Judaism vs. Islam - Page 2

[Kyyrah]

I get that. In many (though definitely not all) neo-pagan traditions you often view various gods/goddesses from different pantheons as facets of the Divine. They represent various aspects. Kwan Yin might represent a mothering aspect, Sekhmet might represent an aspect of anger and fury, that sort of thing. But none of them are actually considered THE great spirit, just aspects for us to relate to better.

[Kyyrah]

I know there are rules LIKE the mitzva in Islam as well. For example rules about cleansing before prayer. Are they written down in a list anywhere? When I think of Islam I tend to think of the pillars of Islam or the shahadah but I know there are more rules and such. i.e. while reading the Koran you have many rules about divorce and many matters. Are the pillars KIND OF like the ten commandments, and the rest are like the mitzva? In an extremely crude analogy? (Like, "these are the very basics, but do xyz too" ?)

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by UmmZaynab

Maybe it's a non-Orthodox thing I hear then? I feel like I hear Jews frequently telling stories that involve God thinking/feeling like a man. I'm sorry I can't think of a specific example now...

What are the Hebrew words that refer to "aspects" of God? This sounds similar to the 99 Names of God in Islam.

I'll take a stab at this; let me know if you are thinking about a different type of example.

I'm not sure how Jews usually interpret these kinds of passages, but when Christians interpret them (I'm thinking of OT ones especially though not exclusively), it's generally recognized as anthropomorphizing; it's a description of how the situation seems to the people involved. So although God might be described as "angry" that is because the people he is "angry" at are feeling the weight of having done what is not right in the sight of God. Any time we try to describe God, it can never be quite accurate, because we don't have the words or concepts, so that we use the ones that come closest to describe the situation.

I should make a disclaimer, not every Christian would agree with my answer, but it's a very traditional position. I once heard a sermon from a priest though saying how the Bible shows us that God can change his mind. Oh well.

But are there not similar kinds of passages in Islamic literature?

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by UmmZaynab

Well, I think some Christians would dispute the idea that Christianity deems all of the laws obsolete, correct? Isn't there a verse in the NT somewhere where Jesus says he came not to nix the laws but to confirm them?

Yes, he does say that, the translation is also sometimes fulfill, which I like better. Paul also says it, and expands upon it.

What Paul says is that all people are subject to law. Jews are subject to strict and specific laws set by God. But even pagans have laws revealed by their own understanding and conscience. (Murder is wrong) Those laws also come from God. He goes on to say that we have to follow whatever law we have, but also that it is through the law that we sin. So a person who does not know right and wrong cannot sin, it is by understanding God's rules that we are put in a position where we fail to keep them. But, that doesn't mean we are not bound by those laws - obviously we can't go around doing things we know to be wrong.

He also says that converted pagans do not need to keep the Jewish laws, but they do need to keep the laws of conscience. He suggest that Jews who have converted to Christianity should continue to keep Jewish law. There is some argument over why this is, and how it should work practically.

Christians in the early church came to the conclusion from these texts that the summary of the law was what they were bound to - love God, love your neighbor. So all law, including the OT laws, had to be interpreted in that light. The ten commandments are a good example, they all clearly are based on the summary of the law. Dietary laws, mostly, aren't seen that way, they are considered to be part of God's special calling for the Jews.

However, even converted Jews must always practice their law in light of the law of love. (That's isn't just a Christian position, though, it was a pretty common interpretation of how to interpret law at the time Jesus lived. However, not everyone was practicing it.)

[AutumnSunshine]

Just another thought is that being a "reformation" doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater, kwim? Neither Christianity nor Islam should have to completely deviate from all of the laws or beliefs of the former religions in order to be considered a reformation. "Reform" is not necessariliy a complete overhaul.

Apologies for typos, the keyboard on my laptop is going bad here and typing is becoming very difficult...

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Nickarolaberry

The Torah is not a collection of writings. Orthodox Jews (and Judaism was always Orthodox until the Reform movement sprouted in the 19th century) consider the Torah to be the Word of G-d. The Oral Law (Mishna/Talmud) is also considered to be directly from G-d -- it's an explanation of how to keep the Torah.

The way this was explained to me by a Rabbi, was that Orthodox Judaism consider the Torah to be Revelation from G*d and Reform Judaism sees the Torah as an Inspiration from G*d.

Also, my understanding of the current Orthodox Judaism is slightly different. Ie Judaism was not always 'orthodox' like it is today. The current Orthodox interpretation of Judaism is a backlash to the Reform movement. Where Judaism has been evolving and changing through the ages, with the birth of the Reform movement there was an understandable need to keep the traditions of Judaism alive. And so a movement that looked to preserve the Judasim of the day was born at around the same time. Orthodox Judaism from Eastern Europe and the Judaism from North Africa and the Middle East are quite different from each other. But the histories of the communities living in these different areas is also very different. (Also worth noting that Reform Judasim has gone through changes and Reform in Israel is different from Reform in the USA)

The differences and similarities between Ultra Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist are really interesting to delve into. When I have more time, I am wanting to look into it all a bit more closely.

Anyway, back to Islam. I have understood that the Qu'ran was Revealed by G*d and that the book itself is holy. Each and every Qu'ran. Including the stand that it is read off, and the stick that it is read with (sorry - don't know the terms ) Is the Hadith (spelling?) similar to the Shulchan Aruch? (ie a 'how to' for every day living based on the Holy Scriptures and the religious rulings).

[Nickarolaberry]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Also, my understanding of the current Othrodox Judaism is slightly different. Ie Judaism was not always 'orthodox' like it is today. The current Orthodox interpretation of Judaism is a backlash to the Reform movement. Where Judaism has been evolving and changing through the ages, with the birth of the Reform movement there was an understandable need to keep the traditions of Judaism alive. And so a movement that looked to preserve the Judasim of the day was born at around the same time. Orthodox Judaism from Eastern Europe and the Judaism from North Africa and the Middle East are quite different from each other. But the histories of the communities living in these different areas is also very different. (Also worth noting that Reform Judasim has gone through changes and Reform in Israel is different from Reform in the USA)

Well sure the cultural differences between Ashkenaz and Sepharad, and Edot HaMizrach (communities from Middle Eastern and other Eastern areas) are different. However all share the same commitment to Torah and not one disputes it was given by G-d. In fact, one of the amazing things about the disparate communities is that even through all the centuries of exile and isolation, each kept the same Torah.

The Torah of the Yemeni community is the same as the Persian, is the same as the North African, is the same as the Egyptian, is the same as the Ashkenazi, is the same as the Bukharian and Afghani...etc. Cultural customs might be somewhat different, but even prayer nusach (service) is very, very similar. Same Shemona Esrei (major prayer). Same Sh'ma. Same Tehillim. Same all around. Maybe the order of things is a bit different, maybe different p'erakim (chapters) in Pesukei d'Zimra (early morning prayers), etc. Otherwise, the same.

All of those non-western communities, by the way, never had the splits in 'denomination' as did Ashkenaz. No Reform/Conservative/Reconstructionist movement. Those who were less observant...were /are just less observant. They are very traditional. You know that expression...'the shul we/they don't go to is Orthodox.'

Which is why Reform and Conservative hasn't caught on much in Israel the way it did in the US. Since the majority of the population is Sepharad/Edot HaMizrach and very traditional (even if not 'observant') the change in hashkafic focus (religious perspective) in the Reform/Conservative mvmts is just too...much. From my experience with this (significant, as it was a part of my dissertation) they think those movements are a joke -- even if they go to soccer games and the beach on Shabbat.

Anyway, back to the topic. Regardless of those kinds of issues, I would never ever characterize any Jewish movment as calling the Torah a 'collection of writings.' But still, for the purposes of comparison with another religion, it's worthwhile to use as a marker the kind of Judaism that's been around for almost 4,000 years as opposed to a break-off movement that's less than 200 years old. Dontcha think?

[Kyyrah]

Originally Posted by Nickarolaberry

Anyway, back to the topic. Regardless of those kinds of issues, I would never ever characterize any Jewish movement as calling the Torah a 'collection of writings.' But still, for the purposes of comparison with another religion, it's worthwhile to use as a marker the kind of Judaism that's been around for almost 4,000 years as opposed to a break-off movement that's less than 200 years old. Dontcha think?

I'm sorry if I offended anyone by calling the Torah a collection of writings. I wasn't trying to be disrespectful. Basically I was referring to the whole idea that there were at least four authors of the... Tanakh? And they're considered inspired BY God but not, say, dictated by God word for word, the way the Koran is believed to be? Then again I also remember something along the lines of that some of the Koran was dictated later on by the Prophet and people wrote it down in short pieces here and there and then only later compiled it completely, after his death. But I'm very fuzzy on this all so I'm definitely open to correction!

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by Kyyrah

Then again I also remember something along the lines of that some of the Koran was dictated later on by the Prophet and people wrote it down in short pieces here and there and then only later compiled it completely, after his death. But I'm very fuzzy on this all so I'm definitely open to correction!

There are some differences of opinion on the matter. What can be said is that the Qur'an came to Muhammad in pieces over a period of twenty-six years, that there was (and remains today) a strong oral traditions surrounding the texts, by which believers were/are encouraged to memorize the whole of the text or as much as they are able, and that the first known Qur'an to have been written as one whole, complete, officially sanctioned text came in the reign of the third successor to Muhammad: Uthman, a close companion to the prophet, who put it under the care of Muhammad's personal scribe. That would be about 15-20 years after Muhammad's death. Earlier known texts are known to exist, showing substantial differences ... critics tend to argue that it indicates that the Qur'an took time to be codified, believers tend to argue that it gives evidence as to what was going on that compelled Uthman to fear the original words would be lost if he did not produce a state-sanctioned written version. Neither POV can really be proven one way or the other.

Anyway ... that's pretty far . Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

[crazy_eights]

Originally Posted by Kyyrah

How are they different, theologically? Since they are both Abrahamic religions, I can think of a number of ways in which they are similar. In fact, to me they seem more similar to each other than either is similar to Christianity. Both have one God, not incarnate, angels and prophets and many of the same stories even. But I'm having a harder time coming up with differences. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these...

- The afterlife/judgment is more pronounced in Islam
- There is no concept of Israel/a chosen people in Islam
- There are more mitzva/rules in Judaism than in Islam
- The Qu'ran is considered the actual word of God vs a collection of writings
- Islam wouldn't mind it if everyone to be Muslim while Judaism sometimes almost discourages converts and encourages people to live by the Noahide laws instead

But like, theologically how are they different? What am I not getting?

Well, you have to define which part of Judaism are you talking about. If you are talking about Orthodox Judaism, then some of your assumptions above would be way off. Afterlife and concept of judgment with reward and punishment are central - Reform and Conservative down play them or don't believe in them. The Torah is considered to be the word of G-d transmitted to Moses.

Jewfaq.org is a great website to get the low-down on Jews and what they believe from the traditional POV. It also gives you the skinny on Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist basic theology.

[crazy_eights]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Orthodox Judaism from Eastern Europe and the Judaism from North Africa and the Middle East are quite different from each other.

Actually, they are remarkably similar. It is only the externals that are "quite different" (modes of traditional dress that evolved in different cultures). But the tenets and laws have only minor variations.