Prayer, Placement, and Absolution: Peter Hristoff on Islamic Prayer Rugs (2015)(metmuseum.org)
metmuseum.org
Prayer, Placement, and Absolution: Peter Hristoff on Islamic Prayer Rugs (2015)
https://www.metmuseum.org/perspectives/peter-hristoff-islamic-prayer-rugs
93 comments
Islam generally has a prohibiton on representational art. Most of the artistic skills were pulled into calligraphy and tesselations.
It's why these show up in almost all Islamic artifacts.
It's why these show up in almost all Islamic artifacts.
Can you please elaborate on 'representational art' in this context?
There's a _great_ book about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_Is_Red
Helps understand how arts, religion, and power are intermingled. Made me question what we mean by "tradition" ; they always seemed fixed to a present observer, but are also the result of constant change.
Anyway, there's more to the book and it is really a great read (maybe more so if like me you know close to nothing about the Ottoman empire).
(and just to be clear: this book talks about what was admitted as acceptable art at a specific period in a specific region where Islam was the state religion, not commenting on the art in Islam as a whole as I would be incapable of doing so)
Helps understand how arts, religion, and power are intermingled. Made me question what we mean by "tradition" ; they always seemed fixed to a present observer, but are also the result of constant change.
Anyway, there's more to the book and it is really a great read (maybe more so if like me you know close to nothing about the Ottoman empire).
(and just to be clear: this book talks about what was admitted as acceptable art at a specific period in a specific region where Islam was the state religion, not commenting on the art in Islam as a whole as I would be incapable of doing so)
Thanks for the recommendation. There's considerable latitude in implementation of the rulings. Even within the law itself, there are strong/weak positions, dispensations for some circumstances etc. Among schools of thought, there are differences in opinions which might, to a non specialist, seem very trivial but they have huge consequences when implemented at scale. Music and it's role in the Ottoman sultanate is one example that comes to mind.
And outside of that, there are cultural, economic and human factors that also have their effect on the practice (and sometimes even the theory) of religion.
Generally speaking, Islamic canon law keeps evolving over time while trying to stay faithful to first principles. It's a specialist field and requires a lot of time and study to formulate rulings. It's the reason why, I mentioned in another comment that studying the basics from a derived text is sufficient for "most Muslims". People often turn to the primary texts for general guidance and succor but for details about a narrow situation, they refer to the other books or speak to a scholar.
And outside of that, there are cultural, economic and human factors that also have their effect on the practice (and sometimes even the theory) of religion.
Generally speaking, Islamic canon law keeps evolving over time while trying to stay faithful to first principles. It's a specialist field and requires a lot of time and study to formulate rulings. It's the reason why, I mentioned in another comment that studying the basics from a derived text is sufficient for "most Muslims". People often turn to the primary texts for general guidance and succor but for details about a narrow situation, they refer to the other books or speak to a scholar.
In the context of Islam: art that depicts living things, especially humans.
From Wikipedia[0]:
"The Quran, the Islamic holy book, does not prohibit the depiction of human figures; it merely condemns idolatry. Interdictions of figurative representation are present in the hadith, among a dozen of the hadith recorded during the latter part of the period when they were being written down."
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam#:~:text=T....
"The Quran, the Islamic holy book, does not prohibit the depiction of human figures; it merely condemns idolatry. Interdictions of figurative representation are present in the hadith, among a dozen of the hadith recorded during the latter part of the period when they were being written down."
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam#:~:text=T....
In Sunni Islam, the Hadith is essentially a companion source to the Quran - in particular, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
But I should have been more specific. I think Shia art has the same restrictions though - could be wrong.
But I should have been more specific. I think Shia art has the same restrictions though - could be wrong.
Islamic canon law (the Shariah) is derived from primary texts (the Quran and Hadith) and uses interpretive methodologies (like deductive analogy - Qiyas) to derive rulings that are not explicitly discussed in the primary source material. This gives some amount of openness and causes some differences of opinion resulting in multiple schools of thought.
Practicing Muslims rely on books and texts that systematize this knowledge and provide it in a practical form for daily use rather than go to the source material (which can be overwhelming if one wants to find, for example, the ruling on whether a certain action in a specific context is permissible or not). Most Muslim children, as part of their basic religious education, learn the basics of Islamic law and practice from such a book. That's usually enough to go through ones life.
The ruling on representational art is based on this kind of derivation. There are some exceptions (e.g. for educational, security etc. purposes) but they're generally narrowly circumscribed.
Sunni tradition relies primarily on the Quran and 6 books of Hadith (of which the two you've mentioned are the main ones). Shia tradition has a smaller Hadith corpus because of theological differences about the reliability of the chains of narration of the Hadith and hence the derived rulings are very different in some areas. I've generally seen Shia works of art where prophetic companions, angels etc. are pictured but non-realistically (unlike Christian iconography). Some of them blank out the faces but it's not a tradition I'm deeply familiar with so I don't know.
My theory is that the huge emphasis on calligraphy and tesselations in Islamic art is mainly because of this. We don't have (many) paintings and sculptures of religious figures like in the Christian traditions.
Practicing Muslims rely on books and texts that systematize this knowledge and provide it in a practical form for daily use rather than go to the source material (which can be overwhelming if one wants to find, for example, the ruling on whether a certain action in a specific context is permissible or not). Most Muslim children, as part of their basic religious education, learn the basics of Islamic law and practice from such a book. That's usually enough to go through ones life.
The ruling on representational art is based on this kind of derivation. There are some exceptions (e.g. for educational, security etc. purposes) but they're generally narrowly circumscribed.
Sunni tradition relies primarily on the Quran and 6 books of Hadith (of which the two you've mentioned are the main ones). Shia tradition has a smaller Hadith corpus because of theological differences about the reliability of the chains of narration of the Hadith and hence the derived rulings are very different in some areas. I've generally seen Shia works of art where prophetic companions, angels etc. are pictured but non-realistically (unlike Christian iconography). Some of them blank out the faces but it's not a tradition I'm deeply familiar with so I don't know.
My theory is that the huge emphasis on calligraphy and tesselations in Islamic art is mainly because of this. We don't have (many) paintings and sculptures of religious figures like in the Christian traditions.
noduerme(3)
Only the Quran is guaranteed to be unchanged (but the interpretations and translations are not so guaranteed), the Hadiths are not.
The proper perspective is that if the Hadith and Quran are in conflict, the Quran is the authoratative source.
From our Sufi perspective, the Hadiths are a lot of game of telephone.
And if the Quran is difficult to apply, remember that compassion is the entire purpose of all God's religions.
The proper perspective is that if the Hadith and Quran are in conflict, the Quran is the authoratative source.
From our Sufi perspective, the Hadiths are a lot of game of telephone.
And if the Quran is difficult to apply, remember that compassion is the entire purpose of all God's religions.
[deleted]
>And if the Quran is difficult to apply, remember that compassion is the entire purpose of all God's religions.
Clearly a few of gods prophets dropped the ball pretty hard on this one. To bad he isn't interested in correcting the record.
Clearly a few of gods prophets dropped the ball pretty hard on this one. To bad he isn't interested in correcting the record.
God has left the truth in our hands to honor or disrespect as per our free will's choices. When a person truly loves God, they will love other human beings. If a person wants worldly power and self-superiority, they will live in destructive ignorance, no matter what path they claim to follow.
What a person says and does is little compared to what their intentions reveal. That is why God always looks at our heart to determine our worth.
What a person says and does is little compared to what their intentions reveal. That is why God always looks at our heart to determine our worth.
> From our Sufi perspective, the Hadiths are a lot of game of telephone.
Devaluing ahadith is a minority position in Sufism. The transmission of authentic hadith is not dissimilar to the transmission of the Quran.
Devaluing ahadith is a minority position in Sufism. The transmission of authentic hadith is not dissimilar to the transmission of the Quran.
Compassion has always been the minority position for all human beings, regardless of religiosity. That's why the world is the way it is. For most people, selfishness for their group is the reason they claim any religious affiliation whatsoever.
The Quran says, "Do not break into sects." And yet, Sunnis and Shiites are at each other's throats.
The sects that the Quran are referring to, however, are any sects amongh human beings. We are one human race, and we are to love each other regardless of our culture of origin. And we are to defend the innocent and help the poor, irrespective of which side either claim as their own.
And, no, the hadith do not have the same purity as the Quran, although the interpretations of the Quran do not have any guarantees either.
The Quran says, "Do not break into sects." And yet, Sunnis and Shiites are at each other's throats.
The sects that the Quran are referring to, however, are any sects amongh human beings. We are one human race, and we are to love each other regardless of our culture of origin. And we are to defend the innocent and help the poor, irrespective of which side either claim as their own.
And, no, the hadith do not have the same purity as the Quran, although the interpretations of the Quran do not have any guarantees either.
I did not say the hadith have the same purity as the Quran, that being an argument with nebulous and undefined terms, we don't know what "purity" means here.
Rather I said it has similar methods of transmission, that being oral transmission. The same groups of people who transmitted ahadith also transmitted the Quran. Doubting their transmission in one instance puts doubt on the other. Yes hadith have been forged but there is a whole science developed and employed to grade their veracity, the veracity of which if rejected, especially in the case of mass transmission also rejects the veracity of Quranic transmission which is a tawatur (mass) transmission.
> although the interpretations of the Quran do not have any guarantees either.
Then that applies to your own interpretations as well. Quran 49:13 contradicts your broad understanding of the meaning of sects as does the concept of 'ummah' which appears 6 times in the Quran. Distinctions among human beings is ordained from above and thus distinctions alone cannot constitute error which is what I am reading from your understanding of what sects mean.
I don't understand what the point of making that argument is, putting the Sunnis and Shiis at odds with each other and then invoking the term Sufi. Your assessment doesn't add up, with all due respect, unless your claim is that your Sufism is the one true Islam. That just goes back to reinforcing sects.
Moreover, Sufism historically developed within the framework of Sunni Islam, with most major turuq operating within Sunni legal schools and their founders being prominent Sunni scholars. So invoking Sufism as somehow transcending or negating these divisions misunderstands its historical development and position within Islamic tradition.
And for the record, I am initiated with a Sufi tariqa.
Rather I said it has similar methods of transmission, that being oral transmission. The same groups of people who transmitted ahadith also transmitted the Quran. Doubting their transmission in one instance puts doubt on the other. Yes hadith have been forged but there is a whole science developed and employed to grade their veracity, the veracity of which if rejected, especially in the case of mass transmission also rejects the veracity of Quranic transmission which is a tawatur (mass) transmission.
> although the interpretations of the Quran do not have any guarantees either.
Then that applies to your own interpretations as well. Quran 49:13 contradicts your broad understanding of the meaning of sects as does the concept of 'ummah' which appears 6 times in the Quran. Distinctions among human beings is ordained from above and thus distinctions alone cannot constitute error which is what I am reading from your understanding of what sects mean.
I don't understand what the point of making that argument is, putting the Sunnis and Shiis at odds with each other and then invoking the term Sufi. Your assessment doesn't add up, with all due respect, unless your claim is that your Sufism is the one true Islam. That just goes back to reinforcing sects.
Moreover, Sufism historically developed within the framework of Sunni Islam, with most major turuq operating within Sunni legal schools and their founders being prominent Sunni scholars. So invoking Sufism as somehow transcending or negating these divisions misunderstands its historical development and position within Islamic tradition.
And for the record, I am initiated with a Sufi tariqa.
Transmitting the written-in-arabic Quran is different than copying hadith. It carries a different level of purity. That doesn't mean that all hadith are wrong, but the key is that if there is a discrepency between hadith and Quran, then the Quran is the authoratative source.
And no where in the Quran does it say to read hadith. That would be absurd, because the Quran contains everything.
If you want to get to the heart of the matter, go to the source at mihr dot com.
Our masjid/camii never even mentioned the words Sunni or Shiite. I still don't know which I and my family are, though it's been over 20 years since my repentence.
Do you know what Hidayat is? It is in the first ayat of Baqarah, and is the meaning of the first Beatitude, and is what the Quran is, and is the single most important concept in life and, therefore, the Quran.
And, yes, Sufism is the truest form of Islam, for we understand that love is the sole purpose of religion, even when and especially when dealing with evil-minded folks. Just remember that calling oneself something is a lot different than what one actually is. There are a lot of people calling themselves a "man of God" who are far away from Its Will to Love.
The Greatest Command (the Gospels being from God, too) is to "Love God with all your being, and then to love your neighbor as yourself." No form of religion that disrespects that command is living in the light of God's Truth. That's why the Sunnis and Shiites are warring while the Quran states explicitly that breaking into sects is prohibited. This is because hypocrisy and ignorance are but two of the 19 vices of the human heart that we must overcome to become fully submitted to the Divine Will.
God's judgement always looks into our heart, because that's where the truth is found. You should be more humble and respectful and open to learning new truths, because no one ever traverses the fullness of what can be known in one lifetime.
Learn about Hidayat, the nefs and the Ruh, and how love is all that really matters, in all our doings. I have given you the link to the truth of love and the Quran and how to navigate this life. Peace be with you. I love you. I am at your service.
And no where in the Quran does it say to read hadith. That would be absurd, because the Quran contains everything.
If you want to get to the heart of the matter, go to the source at mihr dot com.
Our masjid/camii never even mentioned the words Sunni or Shiite. I still don't know which I and my family are, though it's been over 20 years since my repentence.
Do you know what Hidayat is? It is in the first ayat of Baqarah, and is the meaning of the first Beatitude, and is what the Quran is, and is the single most important concept in life and, therefore, the Quran.
And, yes, Sufism is the truest form of Islam, for we understand that love is the sole purpose of religion, even when and especially when dealing with evil-minded folks. Just remember that calling oneself something is a lot different than what one actually is. There are a lot of people calling themselves a "man of God" who are far away from Its Will to Love.
The Greatest Command (the Gospels being from God, too) is to "Love God with all your being, and then to love your neighbor as yourself." No form of religion that disrespects that command is living in the light of God's Truth. That's why the Sunnis and Shiites are warring while the Quran states explicitly that breaking into sects is prohibited. This is because hypocrisy and ignorance are but two of the 19 vices of the human heart that we must overcome to become fully submitted to the Divine Will.
God's judgement always looks into our heart, because that's where the truth is found. You should be more humble and respectful and open to learning new truths, because no one ever traverses the fullness of what can be known in one lifetime.
Learn about Hidayat, the nefs and the Ruh, and how love is all that really matters, in all our doings. I have given you the link to the truth of love and the Quran and how to navigate this life. Peace be with you. I love you. I am at your service.
> And no where in the Quran does it say to read hadith. That would be absurd, because the Quran contains everything.
Quran 24:54 Say, “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then he is only responsible for his duty1 and you are responsible for yours.2 And if you obey him, you will be ˹rightly˺ guided. The Messenger’s duty is only to deliver ˹the message˺ clearly.”
How do you plan on obeying the Messenger, upon him be peace, if you devalue the importance of his words to your spirituality?
Quran 2:151 Since We have sent you a messenger from among yourselves—reciting to you Our revelations, purifying you, teaching you the Book and wisdom, and teaching you what you never knew.
The Kitab and Hikma are two distinct concepts in this verse. If they were one and the same, it would be redundant for God to mention them that way. Muslims since the beginning have understood Hikma to be the Messenger's application of the Kitab, termed his Sunnah. How do you plan on knowing his application of the Book if you devalue the importance of his Sunnah, which you cannot know without ahadith?
Quran 24:54 Say, “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then he is only responsible for his duty1 and you are responsible for yours.2 And if you obey him, you will be ˹rightly˺ guided. The Messenger’s duty is only to deliver ˹the message˺ clearly.”
How do you plan on obeying the Messenger, upon him be peace, if you devalue the importance of his words to your spirituality?
Quran 2:151 Since We have sent you a messenger from among yourselves—reciting to you Our revelations, purifying you, teaching you the Book and wisdom, and teaching you what you never knew.
The Kitab and Hikma are two distinct concepts in this verse. If they were one and the same, it would be redundant for God to mention them that way. Muslims since the beginning have understood Hikma to be the Messenger's application of the Kitab, termed his Sunnah. How do you plan on knowing his application of the Book if you devalue the importance of his Sunnah, which you cannot know without ahadith?
> Moreover, Sufism historically developed within the framework of Sunni Islam, with most major turuq operating within Sunni legal schools and their founders being prominent Sunni scholars. So invoking Sufism as somehow transcending or negating these divisions misunderstands its historical development and position within Islamic tradition.
That's how the turuq and everything else around it originated and has been for the majority of Islamic history. A modern "modern" meaning of the term sufi is not particularly Islamic and ignores most of Islamic orthrodoxy. It exists but it doesn't have much in common with Islam except the name "sufi".
That's how the turuq and everything else around it originated and has been for the majority of Islamic history. A modern "modern" meaning of the term sufi is not particularly Islamic and ignores most of Islamic orthrodoxy. It exists but it doesn't have much in common with Islam except the name "sufi".
Yes, terms can be co-opted outside of their origins.
That's irrelevant to this discussion, my interlocutor takes the Quran to be revelation from God, as per Islamic orthodoxy. That is, the vast majority of Sufis since the birth of Islam have been Sunni Muslims.
That's irrelevant to this discussion, my interlocutor takes the Quran to be revelation from God, as per Islamic orthodoxy. That is, the vast majority of Sufis since the birth of Islam have been Sunni Muslims.
> And if the Quran is difficult to apply, remember that compassion is the entire purpose of all God's religions.
Or, in practice, the opposite
Or, in practice, the opposite
Shiites often depict their important religious figures and martyrs, but with the face replaced with a bright glow.
Like this: https://www.deviantart.com/shia-ali/art/YA-ALI-343625919
It's also not uncommon to depict e.g. Ali with a face. Sunni salafist movements are the ones that are fanatically against such art, and they are quite savvy with propaganda and backed by very powerful friends on the peninsula and elsewhere, such as the backers of the Gulf dictatorships in London and Washington.
Like this: https://www.deviantart.com/shia-ali/art/YA-ALI-343625919
It's also not uncommon to depict e.g. Ali with a face. Sunni salafist movements are the ones that are fanatically against such art, and they are quite savvy with propaganda and backed by very powerful friends on the peninsula and elsewhere, such as the backers of the Gulf dictatorships in London and Washington.
It does and it doesn't.
AFAIK Shia doesn't specifically ban all images outright, but instead relies on context. For example, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)* - Sunni Islam bans all images of him and other prophets, while Shia Islam might allow some images as a reference to him or other prophets as historical figures such as Jesus, Adam, Moses, David, etc... which they undoubtedly are. That's why some images of prophets are basically a white outline surrounded by fire, or a figure with a veil over their face. As long as you aren't defaming or purposely offending the religion, it's frowned upon in most cases, but not explicitly banned due to the historical context - humanity, after all, did and does rely on images instead of words at times and did so when most people were illiterate but could understand images. As long as the prophets aren't made into idols or worshiped or defamed, and are illustrated for historic context in a non defaming way, it's OK, sometimes.
*I say this while not Muslim to avoid the notion that I am purposely offending Islam - I'm not.
AFAIK Shia doesn't specifically ban all images outright, but instead relies on context. For example, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)* - Sunni Islam bans all images of him and other prophets, while Shia Islam might allow some images as a reference to him or other prophets as historical figures such as Jesus, Adam, Moses, David, etc... which they undoubtedly are. That's why some images of prophets are basically a white outline surrounded by fire, or a figure with a veil over their face. As long as you aren't defaming or purposely offending the religion, it's frowned upon in most cases, but not explicitly banned due to the historical context - humanity, after all, did and does rely on images instead of words at times and did so when most people were illiterate but could understand images. As long as the prophets aren't made into idols or worshiped or defamed, and are illustrated for historic context in a non defaming way, it's OK, sometimes.
*I say this while not Muslim to avoid the notion that I am purposely offending Islam - I'm not.
[deleted]
Idolatry. Graven idols. That sort of thing. Hence geometry instead.
I remember my grandmother carting her prayer rug all the way from Bangladesh to the U.S. when she came to visit.
I look for this sort of thing whenever I travel, but it’s really hard to find.
In ancient times Hindus had a prayer mat made of kuusha or kaasha grass. Apparently the grass descended from the hairs of the boar incarnation. So this notion of a seat in worship is indeed very ancient.
In all the years of using one I never thought it made anything sacred. It keeps my forehead clean and cushions my knees
This reminds me of the practice in Egypt where men would intentionally press their heads into the ground when praying in order to develop a callous, colloquially called a zebiba, showing off their piety. Is this still fashionable? When I traveled rural Egypt in 2008 it was omnipresent; one shopkeeper told me he no longer believed in religion, but he had to develop a zebiba nevertheless, otherwise no one would buy from his shop.
Interesting. TIL
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7469221.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7469221.stm
I knew people who "groomed" a zebiba, for lack of a better term. I don't doubt that some people who have one are not doing it for show (otherwise who are they emulating?). Whether or not it's fashionable depends on your social circle, I assumr
(I'm a Muslim). I mean... Strictly speaking as far as i am aware the mat/rug is not sacred itself. It is just a place to put your head +knees comfortably.
In fact the Prophet Muhammad SAW did not use a prayer mat and instead he placed his head on the soil (ground/earth).
Also note; Shias place their head on a stone/rock to mimic this practice: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbah
In fact the Prophet Muhammad SAW did not use a prayer mat and instead he placed his head on the soil (ground/earth).
Also note; Shias place their head on a stone/rock to mimic this practice: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbah
Yes, the prayer rug is not sacred, per se, but it can be embued with a measure of sacredness by our practices upon it.
Please know that Zikr (remembering/repeating one of the many Names of God) is the highest form of worship. (Zikr is commanded three times in the Quran-i-Kerim.)
Al-lah, Yah-weh, Di-os, De-us, Brah-man, ...
Many Names in our various languages for the one Creator, one human race, one religion of God: compassionate service to all mankind that comes in many forms across our planet's cultures and epochs.
Always love. Teach to always love. Never hate. Teach to never hate.
Please know that Zikr (remembering/repeating one of the many Names of God) is the highest form of worship. (Zikr is commanded three times in the Quran-i-Kerim.)
Al-lah, Yah-weh, Di-os, De-us, Brah-man, ...
Many Names in our various languages for the one Creator, one human race, one religion of God: compassionate service to all mankind that comes in many forms across our planet's cultures and epochs.
Always love. Teach to always love. Never hate. Teach to never hate.
Yeah I think the author of this article had some subjective understanding and experience. I don't mean to diminish it but it's definitely something I and other (but not all) Muslims find foreign
Why is there more and more talk about ideological topics on every social media platform? I don't know how it is for others, but I'm on HackerNews specifically to escape from this kind of thing.
Only thing I can add to discussion is that this rug is called "place of prayer" in Urdu (which is Jaaey Namaz or جائے نماز).
There is often picture of Kaba on it but some people don't agree with that and prefer not using those rugs.
There is often picture of Kaba on it but some people don't agree with that and prefer not using those rugs.
One thing I’ve been curious about for a long time is if the use of prayer rugs in the Orthodox Churches predates Islam or was picked up by Christians from their Muslim neighbors.
That whole bundle of traditions - prayer times, prayer directions, prayer accessories, etc predates Islam if for no other reason than that Islam is comparatively new. But the cross-pollination could have easily happened more than once and in both directions.
In fact the Muslims initially prayed towards Jerusalem (as did the Jews then and today) until revelation specifically turned them towards Mecca:
> "So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram (the Sacred Mosque in Mecca). And wherever you are, turn your faces toward it..."
Quran 2:144
> "So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram (the Sacred Mosque in Mecca). And wherever you are, turn your faces toward it..."
Quran 2:144
Even Muslims do not claim their religion is completely novel. The rituals may differ, but the creed preached by Muhammad (peace and blessings upon him) is the same preached by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, John, Jesus, and countless other prophets (peace be upon them all): worship The One True God (Allah, Yahweh) with no partners.
As far as prayer rugs and other accessories, those are not actually part of our rituals as Muslims. Some people use them for practical purposes (prayer rugs help you avoid prostrating on dirt, asphalt, a potentially unclean carpet, etc. and prayer beads make it easier to keep count), while some others may have cultural reasons, and some just want to enhance their spiritual experience (e.g. incense and perfume).
As far as prayer rugs and other accessories, those are not actually part of our rituals as Muslims. Some people use them for practical purposes (prayer rugs help you avoid prostrating on dirt, asphalt, a potentially unclean carpet, etc. and prayer beads make it easier to keep count), while some others may have cultural reasons, and some just want to enhance their spiritual experience (e.g. incense and perfume).
Muslims say that Islam _was_ the religion of all the prophets you've mentioned. Because of this they also believe that Islam is the _oldest_ religion, since Adam, the first man, followed Islam.
“Islam” as a named religion with its own prescribed rituals and laws is specific to the message preached in Arabia in the 7th century.
“Muslim” is a more transcendent term that encompasses all the prophets mentioned in the Quran, as well as those not mentioned. Their creed and state of mind (absolute submission to God’s will) is the same, but they did not follow a religion called “Islam”. Earlier prophets and their followers prayed, fasted, and gave charity. Some even made the pilgrimage to Makkah. However, certain details of these rituals may have differed between them and today’s Islam, and between one another.
“Muslim” is a more transcendent term that encompasses all the prophets mentioned in the Quran, as well as those not mentioned. Their creed and state of mind (absolute submission to God’s will) is the same, but they did not follow a religion called “Islam”. Earlier prophets and their followers prayed, fasted, and gave charity. Some even made the pilgrimage to Makkah. However, certain details of these rituals may have differed between them and today’s Islam, and between one another.
I don't see why "Islam" could not also be seen as a transcendent term, in that any religion that was revealed by God through a prophet or messenger is Islam, in so far as that religion conforms to His will.
Quran 3:19 Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam.
Quran 3:19 Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam.
For completeness to the reader, the creed preached by Jesus is historically very different.
Rejection of Jesus’s Divinity: • Islam acknowledges Jesus (Isa) as a prophet but explicitly denies His divinity or status as the Son of God. The Qur’an states: “He [Jesus] was no more than a servant: We granted Our favor to him” (Qur’an 43:59). • The Qur’an emphasizes that Jesus did not die on the cross but was raised to heaven by God (Qur’an 4:157-158).
Etc., etc.
Islam historically reinterpreted Jesus and rejects the accounts of the first followers of Christ (the Church Fathers circa 100-300 AD).
Rejection of Jesus’s Divinity: • Islam acknowledges Jesus (Isa) as a prophet but explicitly denies His divinity or status as the Son of God. The Qur’an states: “He [Jesus] was no more than a servant: We granted Our favor to him” (Qur’an 43:59). • The Qur’an emphasizes that Jesus did not die on the cross but was raised to heaven by God (Qur’an 4:157-158).
Etc., etc.
Islam historically reinterpreted Jesus and rejects the accounts of the first followers of Christ (the Church Fathers circa 100-300 AD).
This is not by any means a “complete” picture. There was no consensus that Jesus is divine, or about the nature of the divinity ascribed to him, even after the declaration in 325 of the Nicene Creed - from which 5 bishops abstained and were at least temporarily exiled. This NPR interview with Bart Ehrman, a former Evangelical who later became a historian and wrote “How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee” is very illuminating:
https://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/300246095/if-jesus-never-call...
Excerpts:
> During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. ...
> You do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, or the last Gospel. Jesus says things like, "Before Abraham was, I am." And, "I and the Father are one," and, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things.
> I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
> Right at the same time that Christians were calling Jesus "God" is exactly when Romans started calling their emperors "God." So these Christians were not doing this in a vacuum; they were actually doing it in a context. I don't think this could be an accident that this is a point at which the emperors are being called "God." So by calling Jesus "God," in fact, it was a competition between your God, the emperor, and our God, Jesus.
https://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/300246095/if-jesus-never-call...
Excerpts:
> During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. ...
> You do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, or the last Gospel. Jesus says things like, "Before Abraham was, I am." And, "I and the Father are one," and, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things.
> I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
> Right at the same time that Christians were calling Jesus "God" is exactly when Romans started calling their emperors "God." So these Christians were not doing this in a vacuum; they were actually doing it in a context. I don't think this could be an accident that this is a point at which the emperors are being called "God." So by calling Jesus "God," in fact, it was a competition between your God, the emperor, and our God, Jesus.
There is never a consensus on anything until one decides who the interpreters are :)
> no consensus that Jesus is divine, or about the nature of the divinity ascribed to him, even after the declaration in 325 of the Nicene Creed
Which shouldn’t be surprising, because by 325 CE (and really, by 100 CE) Christianity had been around long enough for groups to take it in all kinds of directions, just like some Asian or African peoples have created new religions that are ostensibly Christian but preserve little of the Christianity originally introduced by colonial powers. In my own academic field, I deal a lot with third-century Manichaeism, where it is obvious how popular preachers could repurpose existing monotheistic religions into something that bore little resemblance to them.
> This NPR interview with a former Evangelical…
You really ought to state plainly in your post that this is Bart Ehrman. While he is a prominent scholar, even researchers of early Christianity who are not themselves Christians take issue with some of his claims.
Which shouldn’t be surprising, because by 325 CE (and really, by 100 CE) Christianity had been around long enough for groups to take it in all kinds of directions, just like some Asian or African peoples have created new religions that are ostensibly Christian but preserve little of the Christianity originally introduced by colonial powers. In my own academic field, I deal a lot with third-century Manichaeism, where it is obvious how popular preachers could repurpose existing monotheistic religions into something that bore little resemblance to them.
> This NPR interview with a former Evangelical…
You really ought to state plainly in your post that this is Bart Ehrman. While he is a prominent scholar, even researchers of early Christianity who are not themselves Christians take issue with some of his claims.
It's all the Hanif Religion of Abraham, whose texts have been lost to time.
Compassion is the only purpose of all God's religions, and is the ultimate arbiter of our life's chosen actions.
Compassion is the only purpose of all God's religions, and is the ultimate arbiter of our life's chosen actions.
I didn't know Orthodox Christians prostrated in their prayer much less use prayer rugs. Curious where this practice remains today.
They would as per Matthew 26:39.
> "Going a little farther, he [Jesus] fell with his face to the ground and prayed, ‘My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.’"
> "Going a little farther, he [Jesus] fell with his face to the ground and prayed, ‘My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.’"
Especially monks and nuns do prostrations as part of their prayer rule. Some do hunderds, some do even thousands prostrations during their prayers. We use prayer rope when recitating Jesus Prayer[1]. Prayer rope helps count the prayers but also it gives your hands something to do while praying, so it's easier to focus. I usually have one in my pocket and I roll it in my hands secretly while in meetings or sometimes even during typing code. I don't really pray then but it reminds me of the spiritual reality and that my boring Teams-meetings and stupid Jira-tickets aren't the purpose of my life ;)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Prayer
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Prayer
The widespread use of the prayer rope with jesus prayer in orthodoxy is very recent, like second half of 20th century. Both things are ancient but the rope was more associated with monastics and some specific balkan regions where they were popular. The jesus prayer has been common but the modern hesychastic application of it was basically practiced only by monks until JD salinger made the way of the pilgrim popular.
You hear about this practice a lot on the internet and it is very familiar to english-speaking converts but this practice is not typical among for example greeks christians in greece, or even most russians I don't think but I'm less clear on that.
You hear about this practice a lot on the internet and it is very familiar to english-speaking converts but this practice is not typical among for example greeks christians in greece, or even most russians I don't think but I'm less clear on that.
Prostrations are part of every Orthodox tradition, to my knowledge. You will even see people making prostrations publicly in church especially during Great Lent, but you will generally not see people doing it at a Sunday liturgy since (in most traditions) prostrations are forbidden on Sundays.
They're part of the Western (Catholic) tradition as well, but less frequently encountered: during the Litany of the Saints that precedes ordination to the priesthood those to be ordained are prostrate; the ministers at the start of the Good Friday liturgy lie prostrate before the altar; and a few other special contexts.
There are variances in the traditions also here. In Russian tradition all the people in the Church do prostration during the eucharist prayers where wine and old are turned into Communion, and also before they partake the Communion. But in Greek tradition they don't do any prostrations during the liturgy. Prostrations aren't forbidden on Sundays but if you partake Eucharist you are not allowed to do prostration during that day.
there is something about prostrations that’s interesting but i can’t tell what exactly scientifically. But it brings me relief everytime I do it in namaz. I understand that the act of submission is relieving (things will be ok/there is someone looking out for me) but also physically (hard to explain)
no wonder it’s the meat of the entire prayer. Taking a prayer break from my messy code problems really resets my brain strain very quickly.
no wonder it’s the meat of the entire prayer. Taking a prayer break from my messy code problems really resets my brain strain very quickly.
Every Orthodox service I've been to we stood the entire time, though I never went on special holidays. My inner ex-Catholic wondered is it really church if I don't kneel and stand, kneel and stand, kneel and stand all through the service?
My Ukrainian ex had a worship space in a corner. It didn't have any rugs but had hauntingly beautiful hand painted icons. Maybe rugs are more of a thing in the old countries?
My Ukrainian ex had a worship space in a corner. It didn't have any rugs but had hauntingly beautiful hand painted icons. Maybe rugs are more of a thing in the old countries?
Practices in Orthodox services can differ. For example, in some Romanian parishes everyone has knelt while the Gospel was being read, but I have never seen this elsewhere. And as the other poster mentions, full prostrations are done (and widely across the Orthodox world) in certain contexts.
Some churches in Greece and Albania have pews -- the concept was brought back from the North American diaspora where Orthodox parishes were set up in former Protestant or Catholic church buildings -- so you can do all the standing, sitting, and kneeling you might be accustomed too.
Some churches in Greece and Albania have pews -- the concept was brought back from the North American diaspora where Orthodox parishes were set up in former Protestant or Catholic church buildings -- so you can do all the standing, sitting, and kneeling you might be accustomed too.
Churches probably have some kind of theological explanation, but alternately kneeling, sitting, and standing is much better physiologically. Having a large and diverse group of people all stay in the same position for an extended period is very rough on their bodies, and some more than others. Periodically switching prevents injuries caused by maintaining too much static load for too long in any one place. Probably also helps keep everyone awake. For the same reasons it's a good idea to occasionally switch positions while working.
Loving God is not for God's benefit, but for ours. Our emanating love towards our Creator helps us emanate compassion for all our fellow human beings. It is the Greatest Command(ment), and the sole purpose of religion.
As such -- as you say -- changing positions is good for our body which helps us to be more physically comfortable in this magnificent machine. Happiness is God's desire for us, but It has given us the absolutely free will to choose happiness or its opposites. A prayerful life is for personal and societal growth towards selfless compassion for all others, and away from selfish callous disregard for others.
As such -- as you say -- changing positions is good for our body which helps us to be more physically comfortable in this magnificent machine. Happiness is God's desire for us, but It has given us the absolutely free will to choose happiness or its opposites. A prayerful life is for personal and societal growth towards selfless compassion for all others, and away from selfish callous disregard for others.
There are theological explanations but it is also explicitly taught that physical movement and awareness of your body is an important part of prayer, similar to how bells and incense ask you to include those senses.
Also there isn't a rule against sitting, orthodox churches have seats for people who need or want them and it's absolutely normal to see people sit for some or all of services. It is discouraged to notice who or wonder why.
Also there isn't a rule against sitting, orthodox churches have seats for people who need or want them and it's absolutely normal to see people sit for some or all of services. It is discouraged to notice who or wonder why.
it is all things but diverse
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_Middle_...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_Middle_...
Any typical religious service includes a diverse group of people, physiologically: men and women, people of all ages, people of various body shapes and levels of fitness, etc., for some of whom it's especially bad to sit in one position for an extended time.
As a rule, Orthodox don't kneel on Sundays. Usually, weeknights during Lent you will see kneeling and prostrations. On a weekday liturgy (mass, always done in the morning) people will usually kneel at least for the Lord's Prayer (this is in the US)
I believe the prayer rug comes from the Ottomans (uncited) who added prestige to the artifacts. After the conquest of Constantinople, the Ottomons adopted the Roman (Byzantine) Orthodox Church's symbol () to represent Islam (Crescent and Star). They adopted the church dome and bell tower for architecture of the mosque called dome and minaret. And now it seems they also adopted the prayer rug.
(Fun anecdote: I traveled to Venice and the tour guide said the architecture of the St. Marks Basilica is different from the Catholic Churches of the rest of Italy as it resembles Islamic Architecture influences. Ha! It resembles Byzantine or Constantinople influences, not Islamic at all but quite similar.)
(Fun anecdote: I traveled to Venice and the tour guide said the architecture of the St. Marks Basilica is different from the Catholic Churches of the rest of Italy as it resembles Islamic Architecture influences. Ha! It resembles Byzantine or Constantinople influences, not Islamic at all but quite similar.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
mathfailure(2)
martin1975(1)
Where I'm originally from in Diyarbakir, Turkey, the Christians also use prayer rugs when prostrating (to, I think, Jerusalem) so this isn't an exclusively "Islamic" thing.