the Catholic Church created Islam

[Publisher]

I have no wish to disparage Islam…what I beleive however is that Islam is an “aberation” of Christianity.

Muhammed was influenced by “heretical” groups of Christians…be they Nestorian or Arian or another sect of Christians. Muhammed either misunderstood some of the concepts these Christians were teaching or “reinterpreted” them like many of us here in the west “retinterpret” Islam which stems from a culture vastly different than our own.

Muhammed understood that Mary was worshipped. He may have not drawn the fine distinction many Christians make between “worship of God alone” and “veneration” given to Mary and the saints.

Some of the stories Muhammed related of Jesus childhood appears to be taken almost literally from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. I think there is some evidence that his belief that Jesus wasn’t crucified stemmed from some Gnostic groups that Jesus never really suffered and died. Perhaps Muhammed “reinvented” a combination of Judaism and Christianity he could actuall grasp. I’m sure Muhammed may have even read some of the Gnostic scriptures or at least had detailed discussions with those that used them.

I have believed Islam is an “aberation” of Christianity for decades…it was a favorite subject in our discussions when I was in college concerningcomparitive religions.

Look at the influence Zoroastrianism had on Judaism when they returned from Exile…and of course the “wide brush strokes” Christianity used concerning Judaism to fashion itself as “Judaism fulfilled”. Muhammed was in good company it seems.

 

[rwoehmke]

I don’t agree that it is a Christian heresy, it just one of many possible types of monotheism that pretends to follow the Judeo-Christian faith tradition.

Being monotheistic does not automatically imply worshipping the same God as other monotheists.

Are you claiming then that there is more than one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

 

[Hesychios]

Are you claiming then that there is more than one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

No, not at all.

The god of Mohammed is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob any more than he is the Invincible Sun or Ahura Mazda or Ohrmazd Bay.

 

[Failing_Gong]

The Catholic Church did not create Islam any more than the Falun Gong creates anything :hypno:

Thus is the way of the Way

 

[Contarini]

I don’t agree that it is a Christian heresy, it just one of many possible types of monotheism that pretends to follow the Judeo-Christian faith tradition.

Being monotheistic does not automatically imply worshipping the same God as other monotheists.

Sure it does–at least, if by “monotheism” you mean “the worship of one God who created everything that exists.” Of course it is logically possible that one might believe there’s a class of beings called “gods” that happens to have one member, but that would be a rather odd form of “monotheism” and I can’t think of an example of it off the top of my head.

Monotheism as usually defined, and as actually exemplified by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (and arguably also by Zoroastrianism and some forms of Hinduism), defines God in such a way that there can only possibly be one such being. Therefore, everyone who believes in and worships such a being is worshiping the only God who exists. This was universally held by Christians until modern times. Find me one premodern Christian who suggested that Muslims don’t worship the true God (on the basis of anything like accurate understanding of Islamic monotheism–obviously the author of the “Song of Roland” thought that Muhammad was a Muslim idol, etc…, but that doesn’t count).

Without Protestantism, I don’t think the idea would have crossed anyone’s mind. But the Protestant insistence on the primacy of Biblical revelation has led conservative Protestants into this unfortunate idea that you can be a monotheist without worshiping the true God, and muddled conservative Catholics and Orthodox have followed along because they think that exalting the exclusive claims of Christianity must be the orthodox position.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No, not at all.

The god of Mohammed is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob any more than he is the Invincible Sun or Ahura Mazda or Ohrmazd Bay.

Ahura Mazda is surely the Zoroastrian term for the same God we worship. I don’t know how “Ohrmazd Bay” differs from Ahura Mazda. WRT the Invincible Sun, it would depend on what ancient pagans meant by that. If they were using the Sun as a symbol of the one God, then yes, this is the same as our God. But if they literally worshiped the Sun, then since the Sun is clearly only a part of the universe it is not the same as the true God.

Edwin

 

[bilop]

I am currently reading Hilaire Belloc’c “Great Heresies”. Belloc certainly believes Islam to be a Christian heresy.

Basically, everything true about God in Islam is taken from Catholicism, and then distorted. Much of the Koran is lifted wholesale from the OT.

God Bless

 

[jpk1313]

No, not at all.

The god of Mohammed is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob any more than he is the Invincible Sun or Ahura Mazda or Ohrmazd Bay.

Don’t know where you got that idea. muslims trace their relgious belifes back to abraham. Muhammed Claimed to have brought back the original faith in the one god.

 

[blazerdave]

I agree with Hesychios here. So are you guys saying that if I decide to create a monotheistic religion this morning, my religion would thus be worshiping the one true God? Would you take us seriously as an “Abrahamic” religion simply because we claimed to be one? Surely you can’t believe that. Think about the Golden Calves in the Northern Kingdom. They were supposed to represent the God of Israel to the people, yet God himself detested them. Now I know you might come back and say “but those were idols.” Fine. But if someone claims to worship someone else’s God, there’s no proof that they’re actually doing so. And when they go further and say that the original worshipers are completely wrong in all areas of doctrine and practice, it makes the claim of worshiping the “same God” all the more dubious. Saying you trace your faith back to Abraham doesn’t mean you actually do. And honestly, for Christians to accept that claim, we have to completely misunderstand the nature of the Abrahamic covenant and the promise that through his seed would all the nations of the earth be blessed. Nor is being “Abrahamic” a requirement that finds its origins in Scripture or Tradition. Saying “I’m Abrahamic, thus I’m legitimate” is as man-made an innovation as there is. Think about St. Matthew 3:9.

 

[Zooey]

I have no wish to disparage Islam…what I beleive however is that Islam is an “aberation” of Christianity.

Muhammed was influenced by “heretical” groups of Christians…be they Nestorian or Arian or another sect of Christians. Muhammed either misunderstood some of the concepts these Christians were teaching or “reinterpreted” them like many of us here in the west “retinterpret” Islam which stems from a culture vastly different than our own.

Muhammed understood that Mary was worshipped. He may have not drawn the fine distinction many Christians make between “worship of God alone” and “veneration” given to Mary and the saints.

Some of the stories Muhammed related of Jesus childhood appears to be taken almost literally from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. I think there is some evidence that his belief that Jesus wasn’t crucified stemmed from some Gnostic groups that Jesus never really suffered and died. Perhaps Muhammed “reinvented” a combination of Judaism and Christianity he could actuall grasp. I’m sure Muhammed may have even read some of the Gnostic scriptures or at least had detailed discussions with those that used them.

I have believed Islam is an “aberation” of Christianity for decades…it was a favorite subject in our discussions when I was in college concerningcomparitive religions.

Look at the influence Zoroastrianism had on Judaism when they returned from Exile…and of course the “wide brush strokes” Christianity used concerning Judaism to fashion itself as “Judaism fulfilled”. Muhammed was in good company it seems.

I remember reading, years ago, something that Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote, where he said something very similar to what you’re saying. It always made sense to me…It is as though Muhammed put together pieces of what he had heard about Christianity, & used them to mold his own belief system…

 

[Contarini]

I agree with Hesychios here. So are you guys saying that if I decide to create a monotheistic religion this morning, my religion would thus be worshiping the one true God?

Sure.

Would you take us seriously as an “Abrahamic” religion simply because we claimed to be one?

You’re conflating two issues here: monotheism and Abrahamic pedigree.

Surely you can’t believe that.

It depends on what you mean by “Abrahamic.” The word “Abrahamic” as I interpret it is a description of the self-understanding of various religious traditions, not some kind of objective historical analysis. Most historians are highly skeptical that there ever was an Abraham in the first place, if it comes to that. (Not saying I agree, only that if we start taking apart Islamic claims to be “Abrahamic,” we would have to accept the same level of skepticism about our own claims.)

Think about the Golden Calves in the Northern Kingdom.

Indeed a good example.

They were supposed to represent the God of Israel to the people, yet God himself detested them.

Indeed. But detesting the use of idols to represent the God of Israel is not the same thing as saying that the Israelites were not worshiping the God of Israel at all. Since the Biblical authors take the perspective that the Israelites were actually worshiping the golden calves, one can certainly interpret the text to say that they were not worshiping YHWH. But it’s interesting that 1 Kings makes a clear distinction between Jeroboam and those who followed him in worshiping the golden calves on the one hand, and Ahab and his immediate successors who actually worshiped Baal on the other. Why? Presumably because the Biblical authors recognize that there is a significant difference between worshiping YHWH idolatrously and worshiping a completely different deity.

Now I know you might come back and say “but those were idols.” Fine. But if someone claims to worship someone else’s God, there’s no proof that they’re actually doing so.

I find this entire line of argument frustrating, because I don’t really know what it means to say that someone is not worshiping the God they say they are worshiping. What are your criteria for determining whether someone is really worshiping the one they think they are worshiping? One can say that such a person isn’t worshiping rightly, or isn’t doing things that are actually pleasing to God, or has wrong ideas about God. But the claim that a person thinks they are worshiping God and really is worshiping some other being, if taken literally, makes no sense to me.

And furthermore, you assume that God is simply one being among others. Yes, that is the impression that one gets from much of the OT. But it’s not the classical Christian understanding of God.

And when they go further and say that the original worshipers are completely wrong in all areas of doctrine and practice, it makes the claim of worshiping the “same God” all the more dubious.

Where did you get the odd idea that Muslims say anything of the sort?

I’m not sure what it would take to be completely wrong in all areas of doctrine and practice. It’s pretty hard to imagine a religious community of which this would be true, except maybe for Satanists.

Saying you trace your faith back to Abraham doesn’t mean you actually do.

Sure it does. Unless, again, you are talking about some kind of demonstrable historical lineage–demonstrable that is apart from faith. And none of us have that, since we cannot prove that Abraham existed in the first place or that anything any of the “Abrahamic” religions believe or do has anything to do with what some particular individual or clan in the second millennium believed or did (I word it that way because obviously there are aspects of second-millennium Ancient Near Eastern religion in general, like the practice of sacrifice or belief in a personal/family god, that wound up influencing the “Abrahamic” traditions).

And honestly, for Christians to accept that claim, we have to completely misunderstand the nature of the Abrahamic covenant and the promise that through his seed would all the nations of the earth be blessed.

I presume you mean that this was fulfilled in Jesus. Of course I agree with this, but I don’t think the promise is exclusively fulfilled in Jesus. The Jews have also been a source of blessing to the world even apart from Jesus. And furthermore, Jesus has exercised some influence on Islam, however indirect.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I ran into some weirdo the other day who said “the catholic church created Islam” something about the arabs needed a messiah so the pope creates mohammed…

Others have talked about what might lie behind this silly claim. But one way to look at it is that Protestant bigots badly need their enemies to be all connected with each other. They tend to ignore the Eastern Orthodox, which is one obvious flaw in their view of the world. But since Catholicism, liberalism/secularism, and Islam are the basic evils of the world in their view, they need them all to be connected somehow. Otherwise you can’t hate any of them whole-heartedly!

Edwin

 

[Peter_Burke]

The very second I saw the name of this thread my a Chick-o-meter started blinking all over the place.
The faith section of the site has a good article dealing with our friend Jack doesn’t it?

 

[SempirVeritas]

My basic veiw as to the Origns of Islam (and this is slightly different from my original question, but…

If you look at the beilefs of the ebionites which were a pre Nicea “Jesus” sect,

and compare them with the basic dogmas Islam teaches about Jesus

there are a lot of similiarites…

emphasises one-ness of God, deny virgin birth, Jesus was a prophet…

and also, if you look up the wikepedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

pay attention to this part

“Some scholars argue that the Ebionites survived much longer and identify them with a sect encountered by the historian Abd al-Jabbar around the year 1000.[34] Another possible reference to surviving Ebionite communities in northwestern Arabia, specifically the cities of Tayma and Tilmas, around the 11th century, appears in Sefer Ha’masaot, the “Book of the Travels” of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, a rabbi from Spain.[35] 12th century Muslim historian Muhammad al-Shahrastani mentions Jews living in nearby Medina and Hejaz who accepted Jesus as a prophetic figure and followed traditional Judaism, rejecting mainstream Christian views.[36] Some scholars argue that they contributed to the development of the Islamic view of Jesus due to exchanges of Ebionite remnants with the first Muslims.[10][24] However, Muslim theologians and those who accept their narratives of early Islam maintain that the Islamic view of Jesus was revealed in the Quran well before any significant Muslim encounter with Christians such as the Migration to Abyssinia.”

this is unverified, but there has been some beilef that Mohammeds parent(s)/guardian(s) were ebionites themselves… but this part is more speculation, while the development of Islams doctrines are more historically noted.

 

[jakasaki]

My basic veiw as to the Origns of Islam (and this is slightly different from my original question, but…

If you look at the beilefs of the ebionites which were a pre Nicea “Jesus” sect,

and compare them with the basic dogmas Islam teaches about Jesus

there are a lot of similiarites…

emphasises one-ness of God,** deny virgin birth**, Jesus was a prophet…

and also, if you look up the wikepedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

pay attention to this part

“Some scholars argue that the Ebionites survived much longer and identify them with a sect encountered by the historian Abd al-Jabbar around the year 1000.[34] Another possible reference to surviving Ebionite communities in northwestern Arabia, specifically the cities of Tayma and Tilmas, around the 11th century, appears in Sefer Ha’masaot, the “Book of the Travels” of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, a rabbi from Spain.[35] 12th century Muslim historian Muhammad al-Shahrastani mentions Jews living in nearby Medina and Hejaz who accepted Jesus as a prophetic figure and followed traditional Judaism, rejecting mainstream Christian views.[36] Some scholars argue that they contributed to the development of the Islamic view of Jesus due to exchanges of Ebionite remnants with the first Muslims.[10][24] However, Muslim theologians and those who accept their narratives of early Islam maintain that the Islamic view of Jesus was revealed in the Quran well before any significant Muslim encounter with Christians such as the Migration to Abyssinia.”

this is unverified, but there has been some beilef that Mohammeds parent(s)/guardian(s) were ebionites themselves… but this part is more speculation, while the development of Islams doctrines are more historically noted.

Did I read that right? You state that islam/muslims “deny the virgin birth”.

They do **not **“deny the virgin birth” They acknowledge it according to their koran ~ it is a bit distorted from our Bible, but it is acknowleded.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yeah, the Catholic Church created Islam…and I’m David Hasselhoff

 

[Nine_Two]

There were other ‘Christians’ scattered about Arabia as well, since it was so remote and mostly distant from the empire, various heresies (many were types of gnostic) could survive and spread in the environment. To someone who is curious, the desert could have been like a big salad bowl full of different tastes in religion.

And speaking to Muslims on this forum, whether they are representative of the whole or not, it seems they accept quite a bit of neo-platonist and gnostic beliefs into their theology. I’m not sure one can say Islam was spread from one particular religion, but possibly a syncritism of all those Mohammed came across, with himself as the leader.

 

[blazerdave]

It depends on what you mean by “Abrahamic.” The word “Abrahamic” as I interpret it is a description of the self-understanding of various religious traditions, not some kind of objective historical analysis. Most historians are highly skeptical that there ever was an Abraham in the first place, if it comes to that. (Not saying I agree, only that if we start taking apart Islamic claims to be “Abrahamic,” we would have to accept the same level of skepticism about our own claims.)

Friend, I appreciate your dialogue, and I’ll try to be charitable. I think we have a vastly different outlook on these things.

I find this entire line of argument frustrating, because I don’t really know what it means to say that someone is not worshiping the God they say they are worshiping. What are your criteria for determining whether someone is really worshiping the one they think they are worshiping? One can say that such a person isn’t worshiping rightly, or isn’t doing things that are actually pleasing to God, or has wrong ideas about God. But the claim that a person thinks they are worshiping God and really is worshiping some other being, if taken literally, makes no sense to me.

I am sorry that you find me frustrating. One can most certainly think he is worshiping God, when in fact he’s worshiping a figment of his own imagination. I guess I’ll put it this way: non-Trinitarians are not worshiping the same God that I worship, because I am not worshiping the same god that they worship. I know that most people come back with Judaism as a response, but that’s obviously a unique case. Judaism has thousands of years of God’s revelation in it. So does Christianity. Beyond that, there are human inventions called “God” that have little-to-nothing to do with the real God. It seems that we believe differently here.

And furthermore, you assume that God is simply one being among others. Yes, that is the impression that one gets from much of the OT. But it’s not the classical Christian understanding of God.

I assume that you don’t think I believe in the existence of multiple gods? I’m very familiar with the classical Christian understanding, friend.

Where did you get the odd idea that Muslims say anything of the sort?

I’m not sure what it would take to be completely wrong in all areas of doctrine and practice. It’s pretty hard to imagine a religious community of which this would be true, except maybe for Satanists.

From the many conversations I have had with them. The difficulty with Islam is that sometimes it seems that all facts and beliefs are open to dispute. I do not believe that all Muslims say this or believe it. But it has been said to my face on multiple occasions, so at least some believe it.

Sure it does. Unless, again, you are talking about some kind of demonstrable historical lineage–demonstrable that is apart from faith. And none of us have that, since we cannot prove that Abraham existed in the first place or that anything any of the “Abrahamic” religions believe or do has anything to do with what some particular individual or clan in the second millennium believed or did (I word it that way because obviously there are aspects of second-millennium Ancient Near Eastern religion in general, like the practice of sacrifice or belief in a personal/family god, that wound up influencing the “Abrahamic” traditions).

I take our Lord’s word for it that he existed.

I presume you mean that this was fulfilled in Jesus. Of course I agree with this, but I don’t think the promise is exclusively fulfilled in Jesus. The Jews have also been a source of blessing to the world even apart from Jesus. And furthermore, Jesus has exercised some influence on Islam, however indirect.
Edwin

We interpret the OT differently, it seems.

 

[Dylpickleh8]

I think it may be one of Jack Chick’s foggy notions?

You are correct.
This is a Link to the tract where he reveals the “Fact”
(I don’t know if anyone has already given the link.

 

[Hesychios]

My basic veiw as to the Origns of Islam (and this is slightly different from my original question, but…

If you look at the beilefs of the ebionites which were a pre Nicea “Jesus” sect,

and compare them with the basic dogmas Islam teaches about Jesus

there are a lot of similiarites…

emphasises one-ness of God, deny virgin birth, Jesus was a prophet…

and also, if you look up the wikepedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

pay attention to this part

“Some scholars argue that the Ebionites survived much longer and identify them with a sect encountered by the historian Abd al-Jabbar around the year 1000.[34] Another possible reference to surviving Ebionite communities in northwestern Arabia, specifically the cities of Tayma and Tilmas, around the 11th century, appears in Sefer Ha’masaot, the “Book of the Travels” of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, a rabbi from Spain.[35] 12th century Muslim historian Muhammad al-Shahrastani mentions Jews living in nearby Medina and Hejaz who accepted Jesus as a prophetic figure and followed traditional Judaism, rejecting mainstream Christian views.[36] Some scholars argue that they contributed to the development of the Islamic view of Jesus due to exchanges of Ebionite remnants with the first Muslims.[10][24] However, Muslim theologians and those who accept their narratives of early Islam maintain that the Islamic view of Jesus was revealed in the Quran well before any significant Muslim encounter with Christians such as the Migration to Abyssinia.”

this is unverified, but there has been some beilef that Mohammeds parent(s)/guardian(s) were ebionites themselves… but this part is more speculation, while the development of Islams doctrines are more historically noted.

Actually, you have put forth a respectable theory.