Possibility of Muhammad being a Christian Saint?

[Deltadiamond]

Muslims do NOT see Jesus as the Messiah, but as a special Prophet of sort and not as specially Chosen (but important none the less). As far I know, there is some subtile nuance - and clearly NOT Son of God.

This was my understanding of the matter, that he was seen as an important prophet as opposed to the savior of mankind Christianity says he is.

Just to point out none of your Christological titles besides "Son of God" are strictly religious.
There were Messiahs both before and after Jesus, AFAIK both more or less ended up the same way. Messiah is a political rather than religious title.
Likewise, Son of Man, not strictly religious (its used in Ezekiel in a different context), although the reaction regarding this as blasphemous when Jesus referred to Himself as such implies that it was.
And Lord is simply the Greek translation of YHWH used in the Septuagint.

So Mohammed accepting Jesus as Messiah would not necessarily have religious overtones. The Church at the time wasn't split between Rome and Constantinople yet (not officially, anyway), so Mohammed's Christianity can't choose between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Although, it can go Nestorian or Eutychian in its affirmation of the person of Christ. Maybe your Mohammedan Christianity can accept the filioque as opposed to the Byzants if and when it comes up. Since the Council of Toledo accepted it as part of the Creed due to it being used in Spain that they were reclaiming from the Arian Vandals.

Thanks for the input. I can only say that the Nestorian path seems a bit unlikely, considering (as far as I know) that OTL Islam placed a fair bit of emphasis on Mary. As for the filioque, I feel that that could go either way. It doesn't seem like a problem that can be solved by looking at Islam's view of the situation, and I can barely understand the controversy in the first place.

 

[SvoHljott]

Jesus is viewed as being one of the most important prophets that were born with the destiny to be a prophet (as with Muhammad, Elijah, Abraham etc) - that is, Allah had always intended for them to be his prophets. It is also believed that he was no crucified and that he ascended directly into heaven from Jerusalem.

It is key to Christianity that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. For Islam to be a branch of Christianity, they have to believe in the resurrection.

 

[Deltadiamond]

As I look more into what Islam's beliefs are, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot that isn't either completely incompatible with Christianity (God is singular, not a trinity) or just a reiteration of what other prophets had said (charity).

Unless of course Muhammad's major break off from everyone else is that he denies the trinity in some way. Thoughts?

 

[SvoHljott]

As I look more into what Islam's beliefs are, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot that isn't either completely incompatible with Christianity (God is singular, not a trinity) or just a reiteration of what other prophets had said (charity).

Unless of course Muhammad's major break off from everyone else is that he denies the trinity in some way. Thoughts?

I think the key principles should be:

"Jesus is the Messiah, but not the Son of God"

"The Holy Spirit is only the will of Allah/God, and thus there is no Trinity"

"Muhammad is the final prophet of God and all prophets after him shall be false prophets"

"The Bible of the Catholics and the Orthodox are corrupted"

"There should be no church hierarchy"

Worship would generally be directly to God rather than to Jesus, but unlike Islam which is always to Allah, a Mohammedan Christianity could have worship to Jesus and perhaps Saints, but kept to a minimal.

Aside from that, cultural differences and perhaps more Arabian Pagan influence are the only other things that would separate it from Western Rites.

 

[Falecius]

I think the key principles should be:

"Jesus is the Messiah, but not the Son of God"

"The Holy Spirit is only the will of Allah/God, and thus there is no Trinity"

"Muhammad is the final prophet of God and all prophets after him shall be false prophets"

"The Bible of the Catholics and the Orthodox are corrupted"

"There should be no church hierarchy"

Worship would generally be directly to God rather than to Jesus, but unlike Islam which is always to Allah, a Mohammedan Christianity could have worship to Jesus and perhaps Saints, but kept to a minimal.

Aside from that, cultural differences and perhaps more Arabian Pagan influence are the only other things that would separate it from Western Rites.

I'm a little confused. The principles you are listing look very like the basic tenets that set Islam apart from Christianity IOTL, except that you are not mentioning the Qur'an. Are you meaning that these are principles of Islam, or of a ATL "Muslim" Christianity?

 

[SvoHljott]

I'm a little confused. The principles you are listing look very like the basic tenets that set Islam apart from Christianity IOTL, except that you are not mentioning the Qur'an. Are you meaning that these are principles of Islam, or of a ATL "Muslim" Christianity?

They are similar to Islam, that's the whole point, I was just trying to fulfil OP's request. There are differences though (e.g. Jesus actually being a Messiah figure, rather than just a prophet).

It's basically just a really heretical Christianity, rather than a different religion, as Islam is.

 

[Falecius]

They are similar to Islam, that's the whole point, I was just trying to fulfil OP's request. There are differences though (e.g. Jesus actually being a Messiah figure, rather than just a prophet).

It's basically just a really heretical Christianity, rather than a different religion, as Islam is.

Well, Islam could be construed as "really heretical Christianity" as is. As you rightly pointed out above, that was indeed a very widespread understanding by Christian sects for centuries*.
Point is of course that the vast majority of Muslims would not accept such a definition of their faith (with good reasons) and this attitude apparently goes all the way back to Muhammad (although some recent historical readings appear to question that, there's no real consensus on an alternative view). In this Islam differs from, for instance, Mormonism.
So perhaps the point is more about identity (and historical development) than belief per se.

*Likewise, one could say that Christianity is "really heretical Judaism". At a certain level, it would be correct, but clearly the overwhelming majority of Christians does not see things that way.

 

[Falecius]

(e.g. Jesus actually being a Messiah figure, rather than just a prophet).

Jesus is somewhat of a Messiah figure in Islam IOTL. I agree, however, that in order to have a form of *Islam that is seen as an actual part (however divergent) of Christianity, critically by its adherents, the emphasis on the point could be strengthened.

 

[WanderingWanderer]

Well, Islam could be construed as "really heretical Christianity" as is.

Eh, we're also 'heretical Judaism' mixed with a wee bit of Zoroastrism Or is that Manicheanism...eh, whichever, something from Persia.

I'm a little confused. The principles you are listing look very like the basic tenets that set Islam apart from Christianity IOTL, except that you are not mentioning the Qur'an.

Exactly, all of that is basically what I would say is the diference of "Mohamedanism" and Christianity.

Jesus is somewhat of a Messiah figure in Islam IOTL.

Not "somewhat", he IS the Messiah (I'm beginning to sound like someone from 'Life of Brian' here). He's just not "Son of God" in OTL islam.

Here, the key to having Muhammad be a Christian Saint must be acceptance fo the Trinity and acknowledging that Jesus is divine, Son Of God, part of the Trinity.

Probably also needs to accept the four canonical gospels, by this time the four gospels are codified already, right? Maybe he'll just add his revelations, but Muhammad's revelations here should just be the words of a saint, not a separate holy book or something. Also Muhammad keeps prayers facing Jerusalem, no Holy City status for Mecca and Medina.

Have all those elements, and you'll have an ATL Christian Sect of Arabia instead of "heretical Christianity"

 

[SvoHljott]

Eh, we're also 'heretical Judaism' mixed with a wee bit of Zoroastrism Or is that Manicheanism...eh, whichever, something from Persia.





Not "somewhat", he IS the Messiah (I'm beginning to sound like someone from 'Life of Brian' here). He's just not "Son of God" in OTL islam.

Here, the key to having Muhammad be a Christian Saint must be acceptance fo the Trinity and acknowledging that Jesus is divine, Son Of God, part of the Trinity.

Probably also needs to accept the four canonical gospels, by this time the four gospels are codified already, right? Maybe he'll just add his revelations, but Muhammad's revelations here should just be the words of a saint, not a separate holy book or something. Also Muhammad keeps prayers facing Jerusalem, no Holy City status for Mecca and Medina.

Have all those elements, and you'll have an ATL Christian Sect of Arabia instead of "heretical Christianity"

1. Zoroastrianism had influences on the Abrahamic faiths but I wouldn't go as far as to imply that they are a branch of it. Nothing of the sort, in fact - Zoroastrianism is quite different from them in many ways.

2. Whilst Jesus is called the Messiah in Islam, there is a big difference between the Muslim and Christian concepts of a Messiah. Jesus is a mere human in Islam, just one of many prophets, and holds no special status as a saviour of mankind or a forgiver of sins.

3. The trinity is not fundamental to Christianity.

4. Neither is acknowledgement of Jesus's divinity.

5. Nor are the four canonical gospels.

With all due respect, I think there may be a complication here in the OP's request - Islam needs to be regarded both by its followers and outsiders as a branch of Christianity (heretical or not). It doesn't need to be part of the Catholic Church, which is what this criteria we're setting here seems closer to.

There's really not that many restrictions or rules on what can be and can't be considered Christian - no need for gospels or the trinity or yeah, even Jesus's divinity - all that's necessary is the belief that there is one God, Jesus was at the least his chosen prophet and at most the Son of God/God incarnate, and that through faith in God and/or Jesus, sins can be forgiven.

 

[WanderingWanderer]

The trinity is not fundamental to Christianity.

I'll let a Christian determine what's fundamental to that faith or not, but it is a fundemental difference between Christianity and Islam (and Judaism!). Are there actually any groups that call itself and acknowledged as "mainstream Christian" which rejects the trinity in one form or the other?

I mean, Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox all do acknowledge each other as Christians and all believe in the Trinitarian nature of God, no? I don't see any groups today like Ebionites who in the past have rejected the trinity. I mean, even Arians are kinda pro-trinity, the arguments would be on the divinity of Jesus or something, right?

Yeah sure, one could argue and split hairs on what is heretical Christianity or not, but if "Mohamedanism" is too fundementally different from OTL mainstream Christianity, it will sooner or later be viewed as a diferent religion. Then this ATL Muhammad would not be viewed as a "Chrisitian saint". It may not lead to OTL Islam, but it will develop/evolve and be seen as a different religion.

 

[scholar]

I'll let a Christian determine what's fundamental to that faith or not, but it is a fundemental difference between Christianity and Islam (and Judaism!). Are there actually any groups that call itself and acknowledged as "mainstream Christian" which rejects the trinity in one form or the other?

The Trinity is one of the most fundamental concepts of Christianity, it is ubiquitous. A few groups are not trinitarian, but they are modern... ridiculously so. Jehova's Witnesses are the most accepted and popular of the nontrinitarian (a category much bigger and creating a much sharper divide than Eastern, Latin, Reformed, Protestant, and other groups).

However, if you take a step back to the beginning of Christianity, the Trinity was not a staple of Christianity. It was by the time of Muhammad though, which is a bit of a problem. Keep the "Catholic/Orthodox" creed from consuming the Near East and you might be able to get Muhammad a Christian, but butterflies will be difficult.

 

[Falecius]

The Trinity is one of the most fundamental concepts of Christianity, it is ubiquitous. A few groups are not trinitarian, but they are modern... ridiculously so. Jehova's Witnesses are the most accepted and popular of the nontrinitarian (a category much bigger and creating a much sharper divide than Eastern, Latin, Reformed, Protestant, and other groups).

However, if you take a step back to the beginning of Christianity, the Trinity was not a staple of Christianity. It was by the time of Muhammad though, which is a bit of a problem. Keep the "Catholic/Orthodox" creed from consuming the Near East and you might be able to get Muhammad a Christian, but butterflies will be difficult.

Well, the Qur'an singles out some Christians as "believers" in a context seemigly implying a distinction between what we would call Trinitarians and Unitarians.

 

[LSCatilina]

Well, the Qur'an singles out some Christians as "believers" in a context seemigly implying a distinction between what we would call Trinitarians and Unitarians.

It's not impossible that Judeo-Messianic beliefs survived in Late Antiquity Arabia. Either on their own, or either being carred by other heterodoxial stances such as Nestorianism.

 

[Deltadiamond]

For those wondering, I was thinking of Messiah as in the whole "Savior of Mankind, Redeemer of Sins, etc." that I know from my Christian upbringing (American Protestant, if anyone is wondering). If that's an unusual perspective, then obviously the opinion of Jesus would have to change to whatever is historically accurate.

I'd been thinking of it as a type of Christianity that accepts Jesus's position as whichever is most accepted at the time, but perhaps more emphasis on his position related to the Father. Not set in stone though by any means.

From what I've seen, one of the biggest of deals in Islam is that there is only one god, which is what made me think of a different perspective on the trinity. I guess perhaps the trouble is distinguishing it from all of the other heretical sects that have done the same type of thing.

I think that a lot of what SvoHljott said about core principles is good. I hadn't thought about Islam not having so much of a central church authority as either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, and its status as a (at least initially) minor sect could maybe contribute to that as well. I also agree that less of an emphasis on the trinity could lead to more or less getting rid of the Holy Spirit.

It's highly possible that the sect could start with something as simple as rejecting the Holy Spirit as just the will of God and then change from there, seeing as the church councils denounces people as heretics fairly often. If/when that happened, it would probably just go its own way instead of following the rest of Orthodox or Catholic Christianity. Alternately, the initial difference could, as a result of not agreeing with a strong church hierarchy, come just because they decide not to follow either the Patriarch of Constantinople OR the Pope in Rome.

Also, I think that the whole "no prophets after Muhammad" would probably continue. After all, we can't just have every madman on the fringes of civilization declaring themselves the messenger of God, can we?



Edit: I shouldn't have mentioned possible sainthood in the thread title, seeing as it diverged from that pretty quickly. The idea is more of "any thoughts on the subject" than just "could he be a saint".

 

[scholar]

Well, the Qur'an singles out some Christians as "believers" in a context seemigly implying a distinction between what we would call Trinitarians and Unitarians.

All Christians are considered believers in God, they are just people who follow a corrupted teaching of the faith and Muhammad is here to straighten out the Christians, Jews, and every other people God spoke to. All those who believe in God are considered people of the Book. They will go to heaven, but depending on how far they have strayed they will go through a long and very painful purging processes. Good Muslims suffer too, but far less so. Pure Muslims don't suffer, period.

Its also important to say that Muslims look at the dhimmi as heretical muslims, people who will be showed the era of their wars at the day of judgment when they will be forced to choose to follow Muhammad, Jesus, God, and all his Angels leading an army of righteous followers or Satan, the Anti-Christ, an army of demons, corrupted evil Jinn, and the unrighteous evil people of the earth. Various interpretations of this endgame may apply.

 

[WanderingWanderer]

Also, I think that the whole "no prophets after Muhammad" would probably continue. After all, we can't just have every madman on the fringes of civilization declaring themselves the messenger of God, can we?

This could make an interesting POD, where Muhammad expressly states that there will be more prophets after him. A very different Islam may emerge or maybe that'll be the difference which makes "Mohamedanism" into more a Christian sect instead of another religion.

It's not impossible that Judeo-Messianic beliefs survived in Late Antiquity Arabia

Yeah, it may be a particular "unitarian" sect was encountered by Muhammad and influenced him. However, the veneration (of sorts) of virgin Mary suggests there may be influences by Catholics too?

It's highly possible that the sect could start with something as simple as rejecting the Holy Spirit as just the will of God and then change from there, seeing as the church councils denounces people as heretics fairly often.

I've read some scholars theorise Islam started as a "reaction" against the trinity as a whole, towards a more simplified worship of just 'one' God, instead of debates on the nature of trinity and issues like where the Holy Spirit is derived from and which is subservient to which.

Still, as mentioned, by the time of Muhammad mainstream Christianity has the trinity as a fundemental cornerstone. An Arabian Chrsitian sect that rejects the trinity will sooner or later be seen as a separate religion.

 

[LSCatilina]

Yeah, it may be a particular "unitarian" sect was encountered by Muhammad and influenced him. However, the veneration (of sorts) of virgin Mary suggests there may be influences by Catholics too?

Arabia was sort at the crossroads of different political entities and religious entities, so a mix-up of these wouldn't be unthinkable.

But the truth is that we ignore too much about Christianism in Arabia to be really sure : maybe it was a special brand of Judeo-Messianism?

 

[Workable Goblin]

Yeah, it may be a particular "unitarian" sect was encountered by Muhammad and influenced him. However, the veneration (of sorts) of virgin Mary suggests there may be influences by Catholics too?

Too early for that (or for "Catholic" to be a very meaningful term, for that matter). It's also worth noting that there was substantial Marian reverence in the (not quite) early church as well, as seen in the term "Theotokos," or "God-bearer," for example, and that would certainly have filtered into the Hejaz from the areas in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt where it was a current issue.

I've read some scholars theorise Islam started as a "reaction" against the trinity as a whole, towards a more simplified worship of just 'one' God, instead of debates on the nature of trinity and issues like where the Holy Spirit is derived from and which is subservient to which.

The rise of Islam was towards the heights of the Christological controversies, so it is quite probable that they had some influence on it. They certainly had an influence in the development of Islamic theology after they conquered their empire and had to deal with Nestorians in Mesopotamia, Miaphysites in Egypt and Syria, and pockets of Chalcedonian Christians all over the place, if for no other reason than the sheer fact of having to respond to Christian theology and make arguments for why Islam was the superior faith.

I relatively recently read a persuasive argument that there were substantial influences from Miaphysitism in Islam and the Qur'an, though it's been long enough that I don't remember the details or indeed much more than the gist of the argument. It was a library book, too, so I can't (easily) consult it again if necessary, unfortunately. The basic fact of their being substantial Christian and Jewish influences is, I think, rather uncontroversial (the "orthodox" version is that Judaism and Christianity are corrupted versions of past revelations, IIRC, so it would be more that Christianity and Judaism are influenced by Islam, but the end result is the same for anyone who isn't a fundamentalist), it's the degree and nature of that influence that's a question.

As for the OP, I think the simplest thing to do is to have Muhammed somehow move farther north and convert to a more or less orthodox branch of Christianity (Chalcedonian or Miaphysite), then return to the Hejaz as a missionary to the pagan Arabs and be martyred. He could become a minor or regional saint in that case, much like many others across the Christian world.

 

[Deltadiamond]

This could make an interesting POD, where Muhammad expressly states that there will be more prophets after him. A very different Islam may emerge or maybe that'll be the difference which makes "Mohamedanism" into more a Christian sect instead of another religion.

That's a very interesting idea, and one I hadn't thought of. That would possibly also be a big enough difference to warrant it being its own branch, but maybe not big enough to be seen as an entirely different faith. It also opens the door to lots of theological splits later on, depending on how universally accepted other prophets are. Especially if Muhammad also tells people to beware of false prophets. I'd like to hear others' ideas about this.

Still, as mentioned, by the time of Muhammad mainstream Christianity has the trinity as a fundemental cornerstone. An Arabian Chrsitian sect that rejects the trinity will sooner or later be seen as a separate religion.

I agree that that's possibly too fundamental an aspect to throw out right away. Especially since that seems to be one of relatively few differences between early Islam and Christianity. Just throwing ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks for now.