Does it even matter anymore? Christian, Muslim, Jew...just different mythologies, same basic outline of beliefs- God/Allah is good, stuff against teachings=bad.  Admittedly it's a lot more complicated than that...but I feel there are common underlying messages.

Isn't there some kind of rule in religion that you're not supposed to deny it or whatever?  Otherwise you're screwed. Or is that just a Christian thing?

Although if he really was Muslim the reaction of the (Christian) public would be hilarious.

~Zoo

Deny what?  That you really are the Messiah? 

Well, considering he has Muslim names, a Muslim father and at one point attended a Muslim school, the fact that he is now our President elect and will soon be the President, I have to say, at this point, the word Muslim is not that important anymore when talking about Obama. At least not till something happens where Muslim people will somehow make it seem it was because they see him as a Muslim, but I'm just going for worst case scenario here.

WHo cares?  It was not an issue for me during the election.  Hitler can call you "buddy", but that does not make you his friend.

I dont care his religion (and if he is muslim, so what?).  I care about his policies.  They are looking bad enough as is.

(Besides, if he really was Muslim, they would have a Fatwa out on him for his stand on Abortion).

Ok, some clarifications before this escalates:

1. Islam does NOT have a head. It is not an organised religion like Roman Catholic Christianity. Nobody speaks for all of Islam.

2. Louis Farrakhan is not a Muslim and the "Nation of Islam" is not Islamic. For example Farrakhan's little sect teaches that G-d appeared manifested as a man and that blacks are superior to whites. Both are heretical in (real) Islam.

3. (Real) Islam teaches that Jesus was the Messiah and will return.

4. According to Islamic law the child of a Muslim father is a Muslim. Converting to any other religion is forbidden for a Muslim. Barack Obama is a Muslim per Islamic law and an apostate because he sees himself as Christian. (Ironically Obama's church is probably closer to Farrakhan's "Islam" than to real Christianity, but that is beside the point.)

This is one of the rare occasions that we agree Leauki ...

thanks for the clarification ... i was going to do that but you did a good one ... not perfect ... but good .

why not perfect? here is why:

As a Devine Axiom (that is my own awkward translation of the arabic word " Hadith Qudsy" which means a principle revealed to the prophet and he delivered it in his own words .. as opposed to Qura'n which was delivered in the exact words in which it was revealed) states, All people are born muslims (God called it the "innate religion" of humans) and when they reach maturity they or their parents make them otherwise....

accordingly, Obama was considered a muslim (as any other human) till he reached maturity (i.e. 13-16 yrs old)... after that whatever he does or his mother told him to do determines which religion he belonged to.

As far as i know from the media his mother was non-practicing christian (btw,his father was a non practicing muslim) and he started thinking about religion only when he went to Columbia in NY ... but never actually practiced anything till he was in Chicago)

so according to Islamic rules .. as an adult Obama was never a muslim

that is why your comment is not perfect

I just like to add one thing ... why did people make a big deal of this issue? did they really think that if Obama was a Muslim ... that makes him a friend of Muslim people? ... if that is the case then they really dont know what they are talking about. the muslim world is full of Muslim presidents and Kings ... and muslim people hate all of them ... i really cant think of ONE muslim leader that muslim people support or like ....

and people here in the USA think Obama (if he really was a muslim) would be the first???? ... how wishful-thinking can you get?????... it is not the religion of a person or of a leader that counts ... it is the action regadless of the religion.

Ok, let's do some nitpicking.

I know of the hadith qudsi. They are statements allegedly made by Muhammed outside the Quran. "Quds" (QDS) means "holy" (compare Hebrew QDSh, "qadosh" and Aramaic "qadish"). "Hadith" (HDTh) in ancient Arabic means "news", the plural ("ahadith"?) means "narative", related to Aramaic HDTh and Hebrew HDSh ("hadash") "new". They are part of the overall Ahadith.

However, Shiites don't accept most of them as true. That's one problem with using them to define Muslims.

Another problem is that Muhammed used the word "Muslim" to describe three slightly different concepts. As you know the word "Muslim" literally means "someone who is submitted" (passive noun of the root SLM = "peace" or "submission"). The term "Muslim" describes a pure monotheist who arrives at the conclusion that there is one G-d, one creation, and one end of the world; a monotheist who believes in the prophets of Judaism before Jesus' and Muhammed's time, and a monotheist who accepts Muhammed as the last prophet.

It is the first type of "Muslim" that is regarded as the "innate" religion of humans. Islam does not believe that children have a chance of knowing automatically that Moses and Muhammed are prophets.

However, this thread was definitely about the third meaning of "Muslim". Perhaps we should use the word "Muhammedan" instead.

In Islam a father has the duty to teach his children religion. That's why a Muslim father has special relevance, especially in Shia Islam.

A Christian and (religious) Jew, despite the (alleged) fact that they were Muslims (first type) before their parents taught them otherwise, are not apostates. But the son of a Muslim father is, unless his father never taught him religion.

I disagree with your translation "divine axiom". "Holy narrative" is a better translation, I think.

King Cyrus of the Iranians was a Muslim (first type), Moses was a Muslim (second type), and Muhammed's followers were Muslims (third type). (You will find a reference to the first in Sura 18.)

First regarding the Shia', they have their own way of understanding things .... so... i am talking about the main-stream Islam.

second... we agree again ... that is terrible ... isnt it?

and since his father never practiced Islam (as they say) and he left him when he was 1-2 yrs old and never taught him anything... then, islamically, as an  adult responsible for his actions, he was never a muslim ... and muslims do not consider him apostate (btw, this is Alazhar's ruling .. and they are the authority on all islamic matters.... you and I cant' argue too much with them )

your translation is more poetic ... but "Ahadith Qudsia" are more than narratives ...they are treated as fundmental principles. but that is a philosophical argument ...

Don't need to be a Muslim to be the object of a Fatwa, if I'm not mistaken.

well I care because he has come out, on the record, saying he's a Christian and if he's hiding something about his religious belief or his past (which we already know very little) then he's lied to us.  I know, I know, it's not the first time a politician has lied....but he SAYS he's a Christian and we know what the bible says about lying.  Credibility, character and integrity are very important in my book. 

Leauki,

Thanks for the low-down on Islam. 

I'm not getting the fact you're calling Moses a Muslim when in fact he was a Hebrew.  What are you trying to say because I'm not getting it. 

I'm wondering about Obama's "Christianity" and have since the get go.  I'm wondering if he's just not using religion to help him in government.   I'm wondering if somewhere he looked ahead and thought he needed a religion to help him get to where he needed to be.  Just a gut feeling I have because what he's saying and what he's doing is not meshing as far as Christianity is concerned.  There's something odd about this whole thing.   Even some of his own liberal media are starting to get creeped out. 

When you study prophecy and the book of Revelation it's obvious that religion mixed with government will be a force working together in the last days.  I'm not talking religion in a good way either.  It will be religion using government and government using religion.  In other words they will be bed partners.   

oh and one more thing Leauki.....have you ever heard of a Jewish man named of Dr. Michael Rydelnik? 

I know you asked Leauki, forgive me, but this man is not Jewish.  He is a Christian.   Once a Jew adopts another faith he no longer speaks for Judaism.  Of course, he is always welcome to return, but until he does he is an apostate.

Be well.

Well I very recently heard his story as he told it and thought it was quite interesting.  He made some excellent points using the OT that I hadn't even thought of before.  He even used a scripture that Leauki and I discussed at length. 

He didn't want to believe in the whole Christianity thing.  He wanted to disprove it for the sake of his mother.  He thought his mother was being deceived by the Christians. 

I would call him a Jewish Christian.  I don't believe he was leaving his heritage.  All he did was accept the Jewish Messiah as was expected. 

According to the Quran anyone who lived before Jesus and believed in one god, one creation, the day of judgement, that the Messiah will come, and the prophets of the Hebrew Bible was a Muslim.

Then those who believed that Jesus was a prophet and the Messiah (but not the son of G-d) were Muslims.

And then finally those who believed that Muhammed was a prophet are Muslims.

Moses nationality has nothing to do with it.

There is a third type of Muslim, namely those that believe in one G-d, creation and end, but have never had a chance to hear of the prophets. They are Muslims too.

You have to distinguish between "Muslim" (the follower of Muhammed) and "Muslim" (the Arabic word).

In Arabic (and Hebrew) the root SLM means "peace". "Islam" (ASLM, "A" is an Alef, i.e. a glottal stop) is the infinitive of a verb derived from "peace" and means "to submit" (or "submission"); meant is "submission to G-d's will". A "Muslim" (MSLM) is someone who is submitted (or submits), i.e. someone who practices "Islam" ("submission to G-d's will").

Anyone who submits to G-d's will as much as he can is a Muslim.

Note that all the Arabic terms related to Islam actually mean something completely normal. They are normal words:

Islam = submission

Muslim = someone who submits (or is submitted)

Muhammed = someone to be praised (as a name), from HMD = praise; formed the same way as "Muslim"

The M thing is normal in Semitic languages. You put an M in front of a root and you get the/a passive noun:

KTB (root for "write") -> MKTB ("miktav" = "letter", in Hebrew)

ERB (root for "west", E is Ayin) -> MERB ("maghreb" = "the west", in Arabic)

ok, so this is all according to the Quran? 

This is no diff than many non-Muslim groups out there.  There are many religions who believe Jesus was a prophet or teacher, and sent by God but not the Son of God. 

First I wonder how they know God's will?  I mean look at the radicals.  They are killing non-believers or even peaceful Muslims and saying it's God's will.  They are even blowing themselves up saying it's God's will.   Well maybe the Peaceful Muslims (who are attacked by the radicals) may think that it's God's will for them to live.  Diff in opinion for sure. 

 Second how do they determine how much is "as much?"   That's the problem I have with all works based religions regardless of denomination.  It doesn't seem like a very fair God to have left us with no barometer telling us how much is "good enough?"  What we think may be "good enough" may be surprising (rightly so)  when we get on the other side. 

Just some thoughts. 

Pretty much, yes.

That's true, and Muhammed was a follower of one of them.

Christianity also evolved out of one of those groups.

Jesus had a big impact.

They know what G-d's will is the same way you and I do. They believe they are right.

But then I wouldn't call the terrorists "Muslims" ("people submitting to G-d's will"). In my experience the true believers (in Islam) are those that don't constantly refer to themselves as "Muslims".

Compare Damanga (http://www.damanga.org/) to the "Muslim" Brotherhood. The one is an Islamic charity for the people of Darfur who believe in peace and helping the poor and who don't have a "military wing". The other is the terrorist organisation that killed Egyptian president Anwar Saddat for making peace with Israel.

You misunderstood "too much". I meant the quite objective standard of not knowing of the Bible or the Quran. A hermit in Mongolia who has never in his life had a chance to hear of the Bible or the Quran can nevertheless be a Muslim if he believes in one god, one creation, and an end of days.

Zoroastrians were also Muslims and they had no direct connection to any of the prophets. But they didn't doubt that the prophets were real when they heard of them.