Where Does The Bible Address Muhammad And The Rise Of Islam?

[Matthew S Islam]

Greetings,

I'm curious to know how Christians make sense of the emergence and subsequent dominance of Islam from a Biblical standpoint.

The Islamic tradition was a successful enterprise both on a religious and political level. Muslims proclaim that their religion was completed; their scriptures and exegesis are preserved; and the immediate followers of Muhammad conquered the Persians and Romans.
Islam has survived the test of time and is currently the main opponent to Christian propagation. If one were to compare between the claims objectively, then the least we could say is that Islam poses a threat to the Christian narrative.

1) Does the Bible explicitly foretell the coming of Prophet Muhammad and the Islamic tradition?

I'm aware of Paul's censure of different Gospels and false apostles. What I'm looking for are explicit references to the fore-coming clash between the religions i.e. Clear Prophecies.

2) Considering how our circumstances are ultimately Destined and Willed by God, then would it not be reasonable for us to expect God to adequately address this dilemma? He could have revealed explicit prophecies and guidance concerning it, or He could've weakened the intellectual threat of the opponent.

As of now I feel as though Islam caught Christianity off-guard and I'm not sure how to make sense of that.

Feel free to share your thoughts.

[Matthew S Islam]

More specifics would still be helpful. Why do you feel Mormonism is blatantly absurd? Why is Islam not?

I only used Mormonism because I thought it would be easier for you to relate. From my experience, Mormonism is the most frowned upon of all modern day sects. Typically I would use Hinduism/Sikhism when referring to what I deem "blatantly false".

The truthfulness of a religion can be determined by analyzing the claim it make; the types of proofs it provides; the strength of its foundations; and its overall consistency.

Islam claims to be directly from God Almighty(Allah), and the religion is demanding that all non-Muslims recognize its Divinity and submit to its teachings in return for their salvation.

I would argue that Islam is a valid candidate for being the "true religion" based on the fact that its religious product and history meets what we would expect from a Divinely revealed religion.

The Prophet Muhammad was successful in conveying the entire Quran and Sunnah(exegesis), establishing the Muslim community, conquering the city of Makkah, and eradicating idolatry from the Arabian Peninsula.
The Disciples of Muhammad went on to conquer most of the known world and spread the message of Islam to every corner. Islam has withstood the trials of history and 80% of the Muslims are unified under Sunni orthodoxy.

The Quran is God's Speech; free from contradictions; its a linguistic miracle; and was made easy for remembrance and preservation.

1. Divine authorship
2. Infallible
3. Unique/Inimitable
4. Preserved

A religion claiming to have Divine Origins while lacking in any one of these qualities immediately renders itself dubious. These are foundational expectations one would have when confronted by a Divine product.

And you think the Islamic teaching has more credibility? If so, why?

Of course I would give preference to my religion and its theology, over its outdated and man-made competition (with all due respect).

We believe Jesus was the Messiah and God saved him from suffering at the hands of his disbelieving nation. He made it appear as if it took place to allow the Children of Israel to establish their failure as a nation, and to curse them and their blaspheming tradition by leaving them with the impression that Jesus was not the Messiah. The only way for them to reconcile their theology and relationship with God is through Islam and our interpretation of the Messiah(pbuh).

Christianity was both religiously and politically successful. Although, it is true that Muslims were more immediately focused on political success than Christians. I would say that is advantage Christianity.

I would have to disagree. The way I see it Christianity was both religiously and politically unsuccessful.

1. The Messiah was rejected by the religious leaders of his time and wasn't able to establish the Kingdom of God
2. Jesus did not begin his ministry by calling people to his crucifixion and resurrection -- this happened at the end of his life and was met with resistance by the Disciples
3. The early Christians were being persecuted and oppressed by their Jewish contemporaries
4. None of the New Testament Documents were written during the lifetime of Jesus
5. Paul arrived on the scene following the departure of the Messiah and introduced a theology which conflicts with the worldly ministry of Jesus
6. Paul was opposed by the Messianic Jews and even Peter and James--they didn't recognize his authority the way mainstream Christians do.
7. Early Christianity had a plethora of religious beliefs, sects, recognized scriptures, etc.
8. The influx of Gentile converts and the acceptance of Paul overwhelmed the Christian world and replaced the orthodoxy of James' Jewish Christianity
9. Our New Testament was recognized as authoritative and Trinitarian theology was established as the orthodox creed backed by the state

With regards to political success:

1. Jesus was declared a rebel and was perceived to be crucified
2. The early Christians faced persecution and imprisonment
3. In the 4th century the emperor of Rome accepted Christianity and went on to standardize/politicize the religion

If this recap isn't missing any critical information, I'm not sure how anyone could argue that Christianity was religiously/politically successful. I mean if this is success, then I'm not sure what word to use to describe Islam's historical emergence.

I've heard a few recent historians quoted as saying the Dark Ages were anything but, however, that was in passing and I didn't keep track of who said it. Are you saying Christianity never had a comparable "Golden Age"? What characteristics does a "Golden Age" have? Why is it a good thing?

I'm open for anyone to educate me or direct me to a balanced resource.

It's important in a sense because political/ideological success is recognized as a victory from God and His approval. The cohesion of Islam's religious and political success forms a solid foundation from which it can claim its Divine Origins. Had Islam not been true and had the Quran been nothing but slander, then we would have expected a different response from God.

----

I'll respond to the rest of your post when I get the time, God-Willing.

[marco]

Let me say that the goodness of the ordinary Muslim equals the goodness of the ordinary Christian, or Jew. There may be truthfulness in what they all believe, but they may not have truth. Analysing religious claims tells us much about the fervour of those who uphold them.

The Disciples of Muhammad went on to conquer most of the known world

So did Rome. Did that make Jupiter true? Claiming something is true does not make it so, else geometry would be a lot easier for students. Everything hinges on one's belief in Paul or Moses or Muhammad or Joseph Smith or Pastor Russell or .... They are men.


If our belief makes us good Christians or good Muslims, that is all one can ask. Sadly the story of Abraham teaches us that piety can inspire murder in the name of God.
"By the fruit shall you know the tree." A tree that allowed folk to burn their fellow humans is not a good tree. One that stones luckless girls is not a good one.

Fortunately good Christians and Muslims live good lives. Their service to a divinity
does not darken them and many display phenomenal acts of charity towards others. This can be done without imposing a divisive God.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 31 by Matthew S]

You have covered a lot of ground with your claims, but perhaps it would be better to focus on one thing at a time.

1. Divine authorship
2. Infallible
3. Unique/Inimitable
4. Preserved

A religion claiming to have Divine Origins while lacking in any one of these qualities immediately renders itself dubious. These are foundational expectations one would have when confronted by a Divine product.

We could ask this of any religion, but since this is Christianity and Apologetics, I guess it makes sense to ask why you think Christianity fails here. It's a different kind of divine authorship, but Christians claim God controlled the process. Christians don't think there are errors in the Bible. Christians claim Biblical teaching is unique. Christians claim the original texts have been preserved.

[marco]

We could ask this of any religion, but since this is Christianity and Apologetics, I guess it makes sense to ask why you think Christianity fails here. It's a different kind of divine authorship, but Christians claim God controlled the process. Christians don't think there are errors in the Bible. Christians claim Biblical teaching is unique. Christians claim the original texts have been preserved.

Very true and we constantly hear claims put forward for this or that strand of belief. Muhammad's clever first wife gave her husband his impressive authority to speak on God's behalf and if a billion believe, who can blame them?

The RC Church declares that to be true a Church must demonstrate four marks: one, holy, catholic and apostolic, and then in its catechism proceeds to prove Catholicism fits the bill. Jesus said faith can move mountains , and I suppose this applies as much to Islam as any other faith. The moving mountain is always a metaphor, of course, just as the transubstantiated host remains - to our eyes - mere bread. Personally I find the intensity of faith rather frightening, especially if it supports a brutal god.

[Matthew S Islam]

It's a different kind of divine authorship

Correct me if I'm wrong but the only Christian author to explicitly claim Divine inspiration for his writings was Paul. The Gospel accounts do not claim to be the Word of God, nor does anyone say that the authors were Prophets. The Gospel of Luke gives us some insight in his introduction:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

For us to ascribe Divine origins to them without their expressed consent is inaccurate and slanderous. The authors had no idea their accounts would enter the Holy Bible--there wasn't such a thing as a Christian Bible during their times.

but Christians claim God controlled the process.

Almost every religion sees itself as the truth and believes that God is committed to their cause. There's nothing wrong with believing in God's Decrees just as long as we don't abuse the concept. The problem with Christianity is how much it depends upon God's Will to justify its early development and formation. Had God really controlled the process (and desired good for it) he would have granted Jesus a Scripture similar to the Torah to continue throughout the ages. This would have made the most sense if God intended good.

God's Will was not to preserve Christianity and this is evident from the Messiah's rejection; its early persecution; lack of Divine scriptures; inconsistencies of Paul; the paganism amongst Christians; etc. These events are not legitimized by citing God's Will; rather, they clearly demonstrate God's disapproval and declaration of innocence for people who "wish to see."

Christians don't think there are errors in the Bible. Christians claim Biblical teaching is unique.

I don't believe every individual book in the Bible claims to be Divinely inspired and therefore it is subject to error. There are mainstream Christian scholars who don't hold the Bible to such high standards. There are even scholars who identify themselves as Christians who don't consider the Gospel of John to be historical.

The Bible contains contradictory narratives; false prophecies; scientific errors; and numerical discrepencies. I'm not going to cite the contradictions unless you request me to, but the fact of the matter is, the majority of Christians recognize the possibility for error to exist in the Bible. They believe the Bible is authoritative, which is something completely separate from being perfect. Some of the Christians I'm personally acqainted with believe in evolution and justify their interpretation behind the Vatican's.

Mainstream Islam understands the Quran to be the literal Speech of God -- Rejecting the story of Adam and Eve or claiming that the Quran contains an error nullifies one's faith in Islam.

Christians claim the original texts have been preserved.

The problem with the Christian claim is that the religion has been corrupted and "God's Will" is the response of its followers. I don't believe God intended to preserve Christianity based on how he followed up Jesus' life on Earth.

So yes, perhaps you might be confident in the preservation of the Gospels. However, the real question to ask is whether Jesus agrees with Trinitarianism and Pauline Christianity.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 35 by Matthew S]

So yes, perhaps you might be confident in the preservation of the Gospels. However, the real question to ask is whether Jesus agrees with Trinitarianism and Pauline Christianity.

In your post there is a lot of ground, a lot of claims, some more specific statements, but also plenty of broad/general/vague claims. I really think we need to laser focus our discussion. This seems to be the question you think we should focus on, since you called it the "real question". I want to know what sources/reasoning get you to the conclusion that Jesus disagrees with Trinitarianism and Pauline Christianity.

You seem to be arguing that a divine source is more authoritative than a non-divine source. I don't think this is just about a source claiming to be divine or not, but the claimed source must also prove itself to be divine, for us to take it as authoritative. So, then, what is your specific case for the divinity of the Qur'an? Not just that it claims such, but that those claims are most plausibly true? Does this seem a profitable way to continue our conversation?

[Matthew S Islam]

In your post there is a lot of ground, a lot of claims, some more specific statements, but also plenty of broad/general/vague claims. I really think we need to laser focus our discussion. This seems to be the question you think we should focus on, since you called it the "real question". I want to know what sources/reasoning get you to the conclusion that Jesus disagrees with Trinitarianism and Pauline Christianity.

1. Trinitarianism

a) Ascribing Divinity to an entity that isn't God Almighty is the greatest sin
b) The Trinity is not consistent with the theology of previous scriptures
c) The New Testament does not suffice in proving the Divinity of Jesus
d) Jesus was a monotheist

The widespread acceptance of polytheism in the Christian world is a sign from God to assist the seekers of truth determine the true religion.


2. Pauline Christianity

a) Jesus observed Jewish customs and commanded his followers to exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and the Pharisees
b) The Disciples and Messianic Jews continued following the law and making sacrifices after Jesus' crucifixion
c) Paul claimed that Jesus' sacrifice abrogated the necessity of any set of moral laws
d) James rebuked Paul over what people accused him of preaching. He then made him renew the Nazarene vow, and instructed him as to what are expected from the Gentile converts.
e) This incident demonstrates James' superiority over Paul, and the fact that the leading Disciples did not recognize Paul's authority the same way Christians living today do. Had they believed in his "revelations" it would necessitate that they'd follow him over their own opinions
https://biblehub.com/niv/acts/21.htm
f) The Ebionites and Nazerines declared Paul an apostate/heretic and did not recognize his writings as Scripture
g) James' movement was overwhelmed by the influx Gentile converts all of whom revered Paul

This historical affair shifted the theological direction of the religion and usurped Jesus' true successors. The fact that God allowed this circumstance to take place demonstrates His lack of concern for preserving "Christianity".

[The Tanager]

1. Trinitarianism

a) Ascribing Divinity to an entity that isn't God Almighty is the greatest sin
b) The Trinity is not consistent with the theology of previous scriptures
c) The New Testament does not suffice in proving the Divinity of Jesus
d) Jesus was a monotheist

The widespread acceptance of polytheism in the Christian world is a sign from God to assist the seekers of truth determine the true religion.

In efforts to keep focused, I'm responding to your first numbered point. I'm not ignoring the response to Pauline Christianity, just placing it in a holding pattern for now.

I agree with (a). Where is your support for (b)?

[Matthew S Islam]

You seem to be arguing that a divine source is more authoritative than a non-divine source. I don't think this is just about a source claiming to be divine or not, but the claimed source must also prove itself to be divine, for us to take it as authoritative.

I agree -- a claim is not established by the mere fact that someone's making it. However its important to allow the source to speak for itself, or else we might be fabricating and misleading others. If something doesn't claim to be Divine then it is a form of blasphemy to call it Divine. Divinity is not in our hands to ascribe it to whatever we desire--the decision belongs to God alone.

The Quran claims for itself:


Divine authorship:

"The revelation of the Book is from Allah, the Exalted in Might, the Wise." [46:2]

"And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know." [9:6]

"[It is] a revelation from the Lord of the worlds."
And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings,
We would have seized him by the right hand;
Then We would have cut from him the aorta.
And there is no one of you who could prevent [Us] from him." [69:44-47]

Infallibility:

"Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction." [4:82]

"He said, "The knowledge of them is in the Providence of my Lord, in a Book; my Lord does not err, nor does He forget." [20:52]

Unique/Inimitable:

"And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful."
"But if you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers." [2: 23-24]

"And it was not [possible] for this Qur'an to be produced by other than Allah , but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds."
"Or do they say [about the Prophet], "He invented it?" Say, "Then bring forth a surah like it and call upon [for assistance] whomever you can besides Allah , if you should be truthful." [10: 37-38]

Preservation:

"Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian." [15:9]

" And We have certainly made the Qur'an easy for remembrance, so is there any who will remember?" [54:17]


[cont'd]

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 9 by Matthew S]

One would think that Christianity's chief rival would have been foretold in a perfect book. A book which is pointed to with pride for it's number of "fulfilled prophecies".

Maybe the Bible is not so perfect after all?