Muhamedian Christianity

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Is there any way Islam could be sceen as a form of Christianity, similar to the way (for those of us in the West) Orthodox Christianity is sceen as a form of Christianity, although perhaps an exotic and form. In the early middle ages it seems Islam was viewed as more of a heresy by Christians than a "Different Religion". What changed? Could a greater Islamic focus on Jesus help, or render the differences no more significant than the greater number of books in the Catholic Bible between Catholics and protestants seem today...or the fact that protestants think Catholics 'worship' or put too much emphasis on Mary, but don't think it's a different religion....so that protestant people would say...."Muslims but too much emphasis on Muhammed...but its 'Christianity....?"


I realize this would take changes in Islamic theology as well, but how could this come about...?
 
As long as Muhammad still claims to be a Prophet, it couldn't, since Christ was supposed to be the last. At best, it'd be be seen as Christian-derived, kinda like the Mormons.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
As long as Muhammad still claims to be a Prophet, it couldn't, since Christ was supposed to be the last. At best, it'd be be seen as Christian-derived, kinda like the Mormons.
It was, in fact, viewed for much of the Middle Ages as a kind of heresy (by its better informed critics; many people considered it to be a form of idolatry).

By the way, is Christ really the Seal of the Prophets? That's a very Muslim concept, but not one that I normally associate with Christianity. I mean, all Christian sects consider Paul canonical, and he had a divine revelation after Christ's death (in Islamic terms, though, he'd be more like the Bab than an actual prophet).

In fact, the only impression I get of the finality of Christ's prophetic mission is in Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews 1:1 -
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
So, in this passage, Paul states that Christ has come to speak to his generation, "in these last days." This doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility that God may still speak through prophets in subsequent generations. Since Muhammad only claimed prophetic status for himself (and not divine status), this doesn't necessarily rule him out.

Obviously, there are some major theological and doctrinal differences that need to be addressed between the two religions, but they are (IMHO) no greater than those that have existed at various times and places within the complex of religions conventionally deemed "Christian" throughout history.
 
I guess such an interpretation might be possible, though I can't say how feasible it would be (Christianity's early post-Biblical history isn't my particular area of expertise).
 
If Muhammad claimed that his ideas were "revelations from Christ" and that he wasn't exactly a prophet, then it would be possible that his religion be seen as a sect or heretical branch of Christianity, not just by its well-informed critics, but by the majority of the population.
 

Rockingham

Banned
Yes. Have Islam defeated in the Arabian penisula, and driven from it.... and have Muhammed and co. enter exile in Ethiopia.......and over time, a gradual hybrid religion emerges.


I would predict that the Persians and thus Zoroastrians would dominate the Mid-East and much of Arabia. Later on, Ethiopia expands into Arabia, unites, and enforces their religion upon its peoples(which is by now not much more "heretical" then the Coptics of Egypt), and follow this up by invading the Persian Middle-East. Thus, they are seen as the eastern Christian state so desired by the Christians of Europe(but in this TL, to relieve Europe from the Persians, not Arabs). Thus, popular culture is cemented in their favour among the middle-age Christians, and they are considered a distinct but nonethelless legitimate form of Christianity.
 
If Muhammad claimed that his ideas were "revelations from Christ" and that he wasn't exactly a prophet, then it would be possible that his religion be seen as a sect or heretical branch of Christianity, not just by its well-informed critics, but by the majority of the population.


Yeah, that's sort of similar to what I was going to post. Perhaps Mohammed rejects the idea that Jesus is the Messsiah, but accets that he is Allah's prophet and favoured messenger who has allow Mohammed to have divine revelations.
 
If Muhammad claimed that his ideas were "revelations from Christ" and that he wasn't exactly a prophet, then it would be possible that his religion be seen as a sect or heretical branch of Christianity, not just by its well-informed critics, but by the majority of the population.
I could really see this happening, maybe a new orthodox sect of Christianity centered in Arabia with Mohammed as one of the prophets of Christ
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
I always thought Islam (don't use mohammedan or any form, it's regarded as offensive since it implies muslims worship Mohammed, muslim, meaning just 'believer' is OK) WAS Christian. AFAIK they recognize Christ and even his divinity, which makes them more Christian than Unitarians, technically.

OTOH they have a big problem with the Trinity, so I dunno.

Wouldn't make much difference in any case. They called Crusades against the Cathars same/same as the moslems.
 
Muslims recognize Jesus (Isa) as a prophet and nothing more. They specifically deny his divinity as well as his role in the Trinity.
 

Ibn Warraq

Banned
I always thought Islam (don't use mohammedan or any form, it's regarded as offensive since it implies muslims worship Mohammed, muslim, meaning just 'believer' is OK) WAS Christian. AFAIK they recognize Christ and even his divinity, which makes them more Christian than Unitarians, technically.

OTOH they have a big problem with the Trinity, so I dunno.

Wouldn't make much difference in any case. They called Crusades against the Cathars same/same as the moslems.

Actually no, the Quran very specifically and very emphatically insists that Jesus was not divine but was instead a mortal, using the phrase which I love "he ate food". In fact, it specifically condemns the belief that Jesus was God. That's why Muslims, as you say, "have a big problem" with the concept of the Holy Trinity. There's also a certain amount of embarrassment among some when discussing this issue, because the Quran seems to imply, though it doesn't explicity state, that the Christian Trinity is not God, the son, and the Holy Spirit, but God, the Son, and Mary.

You might be thinking of the Virgin birth. The Quran does insist that is correct, though it also denies the crucifixition, claiming someone was crucified in his place. Many think it was Judas Iscariot, but the Quran doesn't say.

Personally, I can't see Muslims being viewed by ancient Christians as Christians if they deny the divinity of Jesus, so for this to occur I think you're going to need Islam to adopt some dramatically different theology.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Muslims recognize Jesus (Isa) as a prophet and nothing more. They specifically deny his divinity as well as his role in the Trinity.
Actually, no, they recognize that he is also the Messiah and grant him an immense eschatological role (see below).

You might be thinking of the Virgin birth. The Quran does insist that is correct, though it also denies the crucifixition, claiming someone was crucified in his place. Personally, I can't see Muslims being viewed by ancient Christians as Christians if they deny the divinity of Jesus, so for this to occur I think you're going to need Islam to adopt some dramatically different theology.
Two things about this:

The first is that he is in fact the Messiah, and that he was born of a virgin according to the will of God, though Muslims reject the claim that he was the son of God, which they feel is both unnecessarily anthropomorphizing of God and also dangerously close to shirk.

The other is that they believe that he did not die upon the cross, although God made it appear that he was, and that he is currently in the presence of God waiting for the end of time, when he will return to defeat the Antichrist, tear down the crosses, slaughter a bunch of pigs, and rule the world.

Clearly we're dealing with someone who has supernatural powers (born of a virgin, lives an extraordinarily long life, and will kick some major ass on the End of Days). Not "divine," obviously, but then anyone who is familiar with Shiite beliefs about the Mahdi or even general Muslim beliefs on Jesus himself will clearly see that the difference is largely semantic.

In fact, their position is not so different from that of other unitarian Christians, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who also deny Jesus' divinity --- yet for some reason most people have no problems classifying the JWs as Christian. And that's today, when the doctrinal definition of what constitutes a Christian sect is so much more firm than it was even in Muhammad's day.

I still maintain that the Muslims could easily have represented themselves as Christians if they thought it necessary, and if they were in a position of power they might well have succeeded in convincing others as well. After all, how close (theologically speaking) were any of the contemporary churches of his time to the mission of Jesus himself or even the early church? Not very much, really.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Actually no, the Quran very specifically and very emphatically insists that Jesus was not divine but was instead a mortal, using the phrase which I love "he ate food". In fact, it specifically condemns the belief that Jesus was God. That's why Muslims, as you say, "have a big problem" with the concept of the Holy Trinity. There's also a certain amount of embarrassment among some when discussing this issue, because the Quran seems to imply, though it doesn't explicity state, that the Christian Trinity is not God, the son, and the Holy Spirit, but God, the Son, and Mary.

You might be thinking of the Virgin birth. The Quran does insist that is correct, though it also denies the crucifixition, claiming someone was crucified in his place. Many think it was Judas Iscariot, but the Quran doesn't say.

Personally, I can't see Muslims being viewed by ancient Christians as Christians if they deny the divinity of Jesus, so for this to occur I think you're going to need Islam to adopt some dramatically different theology.

The reason I've always been told they deny the Trinity is that they find the concept of three into one as difficult as we do, and in fact see it as a way to reintroduce polytheism (which, I think, is largely the view of some modern scholars)

I will bow to superior knowledge here, maybe it was the Virgin Birth.
 

Ibn Warraq

Banned
Actually, no, they recognize that he is also the Messiah and grant him an immense eschatological role (see below).

Two things about this:

The first is that he is in fact the Messiah, and that he was born of a virgin according to the will of God, though Muslims reject the claim that he was the son of God, which they feel is both unnecessarily anthropomorphizing of God and also dangerously close to shirk.

The other is that they believe that he did not die upon the cross, although God made it appear that he was, and that he is currently in the presence of God waiting for the end of time, when he will return to defeat the Antichrist, tear down the crosses, slaughter a bunch of pigs, and rule the world.

Clearly we're dealing with someone who has supernatural powers (born of a virgin, lives an extraordinarily long life, and will kick some major ass on the End of Days). Not "divine," obviously, but then anyone who is familiar with Shiite beliefs about the Mahdi or even general Muslim beliefs on Jesus himself will clearly see that the difference is largely semantic.

In fact, their position is not so different from that of other unitarian Christians, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who also deny Jesus' divinity --- yet for some reason most people have no problems classifying the JWs as Christian. And that's today, when the doctrinal definition of what constitutes a Christian sect is so much more firm than it was even in Muhammad's day.

I still maintain that the Muslims could easily have represented themselves as Christians if they thought it necessary, and if they were in a position of power they might well have succeeded in convincing others as well. After all, how close (theologically speaking) were any of the contemporary churches of his time to the mission of Jesus himself or even the early church? Not very much, really.

I see your point. I wasn't argueing that Islam isn't alot like Christianity. My point was that I think early Christians who were familiar with Islamic views of Jesus would find that incompatible with Jesus.

As far as the Jehovah's Witnesses go, I'm not sure how many people are aware they deny Jesus' divinity. If they were aware of this, I think many Christians, at least those who are devout, would reject the idea that they are Christians.

Now, you're far more familiar with early Christians than I am, but it seems to me that whatever their differences, one of the few things they had in comon was that they all believed in the divinity of Jesus.

To me, that would be like accepting people who believe in prophets after Muhammad as Muslims. You'll notice that while most Sunni Muslims in America are willing to accept members of the NOI as being Muslims, once you get outside the US it's a different story. And even those who accept them as Muslims probaly aren't aware of their beliefs regarding Elijah Muhammad and Wallace Ford(I think that was the name of their prophet but I might be wrong).
 
cool thread ...interesting indeed

what exactly did the early christians think of christ can someone plz educate this heathen
 

Hendryk

Banned
By the way, is Christ really the Seal of the Prophets? That's a very Muslim concept, but not one that I normally associate with Christianity. I mean, all Christian sects consider Paul canonical, and he had a divine revelation after Christ's death (in Islamic terms, though, he'd be more like the Bab than an actual prophet).
Not to mention St. John. The whole book of Revelation is prophetic in both the theological and popular senses of the term, and yet John had his transcendant experience after Christ's resurrection. Which would be evidence that post-Jesus prophetic contribution is indeed canonical from a Christian perspective.

Revelation 1:9-18:

I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
How different is that from Mohammed's claim to have received dictation from Archangel Gabriel?
 
Top