now we know why they are always after the little boys

Yes, Islam is a replacement theology par excellence. Islam is the true form of Judaism and of Christianity. This is unparalleled in religious history, as far as I know. Some point to Christianity’s relationship with Judaism, but that is much different. Christianity shares Scriptures with Judaism; it understands them differently, but does not say that the Jews have corrupted them and does not offer uncorrupted versions. Also, while there has been a Christian replacement theology that sees the Jews as cast off and the Church as the new Israel, this has never been the unanimous view and is almost universally rejected today. After all, St. Paul says in the New Testament that “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29, if I recall correctly) — specifically in reference to the Jews being God’s chosen people. So the proper Christian attitude toward Jews is one of charity, respect, openness, and gratitude.

chsw

No other religion bases itself on other religions.

ThackerAgency on June 2, 2008 at 1:43 AM

Bahai. In many ways, it’s conceptually like Islam without the nastiness and ugliness.

Muhammad understood the material he heard from them imperfectly, or changed it for his own ends, or both.

Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 9:14 PM

This is basically what I meant by ‘plagiarized’. He heard bits and pieces, and told people who hadn’t heard the stories and changed them to suit him.

Thanks for responding. But to me it just seems odd that a guy would say, ‘those Christians and Jews are right, but they aren’t REALLY right so you have to believe my version of their beliefs or we’ll kill you or subdue you.’

No other religion bases itself on other religions. You could say that Christianity is an extension of Judaism. But neither is necessarily exclusive. Jews who believe in Jesus are Christians. . . but both Jews and Christians believe that a Messiah is coming. Christians just believe He’s coming BACK.

Imagine if someone made up a religion based on Hindu or Buddhist principals, said they were the ‘most knowledgeable’ as deemed by God himself. And then they said that their version was more accurate than the Hindus or Buddhists. Either believe my way or we’ll kill you for believing their way.

It’s just so odd to me that the entire religion is basically a paraphrase of Jewish and Christian stories with a twist to suit Mohammed. Any comparison of the two religions make it obvious. Unfortunately they don’t allow the Gospel in Muslim areas – and they kill apostates. Muslims love God, they want to love God. I am certain they would respond to the Gospel if they heard it without fear of retribution from their community.

Pent. on June 1, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Fascinating series of videos. Thanks for sharing.

Very briefly, in traditional Islam there is no separation of religion from state power. Jihadists decry secular Muslim governments — Mubarak, Musharraf — for not following Islamic law and introducting the Western concept of a sacred/secular division.

Robert Spencer on June 1, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Exactly. In the American Thinker article about Jefferson and “the wall,” the author points out that people built the wall. It follows that if people built the wall, they can also tear it down, which is why educating Americans as you do about the realities of Islam is so very important.

By the way, Muslims don’t actually have to give alms. The desire to give is enough to satisfy that Pillar.

Only if they’re indigent. Those who can, must.

So they all go to Paradise.

Not necessarily. But the only ones in Paradise are Muslims, certainly.

I read somewhere, and I can’t remember where it was, if it was a Hadith or just a Q&A, that a Muslim who dies from the flu will also go to Paradise. I can’t remember if the word “martyr” was used, but it was clear that any Muslim will get into Paradise as long as they defend Islam. And the highest honor any Muslim can hope to achieve in this life is to be a martyr in defense of Islam.

It’s a hadith. Here is one version:

The Prophet said, “He (a Muslim) who dies of an abdominal disease is a a martyr, and he who dies of plague is a martyr.”

More seriously, I’m not at all familiar with the state of the Jewish faith in Arabia at the time of Muhammad. Robert, given that the stories in the Qur’an vary so much from the Old Testament, is it likely that the Jewish groups were themselves (heretical?) split-offs from mainstream Judaism? I’m wondering if he just rewrote things to suit his needs, or if we’re hearing echoes of what was then a heterodox Judaism?

It’s almost impossible to know, since documentary evidence is so sketchy. But since no Jewish sect of any kind has ever at any time according to any known records asserted that Ezra is the Son of God (9:30), it seems likely that the Jews of Arabia were more or less orthodox, but that Muhammad understood the material he heard from them imperfectly, or changed it for his own ends, or both.

Lots of verses citing Allah’s vengeance on the corrupt and unbelievers…But what’s Islam’s explanation when say, a natural disaster wipes out a mosque or an Islamic city or locale that is known for it’s strict Islamic rules and traditions?

Is it really as simple an explanation as “they weren’t holy enough”?

Yes. We saw this in Indonesia after the tsunami. You can always be more holy, more observant, more fervent, more devout. Always. There is always something else you can be doing.

Here’s a hoopoe for you.

One of the MAJOR differences I’m seeing between the Bible and the koran is that the Bible is more or less chronological. There are re-tellings of stories, more like a book by two different historians, who tell essentially the same story, but with different viewpoints and emphases.

This to me smacks of the stupidity of islam – that mohammed has to retell things to suit his current claims and justification for power and all that.

Coincidentally, I begin sura 28 (next week’s entry) with a discussion of how the Qur’an is a series of sermons, not a series of chronological histories. Stories are brought up in order to make a homiletic point. This is different from the Bible, and interesting (I think), but it doesn’t in and of itself manifest duplicity on Muhammad’s part. There are plenty of ways in which I believe Muhammad is not the supreme exemplar of human behavior, and I don’t believe he was a prophet, but I don’t see any moral or other failing in his not telling stories of the prophets in chronological order.

Blogging the Bible

Chimpy on June 1, 2008 at 11:43 AM

You are apparently unaware of the fact, but actually the Slate series inspired this one, although my approach is a bit different. Instead of just writing about how passages hit me, as the guy at Slate did, I am showing how mainstream Muslim commentators explain them.

I was under the impression there were no assurance of Paradise in Islam except martyrdom which is a major part of the allure of being a suicide bomber. Everybody else gets judged. Am I wrong?

The language promising Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah in Qur’an 9:111 is much stronger than the language here in 27:3. Also 27:3 is a bit vague — if you miss one prayer, are you assured? Two? Five? A week’s worth? And how much zakat must one pay? Etc. 9:111 is much clearer and more direct.

Very briefly, in traditional Islam there is no separation of religion from state power. Jihadists decry secular Muslim governments — Mubarak, Musharraf — for not following Islamic law and introducting the Western concept of a sacred/secular division.

I’m guessing that their answer for this is that it wasn’t Mohammed who knew the ‘real story’, but Allah.

Exactly.

It takes an idiot to be a Muslim.

I disagree. Al-Ghazali was no idiot, and he was pious and orthodox. In modern times, whatever evil one may ascribe to someone like Khomeini, he was no idiot. People who grow up in Muslim cultures with no access to the material that you are probably taking as axiomatic in writing this sentence cannot be called idiots for not knowing what they have no way of knowing.

It’s always amazing to me to read your posts Robert. If Mohammed were alive today he’d be penalized for plagiarism.

Strictly speaking, plagiarism is taking over someone else’s actual wording as one’s own. Muhammad doesn’t do that: there is no textual dependence of the Qur’an upon the Bible. And Muslims would say that it’s only natural that stories would recur in the Qur’an that were in the Bible, since the Qur’an is the perfect revelation sent to correct the earlier ones that had become corrupted.

I suppose I can understand if the people were illiterate and had not heard the stories from the Bible that Mohammed was told during his travels as a merchant, they would find comfort in these verses. But to believe that this one man (who glorified himself above all others) knew more about what happened in Biblical times than the people who actually wrote the stories DURING the times that they happened is just absurd. Any rational comprehension would lead anyone to the same conclusion.

Of course, if the supreme deity is really speaking to him and using him to correct stories that had become corrupted and changed, then his versions would be more accurate than the older ones.