Over at liberal Huff Po Religion there is a piece I want to respond to that’s titled “Did Jesus Predict Muhammad?” I’m responding to this because it’s a terrible article that no doubt probably has many people reading it but one that is plague with the lack of clear thinking. HuffPo Religion often have articles that provides many examples of how not to do theology. This is one of them.
Our writer begins his essay saying
The time has come for Christians and Muslims to make peace between our communities. Christians and Muslims already make up more than half of the global population, and these numbers are expected to grow in the coming decades; according to the Pew Research Center, by 2050, two thirds of humanity, some 5.7 billion people, will be either Christian or Muslim.
Our planet simply cannot afford another century of misunderstanding and violence between these two communities. The challenges we face as a global human family are profound: ongoing warfare and nuclear proliferation, global poverty and economic inequality, climate change and ecological degradation. How will humanity handle these crises and others if our two largest religious communities are embroiled in constant conflict, if misunderstanding defines our relationship?
Response:
- As a Christian I definitely don’t want violence between Christians and Muslims.
- What does our writer think is the source of the problem of lack of peace between these two communities? It’s very telling when he says “Our planet simply cannot afford another century of misunderstanding and violence between these two communities” and “misunderstanding defines our relationship.” According to the writer it’s a result of misunderstanding between the two communities.
- I do think there are misunderstandings among those in the two communities.
- But misunderstandings is not enough of a reason to explain violence. People often have misunderstanding of my ethnic minority background. But that doesn’t mean somehow there’s violence done towards me in of itself. It’s an inadequate explanation on the part of the author; ironically, it’s a misunderstanding that doesn’t account for radical Jihadists who commit violence against Christians who have been exposed if not even raised up in largely Western countries where one can’t just say it resulted from a mere misunderstanding. Something deeper and more complex is going on and the author’s explanation is too simplistic.
- If one identify what’s the problem wrongly, then don’t be surprised that the solutions offered would also be wrong.
So what’s our writer’s offered solution? Here’s one suggestion he offered:
Now is the time to transform the way Christians and Muslims see and relate to each other.
In an earlier blog on the Huffington Post about the problem of Christian Islamophobia, I argue that Christians have the opportunity to transform the way we see Islam and Muslims by accepting Muhammad as “Spirit of Truth.”
Response:
- In a world where ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf and other Islamic radicals exists, it’s fascinating to see this writer focuses first on Christians need to change their view of Muslims and Islam. He’s forgetting the big and obvious elephant in the room that today’s primary violence between the community that’s done systematically are those who claim to be Islamic. Very telling with his direction.
- I’m not saying that there aren’t any so-called Christians who have hurted Muslims. It’s the issue of priority. If one’s a cop do you respond to the larger situation of terrorist mass shootings and bombings or do you focus your resources and attention to smaller crimes? Likewise, the writer has a responsibility in his theologizing (if you can call it that) to respond to the elephant in the room.
- Notice his solution that’s suggested: Christians have the opportunity to transform the way we see Islam and Muslims by accepting Muhammad as “Spirit of Truth.” So Christians can have peace with Muslims…by accepting Muhammad as the Spirit of Truth? Doesn’t ISIS and their ilk similarly offer the same proposal of peace and resolving misunderstanding by saying Christians should accept Muhammad as the anticipated “Spirit of Truth?”
Our writer continues with this folly:
Historically, most Christian theologians—including John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Nicholas of Cusa, and Martin Luther—have seen Muhammad not as a “Spirit of Truth” but as a “Spirit of Error,” a false prophet or heretic. There are many Christians today who respect the Islamic tradition and would never make such an offensive statement about Muhammad.
However, the majority of Christians still maintain a fundamentally Islamophobic position on Muhammad. So I believe that the time has come for peacemaking Christians to contradict this position directly. Changing our view of Muhammad—so that we recognize him as a true prophet rather than discredit him as a false prophet—would effectively inoculate Christians against Islamophobia and would help to establish a new paradigm of cooperative Christian-Muslim relations.
Response:
- It’s interesting to see the writer’s admission about theologians in the history of the church that disagree with him. Not that Church theologians in the past are infallible, but we must be cautious whenever someone comes and intentionally contradict them as our writer clearly states. They better have a very good argument from Scripture.
- I question the writers’ claims that “However, the majority of Christians still maintain a fundamentally Islamophobic position on Muhammad.” He doesn’t argue for this. Just asserts it. If its not true, that it ends up being slanderous. Of you. Of I. Of our Christian community.
- Perhaps he needs to define the term “Islamophobic.” I think one can disagree with Islam and not be “Islamophobic.”
- The writer commits an “either/or” logical fallacy. He thinks that either one must accept Muhammad as a true prophet of God or one is Islamophobic. But that doesn’t follow. One can disagree with Muhammad and still be Christ-like towards our Muslim neighbors.
- Again there is something tryannical about the writer’s thinking: either one must accept Muhammad as a true prophet of God or one is Islamophobic. Islamophobia is something to be “effectively inoculated” among Christians. How? By making Christians believe Muhammad is a true prophet of God. Again how is this different than Islamists?
We haven’t looked yet at the writers’ isogesis of the Bible to try to make Jesus predict the Holy Spirit. I’m just starting out by pointing out this writer’s starting point. He’s out to change Christianity. He uses Orwellian language and method: He paints Christians as the bad guys for not accepting Muhammad as the prophet of God and are thus “Islamophobes.” Tyranny is disguised in the form of “tolerance.” The essay focuses on changing Christians, changing Christianity. Meanwhile nothing is said about the party that is perpetrating ongoing violence among the two community.
And this is on a Huffington Post Religion???
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Thanks for reblogging my post responding to a Huff Po Religion article!
You’re very welcome my friend!
Ahhh yes…Once again it is the Christian who is asked to “transform” their thinking. Notice that no such request was made of the Muslim.
Patrick,
This is the essential point. Throughout a thousand years of history, Jews and Christians who choose to let Islam have its way are known as dhimmis. The Huffington Post editors are clearly dhimmis, as seen in their consistent articles doing just what you’ve identified. Good call.
Alec
Exactly. Never mind what Muslims think or do, Christians must accept that Muhammad is the true prophet.
The reason for conflict is that Christians and Muslims DO understand each other. Muslims understand that if Jesus is the Son of God and that if he did die and rise from the dead Muhammad is a false prophet. Christians understand that if Muhammad is a true prophet of God our gospel is false. The difference is how they respond to this understanding. Muslims respond by killing Christians. Christians respond by preaching the gospel to Muslims and urging them to believe in Christ.
Amen Clyde, very well stated, accounting for both the understanding but also the differences of responses from both groups after that understanding. Again very good Clyde. Thanks for reading and for commenting.
Great observations concerning their fallacies. Huffington Post does a deplorable job concerning biblical Christianity.
Huff Posts…a lot of huff and puffs, but mostly from being smoked.
[…] “Did Jesus Predict Muhammad?” This is part 2 of my response and earlier I wrote Part 1: Starting already in the Wrong Direction. In this post I will start to look at the bad exegesis found in part 2 of the article “Did […]
[…] Part 1: Starting already in the Wrong Direction […]
[…] Part 1: Starting already in the Wrong Direction […]
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Thanks for sharing this post on your blog Vincent
You’re very welcome Pastor Jim!
Perhaps the author’s greatest error is in saying that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity have the same divi e source:
“What we have in the Gospel of John is a biblical portal between Christianity and Islam. If we choose to walk through it in faith we will discover that our religions issue from the same divine source; we will discover that we are siblings in faith, meant to bear witness to the truth side by side (John 15:26-27).” Jesus told religious Jews that if they loved God they would love him also. And even a mediocre student of the Quran can see that Allah is not the God of the Bible. Then there is history that provides us the truth about Muhammad, who was nothing even close to a prophet of God.
170.130.58.251
Good point: “I think one can disagree with Islam and not be “Islamophobic.””
Thanks for this thorough examination It’s popular these days to say all religion is the same