Do Moslems, Christians & Jews Believe in the Same God?

One in a series of excerpts adapted by Robert Locke from Dr. Serge Trifkovic’s new book, The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam

One of the clichés endlessly repeated by those who would conceal the dangerous potentialities inherent in Islam is that Moslems "believe in the same God" as Christians and Jews. But this is a severe distortion of the truth, for what Moslems fundamentally believe is that they know the true nature of the God that Judaism and Christianity tell lies about. Lies for which Christians and Jews will be punished in hell. The fact that Moslems share Levantine monotheism with us thus makes them more, not less, antagonistic to us on a religious level. Hopes for reconciliation on the grounds of common monotheism, as opposed to a realistic "good fences make good neighbors" civilizational détente, are wishful thinking.

The widespread belief in the non-Muslim world that Islam accords respect to the Old Testament and the Gospels as steps in progression to Mohammad’s revelation is mistaken. Modern Muslim apologists try to stress the supposed underlying similarities and compatibility of the three faiths, but this is not the view of orthodox Islam. Muhammad’s insistence that there is a heavenly proto-Scripture and that previous "books" are merely distorted and tainted copies sent to previous nations or communities means that these scriptures are the "barbarous Koran" as opposed to the true, Arabic one. (Let’s leave aside for a minute the puzzling question of how any degree of "distortion" of the Koran could produce either an Old or a New Testament.) The Tradition also regards the non-canonical Gospel of Barnabas, and not the New Testament, as the one that Jesus taught. The Koran alone is the true word of God and sets aside all previous revelations.

While the influence of orthodox Christianity upon the Koran has been slight, apocryphal and heretical Christian legends are the second most important original source of Islam. In other words, Islam contains an awful lot that Christians have deliberately rejected over the years as religiously unsound. There are also influences of Sabaism, of Zoroastrianism, and of ancient Arabian paganism, including the divine sanction for the practices of polygamy and slavery. The reports in both the Koran and the Hadith (authoritative traditional sayings) concerning paradise, the houris, (virgins) the youths, the jinn (genies) and the angel of death have been directly taken from the ancient books of the Zoroastrians. Zoroastrianism also originated the story that on the Day of Judgment all people will have to cross a bridge stretched across hell leading to paradise on which the unbelievers will stumble and fall down to hell.

The biblical stories been passed on to Muhammad presumably from Jewish and Christian sources, but it is probable that he never read the Old or the New Testament. Those narratives had deeply impressed him, but being incomplete and imprecise, they gave his imagination free rein. Of the books of the Old Testament he knew only of the Torah or Pentateuch and the Book of Psalms, while the Scriptures he treats collectively as "the Gospels." Muhammad took these narratives as they were given to him, and their use in the Koran amounts to random, approximate and often badly misunderstood reproduction of the Talmudic traditions and the Apocrypha. Moreover, they are of course devoid of their original contexts and of the spiritual message of the original.

Many Old Testament stories are changed beyond recognition, and can be treated as a "source" only in the most general sense. Abraham did not offer Isaac, but Ishmael, as a sacrifice. "Haman" was pharaoh’s chief minister, even though the Haman known to Jews lived in Babylon one thousand years later. Moses was picked from the river not by his sister but by his mother. A Samaritan was the one who molded the golden calf for the children of Israel and misguided them, even though Samarians arrived only after the Babylonian exile. The accounts of Moses’ life are sketchy and say nothing of his character, descent, the time he was sent as a prophet, the purpose of his mission, and where, how and why he appointed Aaron as his deputy. It does not relate the argument between them and the people of Israel, which is crucial to the story. The story of Noah reflected Muhammad’s dilemmas and difficulties rather than Noah’s mission, and even the names of the idols that Noah warns against are Arabic.

The Koran makes reference to Jesus, Mary and events related to them, but with a critical distinction. It explicitly denies that Jesus was crucified: Allah made the Jews so confused that they crucified somebody else instead who had the likeness of Christ: "They slew him not nor crucified but it appeared so unto them." Muslims claim that an impostor by the name of Shabih was crucified, and he resembled Jesus in his face only. It seems illogical to those who count "proud" as one of the "99 most beautiful names of Allah" that Jesus, who was capable of raising the dead and of healing the blind and the leper, willingly submitted to the cross and failed to destroy the Jews who intended to hurt him. Islam rejects the whole concept of the crucifixion, claiming that it is against reason to assume that Allah would not forgive man’s sins without the cross: to say so is to limit his power: "He forgives whom he will, and he chastises whom he will."

The denial of the Trinity is also explicit: Allah begets not, i.e. he is no Father; and was not begotten, that is, he is no Son; and no one is like him, which means he is no Holy Spirit. "They are infidels who say, Allah is the third of three." But "Isa" is not the Son of Allah, only a special prophet, and the Christians’ contrary claim shows how they are perverted. The Christians are guilty of blasphemy because of their belief in the "trinity" of Allah, Mary, and Jesus. The "real" Jesus was a righteous prophet and a good Muslim who paved the way for the final prophet, Muhammad himself.

There is a wishful myth in circulation among liberals that Islam accords respect to all "people of the book," i.e. Christians and Jews in addition to Moslems. While Islam indeed accords them a higher standing than it does to polytheists like Hindus (pace the question of whether Hinduism properly understood is truly polytheistic) or African animists, this hardly amounts to respect. Of all the "people of the book" only Muslims can attain salvation. Jews’ and Christians’ refusal to acknowledge Mohammed as the messenger of God dooms them to unbelief and eternal suffering after death. Christians are mortal sinners because of their belief in the divinity of Christ, and their condemnation is irrevocable: "God will forbid him the garden and the fire will be his abode."

Unlike the Christian faith in God revealing Himself through Christ, the Koran is not a revelation of Allah – a heretical concept in Islam – but the direct revelation of his commandments and the communication of his law. It has been said that the Koran, to a Muslim, is not the perfected Gospel, it Christ, the Word Incarnate. This is a somewhat tenuous metaphor, however, not a valid parallel: Christian God "comes down" and seeks man because of His fatherly love. The Fall cast a shadow, the Incarnation makes reconciliation possible. Allah, by contrast, is cold, haughty, unpredictable, unknowable, capricious, distant, and so purely transcendent that no "relationship" is possible. He reveals only his will, not himself. Allah is "everywhere," and therefore nowhere relevant to us. He is uninterested in making our acquaintance, let alone in being near to us because of love. We are still utterly unable to grasp his purposes and all we can do is what we have to do, to obey his command.

The Koran claims to be the fulfillment of a religious design which was imperfectly revealed to the Jews and to the Christians. It is the crowning synthesis, the final word. But viewing the matter objectively, leaving aside for a moment the question of the actual truth of the book, it seems hard to see how the Koran is a synthesis of anything. The way in which Christianity makes sense – again, simply as a logical matter and leaving aside the truth of it – as a fulfillment of Judaism, is clear even to the unbeliever. But the Koran’s claim is singularly implausible. Non-Muslim commentators fail to see in what way is the Koran an improvement over, or advancement on, the moral teaching, language, style, or coherence of the Old and New Testament. It is looks, feels, sounds like a construct entirely human in origin and intent, clear in its earthly sources of inspiration and the fulfillment of the daily needs, personal and political, of its author.

Finally, one cannot ignore that whatever mildly friendly things the Koran may say about Judaism and Christianity in its early part, the late Surras also signify the final break with the Jews and Christians, who are fiercely denounced. The Muslims must be merciless to the unbelievers but kind to each other. "Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them." War, not friendship, is mandatory until Islam reigns everywhere. Muslims are ordered to fight the unbelievers, "and let them find harshness in you." They must kill the unbelievers "wherever you find them." The punishment for resistance is execution or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides. By the stage in his life during which these Surras were written, Muhammad was no longer trying to convert his hearers by examples, promises, and warnings; he addresses them as their master and sovereign, praising them or blaming them for their conduct, giving laws and precepts as needed. His raw dogmatism stands, finally, naked of all pretence.

In my earlier studies of the etymology of "Separation of Church and State" I found its origins to lie 100-200 years before the Continental Congress. Much of the principal is based upon an assumption that identified morality with men who had a belief in God. The more mature that belief, the more studied one had become in the Church or Judaeism.

Judaism is a fundamental basis to Christianity.

All others are grouped generically as heathen or those guided by lusts and immorality. Pagan and unbelievers are understood to comprise a group not guided to respect morality.

The Separation of Church and State assumes this as premise. It then recognizes tht moral men will seek to obey both the laws of man and the laws of God. Recognizing immoral men will week to obey neither, the principal of Separation of Church and State is irrelevant to the governance of immoral men. Laws on criminality are their domain. Instead the Separation was simply focused on how moral men might reasonably govern themselves.

Moses had appointed lessor judges to assist him in adjudicating the law. There were laws of God provided in Scripture, but also other methods of governance man-made, which assisted God-fearing men in bearing their burden.

From the Inquisition onwards, political thought recognized the impact of the Church as a political force, yet also recognized the rights of the individual. Again the focus was on the moral man. Not the immoral, simply because no amount of legal ethic will suffice for the immoral man because he is rebellious to ethic regardless.

It was only in the last 30-40 years in American jurisprudence that the Separation of Church and State has been demphasized and freedom of religion differently identified to ANY spiritual pursuit.

So what are we to say? Do Muslims or even Jews worship the same god that Christians worship, or not?

The answer may have as much to do with semantics as with theology, but semantics are important.

In essence, the religion of Islam began in 610 A.D. when a man named Mohammed became convinced that the polytheism practiced by the Arabian tribes was wrong, and that only one god should be worshiped. Mohammed believed the angel Gabriel revealed this to him, and preached the message widely, teaching his followers the "revelations" from Gabriel that were collected and preserved as the Qur'an.

"Allah" is a poetic form of the Arabic al illah, meaning "the god." Mohammed took an incipient belief in a supreme god and promoted Allah as the only god.

Mohammed and his followers identified Allah as the god of the Old Testament, consider Abraham to be their spiritual ancestor, and revere the biblical prophets.

Muslims also consider Jesus to be a miracle-working prophet who was born of a virgin. They consider it heresy, however, to claim that Jesus is the Son of God, and reject all notions of the Trinity.

Islamic arguments against Christianity typically assert that Christians worship three gods and thus show infidelity to the one god.

The core of Islamic faith is expressed in the shahadah, sometimes translated as "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Some English-speaking Muslims translate "There is no god but God."

Jews and Christians have more commonality in belief, and clearly refer to the same deity when we say "God." Christians believe, however, that God's self-revelation does not stop with the Old Testament but is fulfilled in the New Testament.

Whether one prefers to say that Muslims, Jews and Christians believe in different gods, as opposed to differing views of the same god, is largely a matter of semantics. From a Christian perspective, anyone who does not accept the full revelation of God through the saving work of Christ and the sustaining presence of the Holy Spirit has only a partial understanding of God.

Thus, Christians might argue that Muslims or Jews worship "a different god" because we believe their concept of God is incomplete. It is perhaps more appropriate, however, to think of Muslims and Jews as worshiping the same god, though not in His fullness.

Why does it matter? Our terminology can impact the effectiveness of our witness to any who do not accept Christ. It is essential that we keep channels of communication open by showing respect for people of other faiths, even if we believe their view of God is inadequate. Explaining Christ as the saving fulfillment and ultimate revelation of the same god is a natural and effective means of sharing our faith with Muslims and Jews. Insisting that they worship a different god altogether is bound to be counter-productive.

It is possible to be tactful in our speech without compromising our witness.

Source.

Jews must come to the Father through Jesus Christ. If they reject Christ, then the Father rejects them. As Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father but by Me."

Jesus also said, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44); and he said, "every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).

Jesus also said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me" (St. John 12:32). But there is no contradiction, because he also said, "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9).

He also said, "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up" (John 3:14); and he said, "him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37).

I read that to mean, "all come to him and he casts none out". Or, as in the words of Paul, "every knee shall bow to (the Lord), and every tongue shall confess to God" (Romans 14:11), and, "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:10).

As I mentioned several months ago on FR, if I was given the task by the Lord to determine the names of those to be saved in the Book of Life, I would have to include everyone. Otherwise I break the Law (the Law of the Lord as stated in Matthew 7:12). It is also written, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). Therefore, my previous interpretation of "all come to him and he casts none out" is possible. Of course, "with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).

You don't believe that man has either thr right, or the ability to self-govern?

I do not believe that man has either the right or the ability to govern himself justly. The idea of popular government constitutes a rejection of authority -- a Luciferic, humanistic, anti-Christian Enlightenment idea that has led to disaster in every instance of its practice. Christianity is a relgion of hmility, not pride; submission, not self-rule; and is based upon the idea of a humble Man submitting himself to the will of a Divine Father and King . The Faustian fantasy of men-as-gods, knowing for themselves Good and Evil, is a lie straight from the lips of the Serpent of Eden.

You believe in a divinely ordained head of government?

I believe that all government is instituted by God, and that those forms of government that most closely mirror the Divine Order of the Universe -- the Kingship of Christt-- are by nature better and more holy than others.

I furthermore recognize the fraudulent ideals of the Revolution -- liberté, egalité, et fraternité as the damnable lies they are. The only true liberty is that created by submission of the individual will to the Spi rit of the Lord; the only equality that exists is the equality of all sinful human beings next to the perfection of Our Lord; and the only fraternity that can ever be is the brotherhood of believers under Christ. Liberty in the Enlightement sense is a pagan goddess; Equality is an obvious fraud, since some people are by nature manfestly more qualified to lead and judge other men; and Fraternity is a satanic lie that dissolves outside of the love of Christ.

In short: I believe that hierarchy is the natural way to organize a society, and that some people are gifted by God with the ability to rule other men.

You basically believe the same thing as Muslims?

No. I believe that there is no God but God; I deny that Mohammed was His prophet.

326 posted on 11/26/2002 1:59 AM EST by B-Chan

Islam is a cult.....so is every other religion

Perhaps, Restorer, you could read about cults on this site; it explains your cult misunderstanding and over-generalization much better than I can or care to. Identifying a Cult

SECULAR DEFINITION
CULT - From the Latin "cultis" which denotes all that is involved in worship, ritual, emotion, liturgy and attitude. This definition actually denotes what we call denominations and sects and would make all religious movements a cult.

CHRISTIAN DEFINITION
CULT - Any group which deviates from Biblical, orthodox, historical Christianity. e.i. They deny the Deity of Christ; His physical resurrection; His personal and physical return to earth and salvation by FAITH alone.

This definition only covers those groups which are cults within the Christian religion. It does not cover cults within other world religions such as Islam and Hinduism. Nor does it cover Psychological, Commercial or Educational cults which do not recognize the Bible as a source of reality.

UNIVERSAL DEFINITION
CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all majopr world religions, along with those cults which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from. THE 'ORTHODOX BIBLE-BASED CULT'

A group is called a cult because of their behaviour - not their doctrines. . . .

"I do not believe that man has either the right or the ability to govern himself justly. The idea of popular government constitutes a rejection of authority -- a Luciferic, humanistic, anti-Christian Enlightenment idea that has led to disaster in every instance of its practice."

I assume that by saying that man hasn't "the right" you meant that God did not grant us that right, and that when you called our form of government "Luciferic" and "anti-Christian", you meant that government of the people, by the peple, and for the people was, like Lucifer, an abomination.

Then there's this:

"I furthermore recognize the fraudulent ideals of the Revolution -- liberté, egalité, et fraternité as the damnable lies they are."

No man COMETH TO the Father, but by Me. Jews are ALREADY WITH the Father.

Neither Jesus nor the Apostle John seems to think that unbelieving Jews are with the Father:

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins. . . . I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father. . . . If God were your Father, you would love me. . . . You are of your father the devil. . . . It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, 'He is our God.' But you have not known him." (Jesus, in John 8:24, 38, 42, 44, 54-55)

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? . . . No one who denies the Son has the Father. . . . every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. . . . Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life." (1 John 2:22, 23; 4:3; 5:12)

And yet many, even our Prez insist on portraying Islam as a "Religion" of peace. Try as I can, I am incapable of understanding.

Because it is politically unfeasable to wage a War on Islam at the moment (and counter-productive).
Keep in mind that no matter how reprehensible Islamic doctrine may be, and no matter how morally repugnant the histrionics of its most rabid adherents, MOST people are politically apathetic, including most Moslems. That means that we only need to deal with the fanatical element in Islam, not the whole dang culture/religion.
The foregoing is simply a statement of practical fact, not an excuse or endorsement of Islam, nor an outright condemnation of it. I recall reading, back in a college anthropology class, about indigenous 'religions' that were even more repugnant to me than what this article conveys about Islam. But these indigenous tribespeople were not trying to blow up the Pentagon and thus represent no real problem for Western civilization.
By calling Isalm a 'religion of peace', our President is marginalizing the fanatics (terrorists), and imo that is SMART, not stupid. Does anyone here really believe GW is a fan of Islam, Mohammed or the Koran?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.