What differentiates the partial revelation that God gave the Jews from the fabricated understanding of God that Mohammad stole from the Jews (and Christians) is that GOD choose to bind the Jews through a covenant relationship to that particular partial revelation of Himself even as he later promises to do other things yet to come.
But I don’t believe that Mohammad professes to have a covenantal relationship with God ANYWHERE in the words attributed to him in the Koran?? Anyone know of one?
In fact the only “somewhat” covenant we may ascribe to them is through Abraham in the Judeo-Christian OT accounts. Here God promises Hagar, Sarah’s handmaid (contrast with Mary as the handmaid of the Lord), that He will make her offspring (through Ishmael) a great nation. But this at best is a “covenant-temporal” - a promise for greatness in the “here and now” and Hagar remains subordinate to the authority of Sarah as her handmaid living in separation – yet receiving secondary blessings through that relationship. But this is a promise and is not made with respect to grace and to eternity as we have with God’s covenant with the Jews through Abraham’s son Isaac.
In fact God tells us explicitly in the OT that His People WILL NOT be through the descendants of slaves but through Issac. So the Mohammedans in fact do not seem to have any covenant relationship to God that binds them to a partial revelation of Himself.
Lacking a specific covenant, with respect to eternal beatitude they have only two options: 1) God’s Mercy and 2) Convert to and embrace the new universal covenant of Christianity (which their religion forbids and condems as polytheistic). I feel pity for the common Muslim who is trapped between ancient rejection of OT covenant and disallowed to be tolerated among his fellows under pain of death to become Christian. How diabolical!
We can speculate on what God’s purpose in permitting this is - and I do have a lot of though about this. But if the Mohammedans themselves do not claim to have a covenant with God then how can they worship Him in Spirit and Truth? Cain only gained rejection through an unacceptable and “dutiful” worship. What of the Muslims?
Surely the Catechism must be right about God’s Plan having provisions for all the disenfranchised of the word or else God would never have permit Cain’s descendants to live. Clearly God’s goal is to proclaim His greatness by reconciling all ancient wrongs - on His terms.
More evidence that the Muslims have no covenant is seen in the following verses:
Here is the covenant promise:
*Genesis 17:19-21
But God said, “No, but Sarah (previously “Sarai”) your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and
I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 “As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21 “**But My covenant **I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year.” *
Ishmael’s lineage is destined to “greatness” in the here-and-now but has no OT covenant - and it seems that the poor Ishmaelites are cut off under this OT covenantal revelation of God.
The very troubling thing to me about this whole topic area is that superficially it does have elements suggestive of double-predestiny since there is no covenantal relationship with the Ishmaelites by the OT covenant and limited view of God. But the Ishmaelites are not alone - there there are other’s than just Abraham’s descendants. What of these heathen Gentiles?
Of course the Catechism is correct in acknowledging that God ‘Has A Plan’ for all humanity. But I do frankly think it was “pandering” to the large numbers of Muslims by explicitly calling them out as being “First” in that plan since EVERYONE is in God’s Plan. I think the Church is simply saying that monotheists, even with imperfect light, are an order of magnitude closer to God and true worship than are heathens, pagans, and atheists who are indifferent to God. But in so saying the church has certainly raised a lot of eyebrows among the faithful who see Muslims as more dangerous to us than these others. And this I think is the key error. Are Muslims closer to The Truth than these other ungodly and indifferent hedonistic people who live among us as secularists and should we not also be calling them out with special mention? In mentioning the Muslims it does brings symmetry to the OT lineage by tying it all to Abraham. But why make Muslims “first” in God’s Plan for the other peoples and simply go all the way back to Adam and leave it as “God has a plan for all fallen men”?
*Catechism 841
The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the **first place *
amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day." 330
James
