Christianity and Islam are both the most widespread religions, and yet they don't truly pray to God. They worship substitutes for God: stand-ins, replacements. For Christians, this substitute is the Holy Trinity. However, the Holy Trinity is not God, nor a symbol of God, but a symbol of the relationship between God and the believer. Nevertheless, they are on the right track by praying to a personal God. For Muslims, this substitute is the name of God. However, the name of God is not God, but a term used to refer to Him. Thus, they pray using the reference to God, "Allah," which is just a word.

Let me explain… But before that, I want to clarify that what is being singled out as wrong is not the intention, but what is done. in practice, "objectively".

" At Last name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”

When Christians begin and end prayer, they make the sign of the cross while saying, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," believing they are referring to God, "the Father," Jesus, "the Son," and the Holy Spirit. However, God is not "the Father." This is a symbol: Jesus is the prophet of symbolism. He speaks in parables and presents metaphors and signifiers. When he says "my Father," it is metaphorical. The "Father" represents the relationship between Jesus and God on two levels: 1) at the level of generation: God generated Jesus, and Jesus made himself like God; and 2) they resemble each other in that their beings have a "family resemblance," a "kinship," just as two people can resemble each other without being the same.

Now, God is not the link that Jesus has with God: and Jesus is not God, but a substitute for Him. Just as Splenda is not sugar, but can serve as a substitute. Thus, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not hypostases of God, as tradition holds. They are substitutes of God. (Hence the meaning of the site's name.) As substitutes, they are a copy, but the copied original is not found within them.

Thus, we are not praying to God when we say "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," but we are praying to the Last name of these three substitutes: and this name is "Holy Trinity" and not that of God. A good replacement for the beginning of the prayer would be to say: "To God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Thus, Christians preserve in prayer the Holy Trinity that is dear to them, but also address God directly, and first and foremost.

The mistake Christians make is substituting the symbol for its signifier. Thus, it must be remembered that the Holy Trinity is the Holy Trinity. de God. They mistake the symbol for the reality. Moreover, "In the Name of the Father..." literally states that the prayer is addressed "In the Name" and not to the "Father." This misstep will also be Islam's.

« Our father »?

Regarding the Lord's Prayer, let's return to the original text. Remember that the manuscripts were in Ancient Greek at a time when punctuation, spaces, and capital letters were not used. Thus, Our Father, in Greek, is "Πατερ ημων" (Pater hemon) and is written on papyri as πατερημον (pater hemon).^émon) and the letters could be joined in such a way that an "α" (a) or an "οι" (oi) could be confused. Scribal errors are a reality we must contend with. Thus, we have the possibility that it is ποι τε ρημον "Poï te Rhémon" "To you, Rhémon… (who is in heaven.)" I choose to follow this interpretation of the Greek text because it aligns with the Quran in that "Rhémon" is one of the names of God. Jesus therefore clearly demonstrates how to address God.

In the Quran

Bⁱ S^uMⁱ My name is/He hears/In Heaven/In the name of…
A^ou = or/either…
LL^aHⁱMy God…
A^ou al-Rahmani = or/be my Mercy…
A^ou Rahim = or/either matrix…
Rahman and Rhemon share the same consonants and function as names here. It is "my RHMN" in the Quran. Thus, it is indeed a God personal If you pray to an abstract god, the word "Allah" is not heard. You must say literally: "O my God!"

“Bismillah” …

Beginning a prayer with "Bismillah" is the same as saying "In the name of…" in that the prayer is addressed to the Name, or is "in the name" of "Allah." Thus, the prayer is directed to the word "Allah." However, an abjad has this particular characteristic: it allows for multiple interpretations. For tradition to have retained the interpretation where believers address the prayer "In the Name of 'Allah'" is sacrilegious. Bismillah, My Name is Allah, My God. Aw el-Rahmani, Or My Mercy. Aw Rahim, Or Rahim (Mother).

Thus, a prayer addressed to anyone other than a personal God is not heard. If it is addressed "In the Name," it will not reach the correct destination. "Biesmallahi," "My God hears," would be better. Or simply "Allahi." The Tawheed It signifies the unity of God and is the first pillar of Islam. But to address a prayer to a God who is one, without it being a personal God, is equivalent to praying to his Name: the word "Allah".

Since it is impossible for anyone to conceive of God in his totality, we cannot pray to him directly. To "pray" to God when we cannot conceive of him is absurd. It's like not knowing who you're addressing. But "my God" is different: we can conceive of such a God. By being personal, that is, understood differently from one person to another, he becomes conceivable. Tawheed has ultimately reduced God, for believers, to nothing more than a single word: "Allah," because this is the only unity of God conceivable to all of us simultaneously. The sign that refers to it.

Thus, just as no one can see the Hajj from all sides at once, no one can conceive of God in His entirety: we are forced to conceive of Him subjectively. Everyone around the Hajj has a different perspective on it, even though the Hajj is one. This does not compromise the unity of God: He remains one. It is we who are multiple and different. Thus, when one does not address a personal God, one can only address His Name: a word.

In conclusion

Thus, Christians and Muslims make the same mistake: they venerate a "stand-in" for God, instead of God Himself. No matter how much someone wants to address God, if they address a symbol or a sign, they are not addressing God. On the Christian side, it is the symbol of the God-believer relationship that is worshipped: therefore, it is not God, nor the relationship, but the symbol of the relationship with a personal God. That's symbolism (I invented that term). On the Muslim side, they confuse the word "Allah" with God. The word "Allah" is the sign designating God. That's onomalatry (I made up that term). Symbol or sign: it's not God who is being worshipped, so it's like idolatry. OMG! (Exactly)

It is the religious authorities who are to blame here: the clergy for Christians and Islamic scholars for Muslims. They are the ones who propagated this way of praying in the Name of… and instead of praying to God directly, even though I am certain that most of those praying are thinking of God even if they say word for word that the prayer is addressed to the Name only. Fortunately, RelyDj1 solves the problem by making God the unity of all His parts.

This is a valuable lesson that Christians and Muslims can learn from one another. It's not for nothing that God made them the two most widespread religions: it shows that both are right to think the other is wrong. God has a sound, unified conception in Islam, but the relationship between God and believer lacks philosophical depth. "Allah" resonates differently for each person: we can say the same words and still disagree. Thus, the unity of God is inconceivable to humans. He is necessarily personal; on this point, Christians have a point, but personal does not mean anthropomorphic. It simply means that for each person, it is "their Allah," which is not the same for everyone, but which is one for each individual and for themselves.

In closing, I invite you all to say with me: Allahu Akbar.

“Oh My God… it is soo big…”

[1] Note: The oldest manuscript is in abjad, that is, an alphabet without vowels (like the Hebrew texts of the Bible), where vowels were added. Therefore, before the writing of a manuscript with diacritics (representing vowels), oral tradition transmitted the pronunciation of the text. Diacritics were introduced into the Arabic alphabet during the Umayyad Caliphate, after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. He would not have been alive when the diacritics were added. Without doubting the good faith of those who added them, human memory remains fallible.