I heard a Da’wa program the other day — they believe that Christians have been fooled into believing that J.C. was crucified. In reality, according to the Muslims, this didn’t happen — either someone else took the place of J.C. (ranging from Judas to a Roman soldier, etc., the Muslims don’t seem to think it’s too terribly important to figure out whom exactly was crucified) OR that J.C. was not dead when taken down from the cross…(he was still alive, thus, no resurrection). The whole point of the Muslim narrative is to assert that Christianity is false, and that Christians are deceived. Anyway, that’s what Muslims say.

No, because Islam demands belief in a Gospel that does not exist — the “uncorrupted” original Gospel of Jesus that teaches Islam, and which does not exist and never has existed.

Robert Spencer on August 5, 2007 at 9:43 PM

How do Muslims respond to this?

The last prophet was Malachi, and the “age of prophecy” does, indeed, come to an end (according to Jewish tradition).

I think this “everyone is a Muslim” (and done in retrospect, or with the arrow of time pointed backwards) renders the claim irrefutable. But (in science, anyway) having a theory which cannot be refuted, does NOT strengthen the theory, it weakens the theory. Many times, also, conspiracy theories are beyond critique; they are irrefutable. Suppose someone wishes to make a claim that “psychic” energy is the “cause” of disease X — how can this be refuted? Usually any damaging evidence will be explained away through the use of an ad hoc argument.

But here in the West, we are rationalists, and irrefutable claims are not granted acceptance. We withhold our acceptance. Ditto should be the case for the absurdist claim: “We are all Muslims.”

The potential of having periods of no prophecy wherein there is a ‘last prophet’ before some kind of Eschaton is not just possible but probably sensible. However, It would seem to me that Islam intends to make this claim across all of existence for Mohammed. So, in a limited context a ‘last prophet’ is a definite reality. But from the perspective of the entire world and history there can be no ‘last prophet’ other than God himself (who is the Beginning and the End.)

It has often struck me that a lot of Islamic teaching is a kind of semi-ignorant mishmash of themes from the surrounding religious traditions. Consistency through the body of ’scripture’ is sacrificed for ideological constructs as well as immediate political/social expediencies.

Jesus’ saying is the most true in this case: that there will be many prophets and those claiming to be the Christ (anointed one.)

Often what is taught by Christ is counter-intuitive and certainly not expedient or consistent with a human ideology. But this is not a mark of perversion, but men, having the image of God have capacity for truth, so they are merely lost and not completely evil. It would be sensible if a modicum of what we hold naturally to be truthful would match up with the Truth itself. It also makes sense that our intuitions or reason could lead us astray and thus what we want often conflicts with the truth.

However, a teaching that conveniently lines up with man’s basest instincts is suspect from the very start.

The idea of ‘abrogation’ in the context of the Qui’ran appears to be a convenient method to override the contradictions that arise from man’s conflicting passions.

Not to be a hate baiter – instead to point out what I have observed and what my opinion of it is.

I thought one of the last books of the OT said that there will be no more prophets? That those days were over?

I don’t think so… John the Baptist was clearly a prophet and accepted as one. In some of the early chapters of the Gospels Jesus is refered to by His followers as a prophet (before the Apostles figured out just who He really was).

Muhammad is the final prophet, and the one who brings the perfect book, the Qur’an. But in the Muslim view there were many, many other prophets, all of whose original message was the same as Muhammad’s. Their followers are responsible for any divergences.

What I don’t get is if prophet after prophet after prophet after prophet all the way to Jesus preached the same message, then why did it get “corrupted” time after time after time? Wouldn’t somebody have gotten it right before Mohammed came along? If Moses truly was a muslim, and Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt, then wouldn’t the Israelites have followed the “uncorrupted” religion?

There’s too many explinations going on for the claim about Islam being the “one true” religion. Wouldn’t the simpler explination be that Judiasim and Christianity with all of its prophets, be right?

jdkchem

If islam demands the belief in the Gospel, the Gospels have Christ telling of his return, islam claims that mohammad was the last prophet and foretold by Christ. Would that not make mohammad Christ? If you follow the claims of islam?
No, because Islam demands belief in a Gospel that does not exist — the “uncorrupted” original Gospel of Jesus that teaches Islam, and which does not exist and never has existed.

Robert Spencer on August 5, 2007 at 9:43 PM

This is a great point. Sharing a ‘belief’ in Abraham and Jesus is always used as an ecumenical wedge to imply that islam is merely a different nuance of the same histories. But what is really shared about Jesus? Apparently nothing.

You point out that there is no book of gospels we can find in islam. These unavailable gospels according to Mohammed must be very different from the Christian Gospels because Mohammed recognized Jesus as a prophet, yet Mohammed declared a system that contradicted most of the Christian Gospels. For instance, in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ declared that it was most important to love one’s enemies, while Mohammed applied great value to hating one’s enemies.

Besides the date of birth what commonality is there?

The Christian Gospels accept the history of the old testament. Christ was a Jew who declared he came not to change the law of the old testament. Between the Old and New Testaments I find great harmony, while compared to the Koran I see great disharmony

Rob, do you think the notion of ‘revising’ history in this fashion – calling the prophets’ religion Islam and well as Abraham’s – and insisting all historical evidence given to the contrary is in fact itself revised – contributes to a conspiracy mentality?

Might this create difficulty in handling, or even inventing scientific inquiry?

I’m not sure. Possibly. I think it’s worth exploring.

There is no Qur’anic prohibition against Islamic proselytizing. Far from it. Islam is and always has been a proselytizing faith. Here is Muhammad telling Muslims to invite their opponents to accept Islam. The Seattle Times article is pure whitewash.

Given that even the so called ‘people of the book’ – Jews & Christians – are forbidden from entering Mecca, isn’t it disingenuous of Ibn Khatir to slam them for not doing something that they aren’t allowed to do in the first place, even as ‘people of the book’?

I.K. is saying essentially that they don’t become Muslims, even though they could worship at Abraham’s shrine if they did — yet they claim to revere Abraham.

The Jews would never accept Mohammad as a prophet and neither would Christians. So we didn’t admit it for “selfish” reasons that they never define?

They define them in these stories about the delegation from Najran: it was all about money.

Is there a Jewish or Christian account of this event? To contradict the Islamic account?

I don’t think so. I’ve never heard of one.

If islam demands the belief in the Gospel, the Gospels have Christ telling of his return, islam claims that mohammad was the last prophet and foretold by Christ. Would that not make mohammad Christ? If you follow the claims of islam?

No, because Islam demands belief in a Gospel that does not exist — the “uncorrupted” original Gospel of Jesus that teaches Islam, and which does not exist and never has existed.

Might this create difficulty in handling, or even inventing scientific inquiry?

The call to prayer 5 times a day is once again an announcement to come to Islam.

ThackerAgency on August 5, 2007 at 7:23 PM

And the only reason it’s not more than 5 times a day is because Moses convinced Mohammed to talk Allah down from 50 to 5.

Salvation in Christianity doesn’t require any money at all. In fact, He said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. Also, ’sell all of your earthly possessions and follow Me’ doesn’t seem to favor people with ANY money.

So according to Christ anyway, it would be more difficult to be saved if you were rich (could affod anything He might ‘require’) than if you were poor. The tithe is 10% of what you have (could be any amount), but that isn’t a requirement of salvation.

You might think God wants you to do something for Him only if you can afford it. I think it’s silly to make it a ‘pillar’ that might make a poor person seem inferior in a religion. Also, I’m certain that they compete on piousness based on how many times they have completed the Hajj. That would encourage boasting and ‘holier than thou’ status. Boasting to me seems like it is not holy at all.

God shouldn’t put a provision in a faith based on economic ability. The more you learn about Islam the sillier it gets.

Requiring the Hajj only if you can afford seems to make sense to me. It is just admitting the realism that many will not be able to afford the journey, whether we are talking about 1400 years ago or today. Remember, the God of the Bible does the same thing. In the sacrificial laws of the Torah, special provisions are made for the poor. If a lamb could not be afforded for a sin offering, a couple of pidgeons could be used – if not that then a measure of grain. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, not silly at all.

Oh, to give you just a little more disclosure; I am an Edwards supporter.

sandman on August 5, 2007 at 7:16 PM

*oof* You’re a braver man than I. But welcome to HA!

…spreading faith — what some call proselytizing — is a tenet of Christian theology, while the Quran teaches against it.

This is a lie. Everything involved in Islamic lifestyle is inherently proselytizing. Muslim women can not marry non-muslim men (to marry a muslima you have to convert). Muslim men can marry non-muslim women, but their children are automatically muslims. They wear their muslim garb to outwardly show their ‘holiness’ and is in effect proselytizing. When muslims come to the house of a non-muslim to collect the jizya (tax because you are non-muslim) what might go through the mind of the taxed other than convert so you don’t have to pay?

The call to prayer 5 times a day is once again an announcement to come to Islam. Everything involved in Islam is a way of life intended to coerce people into their faith. ‘Convert or die’ is another aspect of ‘non-proselytizing’ that might be persuasive.

So that statement might be a bit of Taquiya (lying to promote Islam which in itself would be proselytizing), or it may be the author misunderstanding something he/she was told.

I hope this is accurate but I would gladly be corrected by the teacher Spencer.

Knowing what they believe and actually believing it are two entirely different things (just ask my ‘intro to the Old Testament’ professors in college who were determined to show me the errors in the Bible). Those professors knew what it said, but didn’t believe it.

Also, I find it a little disingenuous to imply that Christians and Jews who do not complete the Hajj are somehow deficient in their eyes when this particular ‘pillar’ is OPTIONAL even for muslims. The Hajj is only a requirement if you can afford it. Which to me seems less than holy because God shouldn’t put a provision in a faith based on economic ability. The more you learn about Islam the sillier it gets.

Also, they believe that the dome of the Rock is where Abraham sacrificed his son (as the Jews told them) – so how (and why) did he get to Mecca to build the Kabaa? Also, why in the world do they believe he went to Jerusalem during the ‘night journey’ instead of going from Mecca? The whole thing smells of contradictions based on convenience. Their claim to the Islamic holiness of Al Aqsa seems more jealousy of Jews than anything legitimately holy.

Thanks again Robert Spencer. I know it must be difficult when Christians misunderstand your teachings shedding light on Islam and think you are actually preaching Islam. It’s like ‘friendly fire’. Us Christians are on the same side people. Robert Spencer is probably our best weapon against the hatred and bigotry of Islam.

I am what you would call “liberal” or “progressive,” and I do read DKos, and some commentors there make a lot of good people look bad–that’s no secret. It is people like those who lower the dialogue for the rest.

If you’re wondering why I’m commenting here on HA, it’s because it’s no fun to always discuss issues with people that agree with my views most of the time. I try to understand the views of conservatives and others.

Oh, to give you just a little more disclosure; I am an Edwards supporter.