AHC: Islam considered Christian

[Devolved]

I like the idea of christianity not adopting the divinity of Jesus and Mohamed being the censor for a teaching twisted by humans.

We have to note, though, that such a religion would be open to further prophets lateron. We had Jews, which God taught by sending prophets. Then he sent Jesus, which led to the church. Then he sent Mohammed, to corrects things that went wrong. Such a religion should be open repeatedly to new sects founded by new prophets. Just to give an example: Luther could proclaim himself a new prophet as well or could be regarded as one. Quite likely this will end in much more "christian" denominations than OTL.

All religions are open to new prophets. Islam has been challenged by new prophets on many occasions and now we have the Ahmadis and the Bahais to name but two.

You cannot make a religion 'prophet proof'.

 

[mailinutile2]

is dying an horrible death compulsory to become one?
Otherwise, I'd apply for the role.
After all, it was me who proposed the Chrislam term.
And if you do not agree, you're just a bunch of heretic scismatic who will burn in hell forever, obviously

 

[elkarlo]

Wasn't it already seen as a pseudo-Christian heresy in the beginning? Islam can't be really considered Christian, there are too many differences.

I think it was a bit of Christianity and a good deal Jewish, and a bunch of Arabic folklore.

 

[elkarlo]

Also you can change who Mohammad hungout with prior to his rise as a prophet. If he was around a lot of Neotarians or other Heterodox Christians, his teachings would've prolly been more in line with Christianity.

 

[Monty Burns]

All religions are open to new prophets. Islam has been challenged by new prophets on many occasions and now we have the Ahmadis and the Bahais to name but two.

You cannot make a religion 'prophet proof'.

True - but the question is how many will follow these new prophets. How many Ahmadis and Bahais do we have? How many christian denominations are based on a new prophet or a new scripture and how do their numbers compare to the "traditional" denominations? If Mohammed would be considered a new prophet by a large part of christendom, new prophets wouldn't be a question of minor sects, but they'd be of concern for large parts of christendom ITTL.

Just to give an example: It would be quite a difference if Luther weren't a reformator with new ideas but a new prophet with new divine teachings. This would pretty much prohibit ecumeny for all times.

 

[RPW@Cy]

Don't worry about it.

I think most of us are realistic enough to accept that people will never trouble to learn a long monicker like that, when a one-word nickname is already in common usage. All we ask is that you take care not to miss out the second m.

Well, quite - just like the Followers of the Way had to get used to using the originally derogatory nickname "Christian"...

Islam got this one right at least - start of with a short name then nobody can shorten it for you

 

[Mikestone8]

is dying an horrible death compulsory to become one?
Otherwise, I'd apply for the role.

Not necessarily, though I agree it does help.

Neither Buddha nor Mohammad was martyred, nor as far as we know was Moses. The Prophet Joseph Smith was, but his death (by shooting) was not particularly horrible as these things go.

 

[Dan]

In many ways Islam is closer to Judaism than it is to Christianity. It would be easier to classify Islam as a Jewish sect with Mohammed being regarded as just another prophet like Moses. You have no Messiah and the Islamic clergy resemble Jewish clergy much more than they do Christian.

The view of God in Islam is pretty much a reworking of the old testament version of God in classical Judaism.

Finally, the cultural behaviour seen in many parts of the Islamic world resemble biblical Judaism much more than it does Chrisitianity.

Can you imagine the middle east now if that were the case?
Talmudic Jews, Hasidic Jews, Islamic Jews...