And What of Islam?

[BishopLynch]

Re: And What of Islam?

Ms Clark,
I will then modify my last post which you deleted to reflect period thought.

How is Islam a heathen religion? They pray to the same God as Christians and Jews, just not in the same prophet.

I would do my homework on that one.
Christians would not have considered themselves as worshiping the same God as the Muslims, nor would Muslims consider themselves as worshiping the same God as Jews or Christians. Hence the term infidels used by Islam.
The beliefs havent changed since these religions were founded...which was way before the 19th century.

[Hargis, G. 5 A-1]

Re: And What of Islam?

Christians would not have considered themselves as worshiping the same God as the Muslims, nor would Muslims consider themselves as worshiping the same God as Jews or Christians. Hence the term infidels used by Islam.
The beliefs havent changed since these religions were founded...which was way before the 19th century.

In the period theology of most Jews, Christians, Moslems, there was but one God. Perhaps there is confusion on this point that springs from the use of different names in the languages of the faithful.
Take a gander at the prophets of God mentioned in the following Qur’anic verses I think most will sound familiar.
(Admittedly, an English traslation of Arabic is but a pale representation of the Word, but I m'self am but barely a mono-linguist.)



Qur'an 4:163-165
163 Lo! We inspire thee (Muhammad) as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as we imparted unto David the Psalms;
164 And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee; and Allah spake directly unto Moses;
165 Messengers of good cheer and off warning, in order that mankind might have no argument against Allah after the messengers. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

Qur'an 6:84-86
84 And We bestowed upon him Isaac and Jacob; each of them We guided; and Noah did We guide aforetime; and of his seed (We guided) David and Solomon and Job and Joseph and Moses and Aaron. Thus do We reward the good.
85 And Zachariah and John and Jesus and Elias. Each one (of them) was of the righteous.
86 And Ishmael and Elisha and Jonah and Lot. Each one of them did We prefer above (Our) creatures,


Qur'an 21:85-88
85 And (mention) Ishmael, and Idris (Enoch), and Dhul-Kifl (Ezekiel). All were of the steadfast.
86 And We brought them in unto Our mercy. Lo! they are among the righteous.
87 And (mention) Dhun Nun (Jonah), when he went off in anger and deemed that We had no power over him, but he cried out in the darkness, saying: There is no God save Thee. Be Thou glorified! I have been a wrong-doer.
88 Then We heard his prayer and saved him from the anguish. Thus We save believers.

The art of dividing folks up in to arbitrary groups of THEMs and USes was certainly not new to the mid-ninteenth century nor is it unknown today. (Sad to say)

[Hank Trent]

Re: And What of Islam?

Christians would not have considered themselves as worshiping the same God as the Muslims, nor would Muslims consider themselves as worshiping the same God as Jews or Christians. Hence the term infidels used by Islam.
The beliefs havent changed since these religions were founded...which was way before the 19th century.

While that's the general thought, people have an annoying habit of not always agreeing. :) For the opposition spokesman, I'd suggest Emmanuel Swedenborg.

He viewed the "Mahometans" as following an adaptation of the Christian religion, suited "to the genius of the orientals," which was created by divine providence to turn them from idolatry, and at least get them closer to the true Christian religion.

He pictured the Mahometans in the spiritual world as just "behind the Papists in the west... The principal reason why they appear in this situation is, because they acknowledge the Lord as the grand Prophet, as the Son of God, and the Wisest of all Who was sent into the world to instruct mankind." Thus they're allowed in heaven, but not in the center of heaven. Only "they who, in consequence of evil lives, do not from the heart make that confession [of the Lord and of one God], are in the hells beneath them." (from Writings of Swedenborg 1841)

His view of the founding of their religion:

To the intent that all those idolatries might be eradicated, it came to pass of the Lord's divine providence, that a new religion, accommodated to the genius of the orientals, took its rise; in which something from each testament of the Word was retained, and which taught that the Lord had come into the world, and that he was a grand prophet, the wisest of all, and the Son of God. This was effected by means of Mahomet, from whom that religion took its name...

The Mahometans also have their heaven; for all in the universe, who acknowledge a God, and from a religious notion shuns evils as sins against him, are saved... I have heard also that it is impossible for them to think of our Lord as one with the Father; but that it is possible for them to think of him as his equal, and that he has dominion over heaven and earth, because he is his Son; therefore such of them as are elevated by the Lord into their superior heaven, hold this belief. (from Swedenborg's Conjugial Love and Its Chaste Delights, reprinted from 1841 edition)

Swedenborg's ideas in the United States influenced the spiritualists, who weren't quite so dogmatic, but believed that many people could speak directly with the spiritual world. Thus they were open to the words of a number of prophets, not just the Biblical ones. A.J. Davis, one of the major spokesmen for spiritualism in the U.S., wrote

Many revelations have been made by persons among the Chinese, Hindoos, and Persians... Also Mohammed declared many spiritual truths--truths that have been verified by psychological research, and also by the spiritual developments of Swedenborg. Yet, again, these truths are not revered, merely because the revelation has proceeded from Mohammed, and because hereditary impression and education preclude all affection from the truths and their revealer. (from The Principles of Nature, A. J. Davis, 1852)

Obviously Swedenborgism and spiritualism were not mainstream beliefs in the U.S., but they're an example of a school of thought which incorporated Christian, Muslim and other beliefs as all different expressions of the same diety.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[ElizabethClark]

Re: And What of Islam?

I would do my homework on that one.

Christians would not have considered themselves as worshiping the same God as the Muslims, nor would Muslims consider themselves as worshiping the same God as Jews or Christians. Hence the term infidels used by Islam.
The beliefs havent changed since these religions were founded...which was way before the 19th century.

Well, there are several nice folks doing their homework on this question, and sharing the citations with us all.

Without any sources or references or quotations, it's rather hard to uphold a generalized statement of "they wouldn't consider themselves this way." Sources and citations to either confirm or deny the attitudes held by actual people from the 19th century, rather than our modern ideas of what *might* have been thought, are lovely.

Without knowing how some mid-century Mohammedans were using the term "infidel", we cannot speculate on who they might classify as such. The Quran does speak of "Peoples of the Book" (which I have understood to mean the Old Testament) as being people of faith, so that would rather take them out of the realms of "infidel" (unfaithful) for mid-century. Modern interpretation and use of the term does not factor into this discussion.

Belief systems *do* have a tendancy to change over time from what the original founders envisioned. A Catholic Mass from 1850 might not be terribly familiar to a modern Catholic. The Mormons are a period-appropriate religion, and the modern and historic cultural practices are different by a goodly amount. Various forms of Protestant faith have changed from their founding dates to the mid-19th century. Modern sectarian debate does not factor into this discussion, but the differences in tenets and practices of faiths according to their pre-1865 existance may.

My thanks to all who are sharing primary source comments on the question.

[jacobite8749]

Re: And What of Islam?

“Without knowing how some mid-century Mohammedans were using the term "infidel", we cannot speculate on who they might classify as such”

I imagine that the period term a Mohammedan may have used might be Caffer, Caffre, Coffree. However, the word is properly Kafir, translated as an infidel, and unbeliever. The Arabs originaly applied this to pagan negroes, amongst others. The Portugase took it up and the British from them. The term is oftern applied malevolently to Christians by Mahommedans. (This is in 1886) It is more likley that “infidel” being a latin translation (into Portugese) of Kafir that fell into general English language use.

According to “Hobson-Jobson”, Henry Yale and A.C Burnell’s Anglo-Indian Dictionary 1886, the word Kafir was used by Mohammedan’s to cover all who did not believe, i.e. Pagans. Arabs also applied the word Kafir to Hindu’s and Indo-Chinese States, being “Pagan” religions, and the Portugese mistakenly thought that many of these States were Christian. Hence the concept that “infidel” meant Christian. Therefore it seems sensible that the translation is also used in the same way.

By the 1880’s the two words appear to have gone in different directions. In English the word Caffer, Kafir, was being aplied to black tribes in South Africa, and the word Infidel being used as as unbeliever of the Muslim faith.

John Hopper
WinstonFreeState

[celtfiddler]

Re: And What of Islam?

This has been a very interesting thread to follow.

A possible source for information regarding Christian interaction with Muslims is James Riley's book "An Authentic Narrative of the Loss of the American Brig Commerce, Wrecked on the Western Coast of Africa, in the Month of August, 1815. With an Account of the Sufferings of Her Surviving Officers and Crew, who were Enslaved by the Wandering Arabs on the Great African Desart (sic), or Zahahrah; and Observations Historical, Geographical, &c. Made During the travels of the Author, while a Slave to the Arabs" first published about 1817. The author was a sea captain who was shipwrecked off the coast of Africa and sold into slavery.

[Dale Beasley]

Re: And What of Islam?

Ms Clark,

I sure hope so. I can't help but remember my time "Over There" and even watching the Movie KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, the ruler of Jerusalem asked the Muslim Warlord..." what is Jerusalem worth?"...his answer..."nothing but everything"...
Sorry is too off target.

And a friend of mine who is a Muslim told me that "Infidels" are anyone who does not believe in a God...just saw that in a few threads ago.

This is always a very interesting topic, thank you for allowing me to post.

[amity]

Re: And What of Islam?

An interesting book on this very subject is Edward Said's _Orientalism_ which was published in about the late 1970s, as I remember. Said studies in depth the history of Western attitudes toward the Middle East. It was largely a critique of Western academic thought, but also of popular perceptions, with a heavy focus on the "victorian era" broadly defined.

Terre Schill