenic response to I-E innovations: 1. mainstream Rabbinical Judaism ignored it. And 2. the Kabalists basically invented a new religion based on it. Thusly, today we have a sort of "heaven" and a physical "world to come" and a "resurrection of the dead"... yes you can contrive for all three to work but it is a serious contrivance. We don't have a hell though. They thought about it and rejected it I'm sure. We have a soul and soul mates, but we don't know (internal to Judaism) why we shecht things or why a Kappura (which was performed on me till I moved to the US bytheway) works just that it's commanded to be done. Why we can be made tamei by certain things but not others all while only our spirits are untarnishable, eternal and "atomic", for lack of a better word. These are fundamental things that religious Jews typically don't concern themselves with... :D . Because our MO, as it has always been; is keeping our noses close to the ground or to the book... Like Rambam and Ibn Ezra and Rashi and the rest of the greats.

But when we look at other religions, or compare religions, we should not assume they have 1. the same ethno behavioral MO as us, 2. the same monotheistic epigenesis as us (I'm not talking about Revelation) and 3. that they don't have "more closet space" than us to relegate to, excepting the kabbalists. I'll leave it at that, maybe we can move this discussion to the Religion forum, unless some here feel like I'm proselytizing :D, since I'm feeling quite bad right now diverting this thread- yet again!

I freely admit that I am not an expert on Zoroastrianism. I did read that Ahriman was the twin of the good spirit, but it appears that both were creations of Ahura Mazda. So, I stand corrected on that point.

That said, your defense of Zoroastrian monotheism takes away from your argument that Islam isn't monotheistic, given that we both apparently agree that Zoroastrianism, Judaism, & Christianity all influenced Islam.

You question whether Maimonides could speak freely on the topic of Islam. A fair question. But if Maimonides considered Islam to be idolatry and was afraid to speak freely, why would he not just be quiet on the subject? Or pass on his beliefs secretly? Given the magnitude of idolatry in Judaism, I do not think Maimonides would knowingly write a false opinion on this topic.

An other reason I believe Maimonides was sincere in his statements concerning Islam being monotheistic, is due to his forced conversion to Islam. There are three sins which a Jew is supposed to die rather than commit. Idolatry, murder, and adultery. Maimonides is one of the most respected Rabbis in history. I am sure you are aware of the saying, "From Moses to Moses, there is no one like Moses." If conversion to Islam was considered to have constituted idolatry, I don't think he would have such an impressive reputation in Judaism. I have never heard a single person condemn or attack him for this.

Concerning how monotheistic vs. polytheistic various religions are, our differences may stem from semantics. We may agree exactly on the role of Satan in Islam and yet remain in disagreement about whether or not that effects Islam's status as a monotheistic religion. So, given that Islam's central tenet proclaims that there is no G-d but Allah, I say they are purely monotheistic. If you choose to interprete Satan as a holdover from a henotheistic or polytheistic past that detracts from Islam being considered purely monotheistic, so be it. We may just have to agree to disagree on this point.

You are opening some big topics there, concerning the eschatology, angelic agency, and religious metaphysics, etc. I was going to agree that you might want to move this to the Religious Forum, but it appears it has already happened.

[Kenneth]

...Zoroastrianism, Judaism, & Christianity all influenced Islam....

...and Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity & Islam all influenced the Yazidis.

Who are generally ethnic Kurds, and who are in the news of late (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=475424&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490). Pretty depressing actually.

[Agnosthiest]

...and Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity & Islam all influenced the Yazidis.

Who are generally ethnic Kurds, and who are in the news of late (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=475424&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490). Pretty depressing actually.


wow.

when a muslim leaves islam for another religion, they kill her.

when yazidis kill their apostate who converts to islam, the muslims kills the yazidis.

[dayag]

OK, so is this less offensive to you than the way Christians view Jesus? Is what bothers you that Christians pray directly to Jesus as well as to G-d?

Yes, exactly. In my view, praying to Jesus is idolatry.

Veneration of Muhammad isn't idolatry in my book. Muslims pray only to G-d.

[Kenneth]

Yes, exactly. In my view, praying to Jesus is idolatry.

Veneration of Muhammad isn't idolatry in my book. Muslims pray only to G-d.

Catholics also pray to Mary. And they pray to more saints than you could shake a stick at.

BTW: did you know Pope John Paul II beatified (canonized?) more saints than all the previous Popes combined. If the Vatican were to release these saints as children's action figures they'd probably become richer than China.

[Elin]

People always assume I changed my religion for love and I did, fisabillilah, for the love of Allah.

May i ask you did you convert before or after you meet your wife? Did she influence your views on this?

[Elin]

...

[Elin]

wow.

when a muslim leaves islam for another religion, they kill her.

when yazidis kill their apostate who converts to islam, the muslims kills the yazidis.


In Iraq everybody kills everybody.

Its not a news when people die in Iraq, its a great news when nobody dies in a day.

[andak01]

May i ask you did you convert before or after you meet your wife? Did she influence your views on this?

I converted before I met her and I was Muslim at heart over a year before that (we say reverted because we believe that submission to Allah was what Adam did).

My wife and my in-laws are the best gift anyone could have. Once my parents met her and saw what a fine person she was and how happy she makes me, their reservations melted away. As I always tell her, she's the best wife and the best mother.

[dayag]

Dr. Sana al-Sayegh, head of the Science and Technology Department at Palestine International University was kidnapped by Hamas and forced to convert to Islam.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3434253,00.html

[Kenneth]

How can you forcibly convert someone, I mean in a sense that it lasts. It's not like a tattoo or something. Sure you can kidnap someone and make them say this and that but as soon as you part company it's business as usual, no?

[dayag]

How can you forcibly convert someone, I mean in a sense that it lasts. It's not like a tattoo or something. Sure you can kidnap someone and make them say this and that but as soon as you part company it's business as usual, no?

If she goes back to being Christian, she will be killed as an apostate. So, as long as she remains in Gaza, she will have to remain a Muslim, at least outwardly.

[Parsi]

I don't think I'd change my religion for "love" except temporarily and for a very exceptional love. My wife is a moderate catholic, but living with me for over 12 years has certainly distanced her from the Church.

How can you forcibly convert someone, I mean in a sense that it lasts. It's not like a tattoo or something. Sure you can kidnap someone and make them say this and that but as soon as you part company it's business as usual, no?

Islam, in principle, is a one-way road and apostates are considered as Kafir.
According to Islam, Kafirs are ordered to be killed if their insist on rejecting Islam (God=Allah and Mohammad = the prophet).

[andak01]

If she goes back to being Christian, she will be killed as an apostate. So, as long as she remains in Gaza, she will have to remain a Muslim, at least outwardly.

Gaza is not a normal environment. Would you agree? Almost everyone there is packing an automatic weapon and the force of law is sketchy at best.

Certainly, there are enough Muslims in the world to kill all apostates if that was a norm. However, instead we hear about a few cases per year when it is evident that there are thousands if not tens of thousands more apostates than there are murdered apostates. On top of that, many if not most of the killers of apostates are arrested and put into prison by Muslims. This idea that every apostate gets killed or even that they fear being killed is absurd. Personally, I can think of about six apostates in my own community that are visited by my imam on a regular basis.

[Parsi]

...I love that there are still Zoroastrians don't get me wrong (I hope they exist to the end of time)... but from a Jewish perspective, they are not monotheist

Zoroastrians are misunderstood by many people and certainly by many Muslims.
I think the fact that Zartosht brought a monotheist religion hundreds of years before others, bothers them.

Zoroastrianism IS based on ONE God (Aura Mazda), but there is a moral duality:
progressive mentality (Spenta Mainyu) and evil/Ahriman or regressive mentality(Angra Mainyu). This is where the confusion comes from.

There's another misunderstanding that is mainly popular in the Muslims world. That Zoroastrians worship fire!!

The second misunderstanding has cost thousands of lives and it's because of this misunderstanding that we (Iranians) are called "majoosi" by traditional Muslims.

Although I don't follow organised religion, Zoroastrianism would be my choice if I decided to adopt a religion.

Perhaps I would change my religion if my love was Zoroastrian.

[dayag]

Gaza is not a normal environment. Would you agree? Almost everyone there is packing an automatic weapon and the force of law is sketchy at best.

Certainly, there are enough Muslims in the world to kill all apostates if that was a norm. However, instead we hear about a few cases per year when it is evident that there are thousands if not tens of thousands more apostates than there are murdered apostates. On top of that, many if not most of the killers of apostates are arrested and put into prison by Muslims. This idea that every apostate gets killed or even that they fear being killed is absurd. Personally, I can think of about six apostates in my own community that are visited by my imam on a regular basis.

Well, the fact that this woman was forced to convert is clearly not the normal environment. I have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims would condemn that. Hamas is showing their true colors now that they have seized power in Gaza.

I think it depends on where a Murtadd lives as to whether they would be in physical danger. I would not want to be a Muslim apostate in Gaza, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Taliban controlled areas in Afghanistan, and some other similar places.

[bararallu]

Zoroastrians are misunderstood by many people and certainly by many Muslims.
I think the fact that Zartosht brought a monotheist religion hundreds of years before others, bothers them.


To my knowledge, the genesis (no pun intended) of Hebrew monotheism is different from other inspirations. Not to say that the only basis for having a religion or indeed to understand a belief system objectively should be done relative to it's fidelity toward monotheism. Which to this day is ill defined and worse agreed to. The discussion here meandered to what's closer... to Judaism. My position is nothing, given that the difference between religious traditions is a difference of types, not degrees.. to borrow a distinction from philosophy. Others differ of course, seeing concepts for semantics say. But mine is pretty much the traditional position, all known accounts of apologetics [under duress] notwithstanding.

I'm far from an expert in either Judaism, Islam or certainly the variety of Zoroastrian beliefs that have existed for thousands of years (esp. before reforms in Achemenid Persia). My contention is that Jewish monotheism is ultimately reducible to a tribal monolatry historically. And this is pretty much beyond doubt, academically speaking. Just as academically we can say for certain that Zoroastrianism is not 10,000 or 100,000 years old as is claimed by many Zoroastrians and that when Muslims "convert" they do not "revert", because that is what we call a gross causality loop.

When our monolatry wholly, or even partially, transitioned into Monotheism as is recognized by Jews today, is an an open question. If anything it would be far more closer related, given the geography and interdependence, to the Egyptian Atun cult, possibly encapsulated in our tradition by Moses' sojourn amongst the midianites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midian), since the latter were in the Egyptian sphere of influence for millennium on end. Again, academically speaking. But it's not so... the book of Judges is clear on the motivation... it's a political and social decision to be different from all surrounding nations, that is, not to take a human king (and the onus of kingship/empire onto the nation), but to offer the kingdom to the power who can both deliver and keep the Hebrews true to their way. God. I say "motivation," rather than actuality since there are a lot of factors that impact a religion generally and Jewish monotheism specifically.

My post bytheway, and I'm sorry if it was taken a different way, was to illustrate modern syncretism rather than anything else. In the days we were all animists or polytheists, metaphysically inclined or not, people compared notes and mapped their pantheons onto other nations... most probably to make sense of the world. Sometimes to appease an invading horde. We have recourse these days with hind sight to understand both the motivations of these syncretic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretic) projections and an ability to critically say no... that they are fundamentally different things, wrought in different circumstances, from an utterly different epistemic framework and cultural milieu, and yes, that there has been some conceptual overlap, that are at the end of the day: secondary influences, and fundamentally convergent. Inversely, cherry picking seemingly related things (whether phonemically, phonologically etc), e.g.., Satan in Islam and Satan in Tanach, rather than categorically comparing the full tradition; is a form of a just-so-story, and syncretism no different than what some Jews have attempted with Hellenic religion during the late second Temple period. It's also a subtle acceptance of replacement theology aka supercessionism.

So in terms of my discussion with dayag here... just because some one calls Allah... Elohim doesn't quite make them comparable, historically, canonically, and since both people have theologies... certainly theologically, unless of course you want to look at the prehistory of both religions, again academically speaking. Most [religious] Jews and Muslims do not want to look at the prehistory of their normative religion, since it's fundamentally problematic for both. Even though from a traditional Jewish perspective at least, anything is up for discussion.

There's another misunderstanding that is mainly popular in the Muslims world. That Zoroastrians worship fire!!

You probably well know how many motivations, aka blood libels, both the Christians and Muslims have ascribed towards us... to this day. So I'd take worshiping fire any day, over drinking children's blood and methodically killing prophets/deities. :rolleyes: