Comparing religions

[Sarajevo071]

You are right but how could be!? Bible was written after Jesus (saw) died and there was many different version and modifications, changes if you will. On the other hand, Kur'an was reviled and finished while Muhammad (saw) was still alive. No one heaved the right to changed or modified it. Any Prophet's sermon was regarded like message from God therefore have same importance like it is in the Kur'an.

Simple put, they can not be same, or similar, message in both Books since one Book was written by people who recorded Prophet's words and action before he died on the cross and then by they memories of him and other Book was written in order and ways how was reveled. And if you will, major difference would be that Bible was written BY people about extraordinary man and other was revealed TO the extraordinary man.

Second thing you mention is also simple... Jesus (Isa S.A.W.) and Abraham (S.A.W.), and Torah and early Bible scripts and well known and well respected people and Books. It is the SAME blood line of God's Prophets and ALL of them are loved and respected by Muslims. So it is normal that you can find elements of this or that in Kur'an (like you can find elements of Zoroastrianism in Bible). In the beginning of Kur'an is clearly said that that Kur'an and Islam is newest and final revalation of the SAME God's message. Same message that was revealed in Torah and Bible but people refused to listen and respect it.

Sorry for being this long but I just tried to explain what I tried to say with first post here.

[Sarajevo071]

Yes. That's also there. And many other things that would surprise you.

BTW, interest rates are major (some would say only major) difference between western and islamic banking/monetary systems.

[skiguy]

Sarajevo, thanks. Although not exactly the same as the sermon on the mount, their are many similarities.

[goesh]

It's in the eye of the beholder, comparisons and analogies, with any of the major religious texts. The real bright spot in Islamic thinking are the Sufis, many of whom will accomodate broad interpretation and application but we are ignoring some basics in this discussion. Assuming monotheistic orientation and with no taint of agnosticism/healthy skepticism, it is the ritual and manner said texts are approached, handled and read that imparts the real message. Lustration is the key, the ritual most ignore, part our missing 'juju'. Pecking the keyboard to read Al Qu'ran or the Upanishads or the Bible in no way compares to ritual application of the real thing. We in the West have blended the spiritual and the intellectual for some time now but at what cost is better addressed in other threads.

[marct]

Hi Goesh,

Assuming monotheistic orientation and with no taint of agnosticism/healthy skepticism, it is the ritual and manner said texts are approached, handled and read that imparts the real message. Lustration is the key, the ritual most ignore, part our missing 'juju'. Pecking the keyboard to read Al Qu'ran or the Upanishads or the Bible in no way compares to ritual application of the real thing. We in the West have blended the spiritual and the intellectual for some time now but at what cost is better addressed in other threads.

Hmm, I'm not sure about another thread being the best place for it since it is a key in the comparison and understanding between religions. You have certainly raised a key point, though - the intellectual examination of a symbol system is a pale shadow of the practice of that symbol system, and there are significant differences between the academic ritual of examining a text and that of a believer examining the same text.