Certainly, there are extremely important differences in the way a Christian or Muslim or Jew speaks about God, but I still contend that when we are talking about God we have a concept that shares much common ground. This does not somehow negate the absolute value of Christianity's truth claims, anymore than saying that certain tenets of Buddhist ethics have much in common with the Gospels.
Also, I would argue that Islam developed within the milieu of Christianity and Judaism. Mohammed would have a good deal of exposure to Jewish communties established in the Arabian Penninsula, as well as some Arab tribes that had converted to Christianity. Certainly, there are strong pre-Islamic Arabic pagan influences as well, but the ideas of Mohammed and the content of the Koran are self-consciously within the monotheist tradition.
I understand the sensitivity of this subject, particularly in a day and age in which many wish to reduce all differences of religion to preference and differences in experience, culture, etc: basically to say that everyone is right (which is to say none of it matters because it's all hocus pocus anyway). But one does not have to deny truth value to all other systems in order to uphold the absolute truth value of Christianity. I can sat that Jews and Muslims worship God but in a flawed and deficient manner (a very politically incorrect thing to say!) without denying their need for the fullness of revelation in Christ.
In some respects, I would agree. There is no doubt that Mohammed "borrowed" quite a bit from Jewish and Christian sources (although it is equally clear that his understanding of those concepts, not to mention the history outside of theology altogether, were flawed).
This is the line taken by St. John of Damascus, one of the earliest Christian theologians to confront Islam. In his polemics on Islam he makes no contentions that he considers it a vile heresy; however, he refers to Mohammed speaking of 'God,' just as he would refer to Jews or non-Trinitarians as speaking about God:
The gnostics might similarly refer to "God"; the problem is that their god is a different entity altogether (in the case of the gnostics, not even the creator-being). St. John was far too kind.
It is as if there were a man- A.- to whom we both refered. I know A. quite well and describe him accurately; you describe him with some correct details, some incorrect, but we are still refering to the same person, even though your perception of him is flawed. You are still in error. The true relativist would say that it doesn't matter what anyone says about A. because either A. doesn't really exist or all our words about A. are merely relative, hinged upon our separate, subjective experiences of A.
The problem comes down to when the claims made by the second individual are NOT incorrect. Allah really does have his throne in Mecca. Allah really is the proper name of the entity being worshipped by the followers of Islam. The issue isn't just that we have a different name for "God", it is that it is a different entity altogether. It is as if we were describing a person called "the President". I happen to say that his name is "Bush" and someone else claims his name is "Clinton". But other than that, he's the same guy because he's the commander in chief, lived in the White House, and had a daughter.
Certainly, there are extremely important differences in the way a Christian or Muslim or Jew speaks about God, but I still contend that when we are talking about God we have a concept that shares much common ground.
That is certainly true, but I don't think it is relevant. Just because we share concepts of what "the President" is doesn't mean that George Bush and Bill Clinton are the same person.
This does not somehow negate the absolute value of Christianity's truth claims
I think it does. If Allah really is the same entity as the Jews and Christians worship, then all it means is that none of the three are really worshipping the real God (note that I do not believe the postulate to be true, but the conclusion would be true if it were).
Also, I would argue that Islam developed within the milieu of Christianity and Judaism. Mohammed would have a good deal of exposure to Jewish communties established in the Arabian Penninsula, as well as some Arab tribes that had converted to Christianity. Certainly, there are strong pre-Islamic Arabic pagan influences as well, but the ideas of Mohammed and the content of the Koran are self-consciously within the monotheist tradition.
The influence of Judeo-Christian thought on Islam is self-evident and I wouldn't think of trying to refute the obvious. But just because Mohammed steals a few names from Jewish history (getting a lot of the details horribly wrong in what is supposedly a book "dictated" to him by Allah via Gabriel) doesn't legitimize his attempt at elevating a previously local deity of a pantheon (after murdering off the other minor deities of that pantheon) to the same stature (and identity!) as the creator God of the Jews.
I understand the sensitivity of this subject, particularly in a day and age in which many wish to reduce all differences of religion to preference and differences in experience, culture, etc: basically to say that everyone is right (which is to say none of it matters because it's all hocus pocus anyway).
I think the problem is that the softer "everyone is right" position influences even those that know better. But if we are going to be intellectually honest (and we must be if what we're really trying to find is "truth") then we have to subject our religious beliefs to the same hard, cold intellectual analysis that we would apply to any other subject. Religion does not get a special exemption from logic; and faith must mean believing something we don't otherwise know to be true, not beliving something that cannot be true.
The problem with Islam isn't just that it was conceived simply as a heresy by Mohammed. If he had merely invented the name "Allah" and claimed it was really the name of the Jewish God then the issue might be somewhat different (we'd be talking about heresy instead). But he didn't. He asserted that Allah, the same Allah who was being worshipped as one deity in a pantheon of over 300 other deities at the Kaaba, a pantheon that was completely unrelated both historically and philosophically to Judeo-Christian belief, was the god that Abraham (Ibrahim) worshipped in remote history. Allah has always been Allah since Allah was created, and if Allah is God then Judaism and Christianity are lies. Jesus can't be the only begotten Son of one who does not beget. As for the Jews, they're over there worshipping someone named "Jehovah" who has a history and personality completely different than Allah, and all the patriarchs since Isaac are in Hell because they didn't go back to the Kaaba temple that Ibrahim built to worship in front of a black rock.
Let us also not neglect mad muhammad's extensive selective plagiarising from Persian Zoroastrianism...
Face it - even in his delusional, hallucinatory fits, the false prophet never had an original thought in his entire miserable existence. Unless you count the idea of his permissory "visions" from alla, granting him 6 year old Aisha, daughter of his nearest associate Abu Bakr, as his child bride...
Eeeewwww! I think I need a brain shower after pondering that thought - if ever so briefly!
A.A.C.
"The Final Crusade has commenced - neuter every living male muhammadan above age six!"