It’s remarkable to think that when you dig down to bedrock, Islam is founded on the self-testimony of a single man. Muhammad’s claim that God spoke to him through the angel Gabriel. That’s it. The angel Gabriel supposedly appeared to him and spoke to him. That’s what it all comes down to.
Now, I have no objection, in principle, to divine revelation via angelic apparition. But Islam comes down to one man’s self-witness to his religious experience. Hundreds of millions of Muslims are counting on one man’s credibility. Hundreds of millions of Muslims have staked their eternal destiny on one man’s testimony. That’s all they have to go on. That’s all there ever was. Muhammad’s bare claim that an angel spoke to him. That singular conduit.
At the end of the day, Islam is one man wide, one man deep. The case for Islam is only as good as one man’s self character witness. Hundreds of millions of followers following that one man. Just one man. One man’s alleged experience. Nothing more. No one else.
I wonder if hell for Mormons and Muslims includes a vivid instant replay of what really happened to Muhammad or Joseph Smith. Will they get to see for themselves what actually did–or more to the point, what didn’t–take place?
By the way... :-)
ReplyDeleteIt’s remarkable to think that when you dig down to bedrock, Islam is founded on the self-testimony of a single man. Muhammad’s claim that God spoke to him through the angel Gabriel. That’s it. The angel Gabriel supposedly appeared to him and spoke to him. That’s what it all comes down to.
ReplyDeleteIn one sense that's true and absolutely shocking when one thinks of it.
Yet, in another sense I would disagree because there are claims of miracles among Muslims after the time of Muhammad. There are even contemporary claims (some of which can be viewed on YouTube). I believe, the 7th century claims of Muhammad are propped up by demonic counterfeit miracles as well as con artists. Skeptics will respond by saying the same thing could be said about Christianity. I would agree that there have been and are instances of demonic miracles and confidence tricks in Christianity. But I believe some of them have been genuinely from God.
The issue that Steve is talking about in THIS blog is the ORIGINS of Islam. Contrasted with that of Christianity, the two are very different. True, Christianity began in the backdrop of peoples who already believed in the miracle working God of Abraham, just like Islam. However, Christianity started with Jesus who not only claimed to be the Messiah (and God's Son), but actually performed repeated superabundant miracles while here on earth.
While in Islam, they glory in the fact that Muhammad never performed a miracle himself. The primary miracle they allude to is how Muhammad, who was supposed to be an uneducated and illiterate merchant, could dictate the beautiful poetry that eventually was collated into the one book we now call the Qur'an if he really didn't receive these verses as revelation from God/Allah (often through the angel Gabriel).
The secondary miracle they allude to is how Muhammad supposedly fulfilled Old Testament prophecies. Lastly, the third most alluded to miracle is how Islam could spread so quickly from Arabia to the rest of the world.
The fact remains that Muhammad (according to most Muslims) never performed a miracle, and probably died by poisoning as a test of his apostleship. Whereas the New Testament apostles were promised they wouldn't and didn't. See Luke 10:19; Acts 28:3-6. I would include Mark 16:18 even though it's probably not an authentic or original part of the gospel of Mark. It has been part of the accepted and received tradition of the early Church and many missionaries (past and present) have been protected from poisoning in accordance with that verse regardless of whether it was taken hold upon and stood upon in faith by those missionaries. Though, sometimes they did knowingly claim that promise.
Speaking about the poisoning of Muhammad, David Wood argues that God may have poisoned Muhammad to prove Muhammad's false prophethood based on the Qur'an own teaching of how God would kill him if he (Muhammed) were a lying prophet. See his YouTube video ---->HERE<----
Btw, it's true that some Muslims claim that there are scientific revelations in the Qur'an that wouldn't be confirmed until many centuries later, along with certain Qur'an codes that prove the divine origins of Al Qur'an. However, those aren't as common as the 3 I listed. Also, I've read and heard that there's evidence in Islamic tradition that Muhammad wasn't illiterate. I wanted to say these things before a skeptic tried to correct me about what I supposedly don't know. Though, I willingly admit that my knowledge of Islam, Islamic apologetics and Christian apologetics directed toward Islam is limited.
ReplyDeleteThe point I'm making is that the supernatural claims of Christianity were public (and some, like Craig Keener, would argue even ongoing).
ReplyDeleteChrist performed miracles that both his admirers and opponents could and DID verify. The latter just claimed that they were performed by the power of Satan. But his adversaries didn't deny the reality of the miracles. Also, those whom Christ commissioned performed signs and wonders too. That's a number that is over 80 (Luke 10:1 mentions 70 in addition to the original 12).
In contrast and comparison to that, Muhammad and his immediate followers didn't regularly perform divine signs and wonders.
For all we know, Muhammad was making it all up. He was claiming the theological and spiritual heritage of 1. the God of Abraham, 2. of the Jews, and 3. of the early Christians even though he didn't live in that context where his message could have been tested by the covenant community. Like Abraham, he was surrounded by pagans. But God started something new with Abraham, while Muhammad claimed he was taking up the torch and continuing the spiritual heritage of the former.
Jesus' messages was judged and received by the faithful in God's covenant community based on ACCESS *TO* and KNOWLEDGE *OF* previous revelation (i.e. the Old Testament); and signs and wonders were performed to help attest to the truthfulness of the message.
In contrast to that, Muhammad's message was accepted by pagans who were mostly ignorant of the God of Abraham and of Christianity. If they did know anything about Judaism or Christianity, it was often mixed with errors, myths, anachronisms and heresies. And instead of signs and wonders attesting to the truth of the message, violence and the sword was used to spread it.
Having said that Muhammad could have been making it all up, I think it's likely that some of his original alleged revelations were genuinely from the supernatural. Especially since it's a documented fact that he originally questioned whether his supernatural encounters and received revelations might have been demonic in origin. He later on concluded that they weren't. A huckster would be unlikely to admit that.
To be fair to Islam, by some accounts, Muhammad was considered to have been a humble, fair, just, and honest merchant before he proclaimed his prophethood at the age of 40 (circa 610 A.D.). He seemed to remain so for the first 13 years of his ministry. It was really only the last 10 years of his ministry, after coming to Yathrib (Medina), did his character seem to change and when he began to advocate the use of violence in spreading Islam.
That's why I personally doubt he was making it all up from the beginning. That's not the case with Joseph Smith. There's evidence that he was a con artist and scammer both before and after his claim of prophethood. That's not say that I don't think demons are involved in the "burning in the bosom" phenomenon in Mormonism. Especially since there's a strong link between Mormonism and Freemasonry and occultism.
"I wonder if hell for Mormons and Muslims includes a vivid instant replay of what really happened to Muhammad or Joseph Smith."
ReplyDeleteGiven that some people believe that Obama is a Muslim, our real choice in this coming election is between a Mormon and Muslim.
Funny how both of them start with the letter "M" and both are "made-up".
I think it's unlikely that Obama is Muslim. I think it more likely that he's either bought into Pastor Wright's black power/liberation theology or else he's a closet atheist who maintains a Christian facade to cater to black and/or Catholic voters.
DeleteOh, I realized some might claim I contradicted myself in two statements I made.
ReplyDeleteTrue, Christianity began in the backdrop of peoples who already believed in the miracle working God of Abraham, just like Islam.
and
Muhammad's message was accepted by pagans who were mostly ignorant of the God of Abraham and of Christianity.
Part of Muhammad's original ministry was to preach against the idolatry in the area (e.g. at the Kaaba). Muhammad's converts included pagans, animists, polytheists, and syncretists (who mixed various religions together), and sometimes even professed Christians and Jews. However, the Christians were often heretical in their beliefs (not having much access to the Christian Scriptures or other Christians). While the Jews usually didn't convert and were far from Jerusalem and Babylon which affected negatively their orthodoxy.
My point was that unlike Jesus, Jeremiah, Isaiah, John the Baptist and other Old Testament prophets, Muhammad (by contrast) preached outside the context of the (usually) unfaithful covenant community of the true God in order to bring them back to the true worship of the true God. When Jesus preached, the covenant community as a whole was unfaithful, but they at least had a history with the true God through his prophets and His written Revelation by which to judge the authenticity of Jesus' claims. They were in such a position. Not so with Muhammad. Yes, the majority of the Jews rejected Jesus, but some of them did believe in Him and could claim that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecies of THEIR Scriptures. Again, not so with Muhammad.
With respect to Mormonism, it's strange that thy believe Jesus would preach to the peoples of the (future) Americas, yet fail to preach to Caesar in Rome.
Clarification about Muhammad and miracles. The Qur'an repeatedly states that Muhammad performed NO miracles. However, in the various books of Hadith (i.e. written traditions which came aprox. 2 centuries later) Muhammad is said to have performed various miracles (from splitting the moon, to causing water to flow from his fingertips to quench the thirsty etc.). So, NOT ALL Muslims glory in Muhammad not having performed any miracle except the production of the Qur'an. But many do.
ReplyDelete