Does Islam Improve on Christianity?

The American Thinker ^ | April 2, 2005 | James Arlandson

[quidnunc]

Does Muhammad fulfill and complete the mission and ministry of Christ? Muhammad answers with an emphatic yes.

Basic Islamic theology teaches that since Allah sent Gabriel down with the Quran to Muhammad the messenger of Allah, Muhammad and the Quran fulfill and complete the mission of Christ and the New Testament. Muhammad seems to recognize the value of the Bible (Suras 4:47; 4:136; 4:163; 5:44-48; 5:82-83; 6:92, 154), but ultimately Christianity and the New Testament must yield to Islam and the Quran, the new and superior revelation.

Sura (Chapter) 5:15-16 illustrates Muhammad's viewpoint. In the context of Muhammad's distortion of the Christian doctrine of the Sonship of Christ (v. 17), and in the context of his asserting that Jews have been cursed (v. 13), this passage in the Quran (representing others) says that Christians (and Jews) have been walking in darkness until Muhammad came:

5:15 People of the Book [Jews and Christians] … a light has now come to you from God, and a Scripture [the Quran] making things clear, 16 with which God guides them who follow what pleases Him to ways of peace, bringing them from darkness out into light, by His will, and guiding them to a straight path. (Haleem) (cf. 4:157)

A Bible-educated Christian today immediately recognizes the imagery of light. Jesus says that he was sent down from heaven as the light of the world, and Christians have passed from darkness into the light (John 1:4-5, 8:12, 9:5, 12:46; 1 Peter 2:9). Now, however, Muhammad claims that Christians had been living in darkness, and he has come to clarify matters for them, as if things had been muddied. The Quran offers guidance along a "straight path," a theme often repeated in the Muslim Scriptures (e.g. Sura 1) and makes "things clear." Verse 16 is likely one of the verses a Muslim has in mind when he points out that Islam is a religion of peace. But is it?

A devout, Bible-educated Christian in no way believes that Islam is superior, so how do we break this deadlock? Ignore it? Given recent events like 9/11, this is no longer feasible. Do we pretend that all religions are the same? But this forces us to deny some basic, non-negotiable doctrines that all religions have and that cannot be reconciled. So do we argue over these abstract doctrines?

Debating abstract ideas like the Unity or the Trinity of God has a place in the Christian-Muslim dialogue, but neither claim can be proven by simple observation. The Quran everywhere affirms the strict Unity of God, whereas the New Testament everywhere affirms the divinity of Christ and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. So we have merely pitted one sacred text against another, and to break this deadlock we must go down still other paths. (For more information on the reliability of the New Testament, visit this site; for the problems inhering in the Quran, go here.)

Since Muhammad lays down a serious challenge to Christ and Christianity, we Christians must answer him. What would Christ say? As it turns out, he has given us a clear teaching on how to evaluate a prophet who comes after him in history, especially if the later prophet asserts his superiority over Christ: call it fruit inspection.

-snip-

[TalBlack]

"It's a tough cross to bear ;)"

For a guy who stands astride History and all of the Ages!? You're showing your age, dude...

[RipSawyer]

"Islam improves NOTHING--it is a cult of death."

A cult, not just of death, but of utter misery, suffering and ignorance and all cloaked in a false sense of knowledge and superiority so that the follower cannot even realize his own misery. Think and you will realize that you have known someone like this who was not even remotely Muslim, the Islamic cult simply institutionalizes this mindset which is characterized by the desire to impose this madness on others. People of this type are usually disliked by almost everyone with whom they come in contact so that when two or more of them are together they naturally reinforce each other because they tell each other that they are disliked by others only because of their own superiority which cannot be tolerated by those who feel overshadowed by their greatness.
I could easily have become one of those myself except for this small voice that prompts me to laugh at myself when I start to lean that way. Then I spend a few moments contemplating all the utterly stupid things I have done and some semblance of humility returns to me. Humility is possibly the greatest of all virtues and I recognize it in everyone I truly admire. I would like to believe that I recognize it in myself but that way lies madness.

[hosepipe]

[ Mohammed himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. ]

You might have a point..
The Roman Catholic church in the sixth century especially in North Africa (where Mohamaad) arose (on a westward journey) was totally corrupt.. Mohammad might have started out as a relief to that corruption, but being corrupt himself only made things first better, and then worse.. as it is today..

But then, I think the Roman Catholic church was corrupt from the beginning.. and "pagan" itself, still is.. especially after Constatine made "christanity" the state religion of all of Roman territory.. by force.. Forced "conversions" was exactley what Mohamaad did himself..

Pagan Rome one day, "christian" Rome the next day.. is political not spiritual.. and so then, required "priests" like the pagan Romans were used to.. "Pagan priests" one day, "christian priests" the next.. all so very logical.. and Roman Univeralism(Catholic) has been, and still is, political to this very day.. Even "some" so-called protestant churchs are apeing Universalism as variants.. And is the answer to all the "pagan" practises morphed into so-called "christain" ones today.. The list of which is too large for me to even care to describe..

[ventana]

You may think many things, but facts seem to escape you. The Catholic church as founded by Peter through Christ had man at the helm, and therefore was subject to the shortcomings individuals may incur, and individuals may be corrupt, but the institution itself is guided by the Holy Spirit and does not change its fundamental truths from age to age. The priests of the faith were not pagan, good sir, but derived from Rabbis as the church was an institution begun by a Jew named Jesus. As to politics, the infamous Jew wisely said: render to Caesar what is Caesar's. As to morphing, Christ embraced the Samaritan with ease who brought along his respective practises, which is reasonable, so long as his main effort is Christian, such as caring for the beaten individual at the side of the rode while others pass by. Have a nice day hosepipe. V's wife.

[hosepipe]

[ The Catholic church as founded by Peter through Christ had man at the helm, and therefore was subject to the shortcomings individuals may incur, and individuals may be corrupt, but the institution itself is guided by the Holy Spirit and does not change its fundamental truths from age to age. ]

Bull on all points..
What you want things to be, don't make it so.. for you or I..

[ventana]

It is not my will to make it so, but the Lord's. "You are Peter, the rock, and uon this rock I will build my Church" Mt. 16:18. Before Christ there was a chosen race, a people set apart, with a sacred priesthood who celebrated their Litugy. The worshipful act of worshipping God consisted of efforts of all the people. They were preparing the way of the Lord, God who became man and who then selected twelve apostles to carry his message. Peter was chosen to lead them. and he was given "keys" or authority. Look it up in the scriptural book edited into a formal document by the Catholic Church. V's wife.

[ventana]

Without the church we'd have not hospitals, universities, organized towns, merchant class, in short western civilization. Read a little history, and edify yourself. You spout emotional claims and no fact. A nice Lutheran professor, Lynn Nelson, Kansas University has a wonderful on line lecture series that might help you to gain a little "unbiased" education, he does not spare the church, nor does he crucify her with lies or the sort of bile you seem keen on issuing.http://www.ku.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures
V's wife.

[hosepipe]

[ he does not spare the church, nor does he crucify her with lies or the sort of bile you seem keen on ]

"The church", I suppose you mean the Roman Catholic church, is NOT "THE CHURCH"... it is "A" church.. although some would debate that.. not me, its not worth it.. I'm not too keen on most/many so-called protestant churchs either.. even though they protest nothing, except that The Roman Church is Not "THE church".. Roman Catholics call them protestants they don't call themselves that.. because its not true.. its the Roman Catholic church protesting the "truth" as THEY see it....

Its; The Roman Catholic Church that are the real Protestants..

Even though Luther was correct in his thesis and thereby making the RC church a cult.. I see not a lot of difference between them.. or Anglican or Episcopalian either and a few others..

I can do that.. being educated and not indoctrinated with the dogmas of Moonbats.. Apostasy is on the "christian" church.. whatever "christian" means these days.. just as the Book Revelation specifys will happen.. Everything seems to be going nicely..
Is God cool or WHAT.?.

[mrsmith]

"Zoroastrianism or as I prefer to call it Proto-Judaism."

Oh, no one should claim it is "proto-judaism". Certainly had a great influence though- and on Christianity and Islam. Zoroaster produced a very good religion for pastoral and post-pastoral peoples.
But, after all, he only modified existing Iranian ( and Indian) beliefs: the only man who ever had a truly new religion was Adam!

Man has learned from a lot of prophets and wisemen through his history.

"Time before the denial and rejection of this point by the theologically ignorant, 3, 2, 1, "
Hmmm... well, I suppose this statement means something to you.

BTW: Anyone know of a very successful Christian tribal society?

[Antoninus]

How can a "religion" that declares Jesus Christ as just a prophet, not God improve on Christianity?

Exactly. As St. Paul correctly pointed out, Jesus Christ is either the Messiah and Son of God, or else our Faith is in vain. If He were just a mere prophet, He would have to be considered a complete lunatic because He said, "Before Moses was, I AM."

[Antoninus]

According to my cousin, the Catholic priest, that's what it is, unless I've misinterpreted what he told me.

Let me guess--he's a Jesuit. These days, just because one is a priest, doesn't mean he's a Catholic....

[Antoninus]

The Roman Catholic church in the sixth century especially in North Africa (where Mohamaad) arose (on a westward journey) was totally corrupt.. Mohammad might have started out as a relief to that corruption, but being corrupt himself only made things first better, and then worse.. as it is today.

Mohammad did not start out in North Africa--which was a world away from Arabia where he did start out. North Africa was a provice of the Roman Empire during Mohammad's day. It had suffered from the Donatist and Arian heresies, but was strongly Roman and Catholic in Mohammad's day. Indeed, the Roman emperor at Byzantium at this time was a North African named Heraclius.

As a protestant who is hostile to the Catholic Church, you probably would have been right at home in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire in the time of Mohammad. It was positively rife with sects and heresies that were hostile to the Churches in both Rome and Constantinople to varying degrees. Chief among these was monophysitism. When the Muslims arrived in Egypt, many of the monophysites felt it was better for them to have Islamic rulers than "Chalcedonians" (i.e., Catholics). Turned out to be a pretty bad deal in the long run.

Next time you post on a thread like this, do a little research first.

[olde north church]

The countdown was pretty much a glove tossed to the ground. I figured someone would reply with a how dare you, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Actually the Iranian/Indian connection is also what defines me as an heretic, Arianist to be exact. I'm not a Trinitarian. I don't believe Jesus Christ was the son of God, more precisely the Avatar. Any God should have the power to overcome the limitations of "death". If actually the son of God, there truly was not a Trinity, but two distinct "individuals".
Thirdly, all Christian societies are tribal. The tribes are self-defined through political, economic or geographical parameters.

[hosepipe]

[ As a protestant who is hostile to the Catholic Church, ]

I'm not hostile to the RCC.. I believe the the RC'ics are right, exactly, where they are supposed to be.. I like that.. Its a separateing the sheep from the goats kind of thing..

Of course, MoMo didn't start out in North Africa.. You lost continuity in the discourse, that is if you even cared to follow it.. You are right about the various so-called heresies, there even more than that.. widespread and spreading.. even in Rome itself.. and with Popes even.. Some Popes were gangsters you know.. you must know.. The RCC won't talk about them.. Don't blame them.. Calls question to the whole system.. But, as I said, RCC'ers are where they are supposed to be.. and I like that.. God is pretty much a genius.. on the way he set it all up..

[frgoff]

Revelations 22;18-20 is clear as to any intent to add to or take away from what is written in the Bible. Muhammad, Buddah, Joseph Smith and the Catholic Popes are all in direct contradiction of the Bible.

No. Revelation 22:18-20 says that no MAN is to add or remove anything from the book of REVELATION. The Bible didn't even exist when Revelation was written.

Of course, if God wants to add to or take away from the book of Revelation, He, as the author, is certainly free to do so.

[Convert from ECUSA]

Ping!

[Convert from ECUSA]

Ping!

[Mark in the Old South]

Not quite. The Jewish Old Testament predicts over and over again the coming of a redeemer. The Christian says Jesus is that Christ the Jew says it has not come to pass. All the old law remains in effect except those things spelled out in the Gospels and Acts, mostly the clothing and dietary rules.

[archangel7_21]

To answer the original question- Does Islam improve Christianity? A simple comparison will do.

Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors-Islam gives room to kill our neighbors if they don't or won't believe in Islam

Through Christianity we can enter heaven by having a relationship with Jesus-through Islam we can only get into heaven by good deeds(murdering is not a good deed regardless of who you are).

Christianity is true-Islam is false.

Jesus is the son of God-not a prophet

Also here's something else to think about- Christ means "the annointed one", if Islam is true then why would someone who is annointed not be able to complete his mission? He wouldn't.

(the final answer to the original question is NO)