Actually, the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost is integral, and was very well understood by the 7th century. The Holy Ghost is the influence of the Father intervening in the lives of humans. Removing the Ghost/Spirit would mean that the Father or the Son have to personally intervene in the world, which would be the equivalent of a King dirtying his hands by dealing justice to individual peasants.
AHC: Islam considered Christian
- Thread starter Beedok
- Start date
Actually, the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost is integral, and was very well understood by the 7th century. The Holy Ghost is the influence of the Father intervening in the lives of humans. Removing the Ghost/Spirit would mean that the Father or the Son have to personally intervene in the world, which would be the equivalent of a King dirtying his hands by dealing justice to individual peasants.
Skokie
Banned
What you could have, simply, is a more diverse Christianity, in which Catholic/Orthodox Christianity is simply one "school" among many others. Then you could have a Chrislam (I like that 
) alongside Ebionite Christianity and Gnostic Christianity and who knows what else.
Think of it like Mahayana, Hinayana, Vajrayana Buddhism.
) alongside Ebionite Christianity and Gnostic Christianity and who knows what else.Think of it like Mahayana, Hinayana, Vajrayana Buddhism.
Leo Caesius
Banned
It sounds suspiciously like the Alawi triad of Muhammad, Ali, and Salman al-Farisi.
Umm, no. Orthodox Islam puts extreme stress on the unity and oneness of God, and considers the entire idea of the Trinity to be utterly wrong. In fact, Medieval Muslims sometimes referred to Christians as "polytheists" because they interpreted the Trinity thing to imply three separate divinities. So no, Trinitarian Christianity and Islam will never, IMO, merge into one religion without significant changes to both.
It's clear Christians are People of the Book but ALSO mushrikun which is a one of the reasons Muslim girls are prohibited from marrying Christian men.
But this is an alt-Islam. I don't think there would be a whole lot of difference in actual practice if it followed a course like I suggested. I can easily imagine an idea similar to "God sent Jesus to carry out prayers to God for even as Muslims we are still unworthy and Muhammad has illuminated the way to the truth of Jesus." I think it would still have major recognizable Islamic elements in it in practice.
Mohammad, whilst out and about, meets a sect of Arians or Unitarians, and adopts some of their beliefs and his sayings on the matter are included later in the Koran. Later, his words are read further afield in Europe, and many Unitarians in Europe adopt some of Islams practices. LAter on still, Universalists look to Islam as a form Christianity noting how it too is Universalist. By then, we could see several major sects of Abrahamism (name taken later on by the three main faiths): Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Sunni, Shia, Suffi, Unitarianism, Universalism, Judaism and Amalgamism, with Amalgamsim being akin to Unitarianism, Universalism, Protestantism, Suffi and some strings of Judaism.
In many ways Islam is closer to Judaism than it is to Christianity. It would be easier to classify Islam as a Jewish sect with Mohammed being regarded as just another prophet like Moses. You have no Messiah and the Islamic clergy resemble Jewish clergy much more than they do Christian.
The view of God in Islam is pretty much a reworking of the old testament version of God in classical Judaism.
Finally, the cultural behaviour seen in many parts of the Islamic world resemble biblical Judaism much more than it does Chrisitianity.
Leo Caesius
Banned
Bernard Lewis spoke to this very issue, and while I don't agree with much of what he says, I think it's worth reproducing what he said here.
Nowadays, it has become the custom in the West to speak of “the Judaeo-Christian tradition” and sometimes to contrast it with what is perceived as a different Islamic tradition. The term is new, and in earlier times would probably have been found equally offensive on both sides of the hyphen. But it designates a genuine historical and cultural phenomenon. Christianity retained the Jewish Bible and, renaming it the Old Testament, added a New Testament to it. Islam dropped both. One need only think of the immense significance of the Old Testament in Christian literature, music, and art to see the importance of this shared Judaeo-Christian element.
But one could, with equal validity – referring to the past if not to the present – speak of a Judaeo-Islamic tradition or even of an Islamo-Christian tradition. Judaism and Islam are both legal religions, believing in a divinely ordained law which regulates every aspect of life – public and private, civil and criminal, domestic and public, ritual and dietary, by the same authority and with the same sanctions. The Christian dichotomy between God and Caesar, church and state, imperium and sacerdotium, is alien both to the Judaic and the Islamic traditions. There is also a Judaeo-Muslim theological affinity. Jews and Muslims agree on a rigorous and uncompromising monotheism and reject basic Christian doctrines which they see as conflicting with that belief.
There are other criteria which would place Islam and Christianity together on one side and Judaism alone on the other. Judaism categorically rejects polytheism and idolatry, but otherwise makes no claim to exclusive truth. Monotheists of all peoples and persuasions, according to rabbinic teaching, have a share in the world to come. For the rabbis, Judaism is for Jews and those who care to join them; nobody is under any obligation to do so. Judaism claims its truths are universal but not exclusive, and in this respect it seems closer to the religions of Asia than to either Islam or Christianity. Christianity and Islam both agree that there is only one final revelation of God’s truth and that salvation can only be achieved by that truth, preferably from its own authorized exponents. Christian and Muslim alike shared this triumphalism, each convinced that his faith was the one true, whole, and final religion, and that his cause would inevitably triumph. Muslims like Christians, knew that those who did not share their beliefs would burn in everlasting hellfire. Unlike Christians, they saw no need to anticipate the divine judgement in this world.
Both possessors of God’s last word believed they had a duty to bring the word to all humanity, that is to convert the infidels, and to create an oecumene of their own in the process. The two religions contested the same Mediterranean world as the first step toward ultimate supremacy. This led to the long struggle of jihad and crusade, conquest and reconquest, through the centuries.
But one could, with equal validity – referring to the past if not to the present – speak of a Judaeo-Islamic tradition or even of an Islamo-Christian tradition. Judaism and Islam are both legal religions, believing in a divinely ordained law which regulates every aspect of life – public and private, civil and criminal, domestic and public, ritual and dietary, by the same authority and with the same sanctions. The Christian dichotomy between God and Caesar, church and state, imperium and sacerdotium, is alien both to the Judaic and the Islamic traditions. There is also a Judaeo-Muslim theological affinity. Jews and Muslims agree on a rigorous and uncompromising monotheism and reject basic Christian doctrines which they see as conflicting with that belief.
There are other criteria which would place Islam and Christianity together on one side and Judaism alone on the other. Judaism categorically rejects polytheism and idolatry, but otherwise makes no claim to exclusive truth. Monotheists of all peoples and persuasions, according to rabbinic teaching, have a share in the world to come. For the rabbis, Judaism is for Jews and those who care to join them; nobody is under any obligation to do so. Judaism claims its truths are universal but not exclusive, and in this respect it seems closer to the religions of Asia than to either Islam or Christianity. Christianity and Islam both agree that there is only one final revelation of God’s truth and that salvation can only be achieved by that truth, preferably from its own authorized exponents. Christian and Muslim alike shared this triumphalism, each convinced that his faith was the one true, whole, and final religion, and that his cause would inevitably triumph. Muslims like Christians, knew that those who did not share their beliefs would burn in everlasting hellfire. Unlike Christians, they saw no need to anticipate the divine judgement in this world.
Both possessors of God’s last word believed they had a duty to bring the word to all humanity, that is to convert the infidels, and to create an oecumene of their own in the process. The two religions contested the same Mediterranean world as the first step toward ultimate supremacy. This led to the long struggle of jihad and crusade, conquest and reconquest, through the centuries.
I think that the main point here arise from the fact that what we consider "Christian" today is basically what Nicea established (more or less).
To make Chrislam possible we could work either on the Arian or on the Nestorian way.
to make a (actual two) complex story short:
- Arian way (streched a bit): Jesus to is not to be considered to be equal to the Father, but something like a Super-Angel or a Ultra-Prophet.
Anyway, he is not godly, but human (or super-human) in his nature.
Unfortunately, the christian Clergy misunderstood/abused of his message, thus another, final Prophet had to be send.
That would make Islam something comparable to a Protestant reform.
"Son of god" expression to be understood as a metaphor: since Jesus encouraged all his followers to pray god calling him father, thus technically all the believers should consider themselves to be "Son of god". To make a parallel, it is a concept similar to the one of calling himself Abd-Allah (servant of God), only stressing more on the "god-created-me" concept instead of the "I-accept-the-will-of-god" concept.
- Nestorian way (streched a bit): Jesus is not to be considered a different person from god, but God himself making a (quite long) apparition on earth. Holy ghost to be understood not as a person, but as a process: use it as a synonym for the expression "the will of God"
This removes the whole "polytheistic Trinity" problem.
As before, christian Clergy misunderstood/abused of his message, thus another, final Prophet had to be send.
To make Chrislam possible we could work either on the Arian or on the Nestorian way.
to make a (actual two) complex story short:
- Arian way (streched a bit): Jesus to is not to be considered to be equal to the Father, but something like a Super-Angel or a Ultra-Prophet.
Anyway, he is not godly, but human (or super-human) in his nature.
Unfortunately, the christian Clergy misunderstood/abused of his message, thus another, final Prophet had to be send.
That would make Islam something comparable to a Protestant reform.
"Son of god" expression to be understood as a metaphor: since Jesus encouraged all his followers to pray god calling him father, thus technically all the believers should consider themselves to be "Son of god". To make a parallel, it is a concept similar to the one of calling himself Abd-Allah (servant of God), only stressing more on the "god-created-me" concept instead of the "I-accept-the-will-of-god" concept.
- Nestorian way (streched a bit): Jesus is not to be considered a different person from god, but God himself making a (quite long) apparition on earth. Holy ghost to be understood not as a person, but as a process: use it as a synonym for the expression "the will of God"
This removes the whole "polytheistic Trinity" problem.
As before, christian Clergy misunderstood/abused of his message, thus another, final Prophet had to be send.
Last edited:
An interesting discussion. And has been said, it really comes down to who is defining what.
It is true that some in the early nicean Christian church, who only knew snippets about Islam, did tend to interpret it as a Christian heresy, not unlike a lot of other heresies with a "confused" understanding of the nature of Christ. But I doubt if any Moslems ever considered their faith an outgrowth of Chistianity, because it is quite clear it came from a unique revelation to Mohammed and God was not simply tweaking Christianity. As Christians came into greater contact with Islam during the later middle ages it became plainly apparent they could not be seen as variants of the same religion given their different historical development and views regarding the nature of Christ and the unity of God.
I really like the Bernard Lewis quote, which represents a dispationate "outsiders" comparison of the 3 Abrahamic faiths.
However, it is the adherents of faiths who really decide who is what. As has been stated, some nominally "Christian" sects come closer to the Islamic perspective of Christ than the orthodox Trinitarian view. Then there is the LDS Church, which is sufficiently different from all the others to be considered the 4th major Abrahamic religion (or 5th if one includes Bahai Faith, as I would). I would consider those sects that harken to a Christian background and use the New Testament as a Holy Book (even if along with another newer book) should be considered "Christian" if that's what they consider themselves. Since Moslems never considered themselves Christians and (as far as we know) Mohammed never considered himself "reforming" Christianity, it insults both Islam and Christianity to consider Islam a variant of Christianity regardless of how admired Jesus is among the prophets of God.
It is true that some in the early nicean Christian church, who only knew snippets about Islam, did tend to interpret it as a Christian heresy, not unlike a lot of other heresies with a "confused" understanding of the nature of Christ. But I doubt if any Moslems ever considered their faith an outgrowth of Chistianity, because it is quite clear it came from a unique revelation to Mohammed and God was not simply tweaking Christianity. As Christians came into greater contact with Islam during the later middle ages it became plainly apparent they could not be seen as variants of the same religion given their different historical development and views regarding the nature of Christ and the unity of God.
I really like the Bernard Lewis quote, which represents a dispationate "outsiders" comparison of the 3 Abrahamic faiths.
However, it is the adherents of faiths who really decide who is what. As has been stated, some nominally "Christian" sects come closer to the Islamic perspective of Christ than the orthodox Trinitarian view. Then there is the LDS Church, which is sufficiently different from all the others to be considered the 4th major Abrahamic religion (or 5th if one includes Bahai Faith, as I would). I would consider those sects that harken to a Christian background and use the New Testament as a Holy Book (even if along with another newer book) should be considered "Christian" if that's what they consider themselves. Since Moslems never considered themselves Christians and (as far as we know) Mohammed never considered himself "reforming" Christianity, it insults both Islam and Christianity to consider Islam a variant of Christianity regardless of how admired Jesus is among the prophets of God.
suggestion
Religion is not really my repitoir but I think I have enough of a grasp to offer something here.
How about Hulagu Khan being more successful in his campaign against the mamluks. If they were defeated then there would be one less rival to the mongols and therefore they could focus on europe.
So a mongol middle east might force europe to realize that any enemy of the mongols is a friend of europe.
This would not necessary mean christians and muslims would be best pals but it would force both of them to develop closer relations in order to survive.
This would not unify christianity and islam but it would be a good start to a possible unification
Religion is not really my repitoir but I think I have enough of a grasp to offer something here.
How about Hulagu Khan being more successful in his campaign against the mamluks. If they were defeated then there would be one less rival to the mongols and therefore they could focus on europe.
So a mongol middle east might force europe to realize that any enemy of the mongols is a friend of europe.
This would not necessary mean christians and muslims would be best pals but it would force both of them to develop closer relations in order to survive.
This would not unify christianity and islam but it would be a good start to a possible unification
Since this thread is veering into a discussion of the Abrahamic faiths as a whole, here is a list of major and minor Abrahamic religions, in chronological order of their founding.
1) Samaritans -- Accept only the Torah (the first five books of the Tanach = Old Testament) as canonical. Origins uncertain, however they may date back to before the Babylonian Captivity.
2) Judaism -- Evolved from the old Hebrew religion during and after the Babylonian captivity. The dominant Rabbinic variety dates from the destruction of the Second Temple 70 CE.
3) Christianity -- Numerous current varieties following the Council of Nicaea, earlier varieties have (mostly) died out.
4) Mandaeans -- possibly derived from the classical Gnostics
5) Sabians
5) Islam
6) Druze religion
7) LDS (Mormons)
8) Baha'i faith
9) Rastafarians
10) Unitarian Universalism -- Similar beliefs to those of the Baha'i, but originated in Christianity instead of Islam.
1) Samaritans -- Accept only the Torah (the first five books of the Tanach = Old Testament) as canonical. Origins uncertain, however they may date back to before the Babylonian Captivity.
2) Judaism -- Evolved from the old Hebrew religion during and after the Babylonian captivity. The dominant Rabbinic variety dates from the destruction of the Second Temple 70 CE.
3) Christianity -- Numerous current varieties following the Council of Nicaea, earlier varieties have (mostly) died out.
4) Mandaeans -- possibly derived from the classical Gnostics
5) Sabians
5) Islam
6) Druze religion
7) LDS (Mormons)
8) Baha'i faith
9) Rastafarians
10) Unitarian Universalism -- Similar beliefs to those of the Baha'i, but originated in Christianity instead of Islam.
Manichaeanism is an interesting case, but while it was heavily influenced by the Abrahamic religions it was rooted in Zoroastrianism. Plus it is a dead religion, hence I did not include it for that reason as well.
Another case of a religion that was influenced by an Abrahamic religion (in this case, Islam), but is rooted in another tradition would be Sikhism, which still remains firmly in the Dharmic family.
Shouldn't Atenism be somewhere before the Samaritans? I seem to recall that this religion founded by an Egyptian Pharao, who was tired of Priests butting in on his turf, has texts that are very simular to old Testament texts.
Or the Ebionite way.
Care to explain? I'm not familiar with them.
PS: I hope Mormons will not feel offended for that, but at first I did not realize that LDS stood for Latter Day Saints.
Thus, the expression "LDS Christians" brought to my mind a psychedelic image of people (dressed according 1968 fashion) attempting to reach religious rapture by means of illegal substances.
The comparison with the -totally opposite- mormon figure was a contrast such that I could not avoid laughing aloud.
Last edited:
Don't worry about it.
I think most of us are realistic enough to accept that people will never trouble to learn a long monicker like that, when a one-word nickname is already in common usage. All we ask is that you take care not to miss out the second m.
There's always a need to be careful with abbreviations. I recall an occasion when I referred to Jehovah's Witnesses as "JWs" and someone messaged back accusing me of antisemitism
.I like the idea of christianity not adopting the divinity of Jesus and Mohamed being the censor for a teaching twisted by humans.
We have to note, though, that such a religion would be open to further prophets lateron. We had Jews, which God taught by sending prophets. Then he sent Jesus, which led to the church. Then he sent Mohammed, to corrects things that went wrong. Such a religion should be open repeatedly to new sects founded by new prophets. Just to give an example: Luther could proclaim himself a new prophet as well or could be regarded as one. Quite likely this will end in much more "christian" denominations than OTL.
We have to note, though, that such a religion would be open to further prophets lateron. We had Jews, which God taught by sending prophets. Then he sent Jesus, which led to the church. Then he sent Mohammed, to corrects things that went wrong. Such a religion should be open repeatedly to new sects founded by new prophets. Just to give an example: Luther could proclaim himself a new prophet as well or could be regarded as one. Quite likely this will end in much more "christian" denominations than OTL.