Does anyone know anything

about the Coran?

Just curious if anyone has knowledge about the Koran, and it’s teachings.
I’ve done a breif search, but most of what I found is in a language I can’t understand to find the right links to an English version. Not to shocking right?

Mainly I’m just curious about Allah and the stance the Muslim community has on charity.
It seem’s the two God’s have alot in common, (Jehova, and Allah).
But if that’s the case, why is it that you don’t see Muslim relief efforts across the globe as you do with Christian orientated groups, or countries.
The main teaching of a Christian God is Charity/Love, compassion ect. Which many Christians seem to exibit in their actions to help the less fortunate around the world, even if their other actions are less than wholy…tee hee
I’m not saying the Muslims are not a humble people, or dilligent in thier beliefs and rituals. But I don’t see a charitable presence across the globe from the combined efforts of the Muslims.
Where is the Muslim compassion for the people of Rawanda, Sceriavo? I’m not saying it’s not there. Maybe there’s a media blackout here in the states on that one. We do only seem to get the terroist side of this group in our media. But if there was a charitable force on this planet from all the combined Muslims who are fuffiling the word of their God (Allah?) I think it would eventually make it through the blackout for an American so see, and say…WOW these guys really aren’t that different than us.
I mean it’s all fine and dandy to worship a God, and have humility, and commit no act to transgress your Lord.
But that’s not where it should end, and IMHO, that’s not enough. But I’m looking at it from a Christian perspective.
So if anyone here knows a little more about the Koran, and it’s teachings, or has a link to an English passage or two, I would be delighted and enlightened if you share, be ye Christian, Muslim or any of the many other alternitives. Or if anyone has knowlege of any one of the many charitable organizations or efforts the Muslims are active in globaly. That would be sufficient proof to me, that we are actually following the same God with a different language and name.

thanks

jerm



???

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
It seem’s the two God’s have alot in common, (Jehova, and Ala).
But if that’s the case, why is it that you don’t see Muslim relief efforts across the globe as you do with Christian orientated groups, or countries


I think for starters, it’s spelt Allah, and Koran.

I don’t know much about it, really, but my opinion is that christians and muslims (and jews) do worship the same dude, but they go about it it different ways. The jews don’t recognise Jesus as the son of god, the muslims take the teachings of Mohammed as their guidance, while christians follow those of Jesus.

Now, you’re taking the christian “way”, as you see it, of charity/compassion/love as the correct way, and can’t understand why the muslims don’t appear to be the same. I suppose with my theory of worshipping the same dude it’s understandable to think that the two main prophets of the religions would channel similar teachings, but lets remember that they were different people and it could be influenced by all sorts of factors.

BTW, there is the Red Cresent as opposed to the Red Cross. I suppose that would consist of mainly muslim volunteers.

Anyway, excuse my ignorance.

Willy.

Qur’an is the accepted scholarly transliteration. It plus the Sunnah constitute a rough equivalent of teh Christian OT and NT.

Look up “Zakat.”

If you don’t see muslim charity, then you are not looking - although you are correct, western media does not report much from the muslim world, except terrorism and related things.


try this:

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/

I would look up the five pillars of Islam as a starting point. Specifically look for Zakat.

EDIT: Duh, Tom already posted Zakat…

EDIT2: Jerm, I suggested this book to TG, but look into Houston Smith’s book on world religions. It is a very good and thorough startng point to get into the heads of the different world religions. We used it as a text book back in school.

I’m no theologian but I can add that:

- I think that Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet

- I think Jews do too

- The holy books of Jews, Christians and Muslims all teach that charity to the poor is a good thing (so do many other faiths)

- A major cause of conflict between faiths is proselytising, or actively searching to recruit non-believers and to convert others from their existing faith. Christians seem to me to be the most zealous about this but the Muslims are not doing badly in some parts of the world.

- There was a wonderful writer and UK broadcaster on religious issues called Gerald Priestland, a Quaker, who wrote several excellent books investigating world faiths. I recommend “Priestland’s Progress” if you can find it. He concludes that most faiths are different paths up the same mountain.

Cheers
TusterBuster

Jerm, here’s an ebook of the EH Palmer translation of the Koran.

Here

Ali

A second vote for Smith’s stuff - there are videos for the less ambitious, and although his stuff is just a tad dated (things move fast int eh world of religious studies) his stuff is always very readable.

Cool guys,

I’m glad no-one took my post the wrong way.
Everyone has been very informative. And I shall make the best of this new information.
:)

jerm

Quote (TomS @ May 20 2005,20:00)
A second vote for Smith's stuff - there are videos for the less ambitious, and although his stuff is just a tad dated (things move fast int eh world of religious studies) his stuff is always very readable.

There is a new edition that came out just a year or so back. They no longer sell his original 1957 (I think that was the year) work. The current revision is from 1991 I believe.

EDIT: Actually, here it is.... Link

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
In Judaism there are specific obligations called Mitzvah but there are also general obligations. Doing something good for someone who cannot repay you is considered a Mitzvah. It is a holy act…All spiritual paths have common themes. In Islam one of the five pillars of faith is Zakat – the obligation to help the needy. Christianity, of course, has the Golden Rule: do unto others. Hindus have Inayat which means ‘kindness’, and acts of kindness towards others is a central tenet of Buddhism.


Just coincidentally, I recently wrote this passage in a document I am currently drafting. Thought I’d share it.

Bill.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
It seem’s the two God’s have alot in common, (Jehova, and Ala).


If you believe what the Bible&Quran says, in fact Muslims and Jews are “blood brothers” and Christians, following new testament, also are Abraham sons.
What a big family, eh? :wink:
Quote (Bubbagump @ May 23 2005,14:12)
Quote (TomS @ May 20 2005,20:00)
A second vote for Smith's stuff - there are videos for the less ambitious, and although his stuff is just a tad dated (things move fast int eh world of religious studies) his stuff is always very readable.

There is a new edition that came out just a year or so back. They no longer sell his original 1957 (I think that was the year) work. The current revision is from 1991 I believe.

EDIT: Actually, here it is.... Link

In the world of religious studies 1991 is nearly ancient history, unfortunately. Compare Smith's approach with a more recent one, John Esposito et al's World Religions Today. In WRT the authors eschew the structuralist approach (which was of cutting edge in the 50s but turns out to be theoretically problematic) that one finds in Smith, in favor of a presentation based on the idea that religions are all facing some version of the "heretical imperative" - the idea that in a modern context it is impossible to avoid confrontation with a plurality of voices (including scientific ones as well as other traditions). "Heresy" comes from a root meaning "choice" - so that unlike a Catholic, say, in the 13th century, a Catholic today cannot choose to avoid the problems presented by modernity. Choice is forced on us, to a degree unprecedented in hsitory. This is a big deal.

E.g., partly the authors adopted this approach to make sense of the various forms of "fundamentalism" that show up in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and some others (but not Buddhism! :) ) - the central claim being that "you really can't go back again." So fundamentalisms need to be understood as a modern response pointing in a new direction, presented within an ideological frame that offers them as a kind of "going back." What id most curious is that most fundamentalists don't realize this, so they choose irresponsibly.

Not all introductions to religious studies are created equal. For all the beauty of Smith's work, there are approaches that better reflect the lessons of scholarship of the last 25 or 30 years. :)

Here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec....s=books

I always wonder why “Fundamentalism” is the word choosen for describe that kind of religious groups, and what is an appropiate description of “what is a fundamentalist”? Can you give 5 or more points that a fundamentalist have (dont matter from what religion it comes?) Can you list Christians churchs or groups “fundamentalists” or jews?



The purpose of my question is to see what´s the base you are discussing (too much Petroccelli, eh? :wink:

I dunno Marce, but to me, Fundamentalist Christian means one to whom the bible, and only the bible, is the true “word”. (For any given value of “bible”.)

I think the term “Evangelical” is also used, but that’s a wee bitty misleading to my mind.

And I think that the bible is taken to be the exact and literal word of God.

I suppose the roots of fundamentalism (in the Judeo-Christian world anyway), goes back to the Rabbinical tradition of Judaism.

(Although, I’m relying on Tom to correct my more outstanding mistakes here. :) )

In ancient Judaism, the temple in Jerusalem was the home of God, and if you wanted to talk to him, then you gave the priest a goat, a wee bag of silver, and they passed the message on.

And incidentally, they also told you what the latest SP from God was too!

Many Rabbinic teachers taught that God was everywhere, and one did not need priests or the temple.

And that was good news for all the Jews scattered over the Roman Empire.

And Jesus himself taught the same thing; God is everywhere, in your heart and in your mind, so, talk to him there.

Which is possibly one of the main reasons the Jesus sect of Judaism became so popular.

Then of course, after the Romans took it over, it was all back to priests acting as intermediaries again, and pray all you want, but if you don’t have an officially licenced priest to give the 7 sacraments, you’re screwed!

John Knox, Martin Luther, and the like, turned the wheel once again. They denied the authority of the pope, and said that it’s all in the bible. That is God’s word, and that’s all you need.

So, once again the wheel turns.

Once more we have preachers and whatever telling people what God really meant by…such and such a chapter in the bible.

Anyway, that’s what Christian fundamentalism means. (I think).

Islamic fundamentalism is more or less the same I 'spect, but with cous-cous instead of fries.

Satanic fundamentalism is much more complex, and involves not only goats (see above re ancient Judaism), but also very broad-minded ladies, plenty of booze, and virtually no cous-cous at all.

Ali

Quote (TomS @ May 23 2005,19:49)
In the world of religious studies 1991 is nearly ancient history, unfortunately. Compare Smith’s approach with a more recent one, John Esposito et al’s World Religions Today.

I hear ya, but as a beginners primer, I think Huston Smith one of the best. I found it quite acessible and getting at the basic heart of the religions in my high school years and rereading it now I find it still very relavent. At this point we’re talking a very high level view. We’ll dig into Aquinas, Joseph Campbell, and CS Lewis next week. :) But Esposito, I’ll have to see what he is all about.


As for the word fundametalist, in English that means to get to the base of something. The fundamentals of playing piano, the fundamentals of playing baseball, the fundamentals of physics. the fundamentals of reading. Here it is used as the fundamentals of the religion, which as Ali pointed out, is in their view the Bible.

“Fundamentalism” as applied to religion comes from a US movement in the early 20th century, in which a group of Christians sought to get back to the fundamentals (as they saw them). At the center of the movement was a series of publications called “The Fundamentals” (from which the movement got its name - so the term originated as a self-description, and is now used by critics - a word history that parallels “politically correct” oddly enough! ). “The Fundamentals” was a series of scholarly articles presented in defense of the historical accuracy of the Bible, the truth of Christianity, and the like. It often included some very good scholarship - given what they knew at the time about the history of the text, the archeology, etc., which was a whole lot less than we know now! But the movement pretty much died after the “monkey trial.”

Imagine the surprise of folks who study this sort of thing when a new form of “fundamentalism” arose about 30 years ago, claiming to be merely a continuation of the old movement, but in reality quite different (hence the “heretical imperative”). Now imagine the surprise occasioned when demographic studies revealed that there has a been a consistent increase in membership in this new fundamentalism in the US (and Canada, too), while there has been a decrease in so-called “liberal” churches (if those labels are useful, they are only barely useful). Discussions abound about what explains this ( I got nearly 17000 hits on amazon.com). It really is a puzzle, since it involves a flight from reason of the sort that reasonable people find completely foreign. It would ahve been foreign to many of the schoalrs who contributed to the Fundamentals, too - since they sought to show that the Bible had it right using good scholarship. There is no good scholarship in 21st century fundamentalism. they have to ignore the scholarship that is out there - something most of the contributors to the Fundamentals would never have done.

Anyway, the word “fundamentalsim” is now used to describe similar “back-to-origins” movements in Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism - although you can see from the word’s history that such cross-tradition applications are bound to be problematic. It is especially interesting when applied to Hinduism, and the political movements that swept through India in the 1990s.

So…what does it mean? It has a range of related meanings, and it is perhaps impossible to pin down even a scholarly consensus on usage, b/c the term is also used as a bit of political rhetoric (a “trope”) right now, and we know that politics does to language. :)

The Fundamentals can be found in several editions, here’s one - love the reader’s reviews, it’s like scholarship stopped 100 years ago - oh well, if it tells you what you want to hear it must be true, right?

here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec…8205514

Quote (marce @ May 23 2005,19:47)
It seem's the two God's have alot in common, (Jehova, and Ala).


If you believe what the Bible&Quran says, in fact Muslims and Jews are "blood brothers" and Christians, following new testament, also are Abraham sons.
What a big family, eh? ;)
Yep, just got done reading a large portion of Ali's reference over the last couple of days, and it will probably take me another year or so to read it all....
The Koran, and the Bible really don't seem that different from what I've read so far....
I especially related to the passage that talks about how the Isrealite's asked Moses to ask God for something other than mana to eat. (I remember that from the Bible) The Koran does seem to harp on how the Jews where the chosen people and how ungrateful they were, but I feel that's a good life lesson for anyone who reads it. Also suprising to me, the Koran also says that anyone (and I hope I'm not misenterperating this), be ye, Jew, Muslim or Christian is justified as long as they follow the word of God. That hardly seems consistent with the terrorist/Muslim interperation of this book, but not as suprising. Since we have alot of Christians mis-interperating the Bible in the same slanted manner.


Thanks guys this has been very enlightening, and I appreciate the manner in which my post was received.

BTW I only use the word Jehova, since I didn't want to use the word God as a generality, and that was the only name that came to mind at the time. I have since found that groups like the Jehova witnesses don't beleive in Jesus as a savior, so I just want to make the descertion that I'm not affiliated with this group, as I do beleive in Christ.

jerm :cool:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
BTW I only use the word Jehova, since I didn’t want to use the word God as a generality, and that was the only name that came to mind at the time.


Jerm, when talking about the supposed common god of Judaism/Christianity/Islam; to avoid misuse and misunderstanding, it’s usually best to use the generic name, Bob.

“Herbert…”