Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Mark

[Sensible]

Does Mark 3:26 show that Muhammad was not misled by Satan?

You can believe he was not a prophet or whatever, but it seems that this verse can be used as it is as an argument that Muhammad was not misled by Satan. The verse simply says Satan would not speak against himself. In the Qur'an, Satan is seen as an enemy, and there are verses saying beware of him. If this can't be used for Muhammad, then I don't see how it can be used by Christians. Either Satan can speak against himself or he can't. If he can't, then this verse also applies to Muhammad, if he can then there's no reason to believe what Jesus said.

[jimwalton]

This is a GREAT question. Just because one evil speaks out against another evil doesn't mean they're not both evil. The Nazis may condemn the rapists, but that doesn't justify either of them.

Two evil people can fight against each other for power. In that respect, they're not getting rid of evil, just replacing it with another evil.
Here Jesus was actually getting rid of the evil (casting out demons). The accusation against him was that by the prince of demons he was casting out demons. This is obviously a different situation than anything that applies to Muhammad. Muhammad can still be accused (by Christians) of being misled by Satan because he used his armies to kill Christians and to conquer territories held and governed by Christians. If we want to say it this way, Satan could have been at work in Muhammad not to work against Satan, but to work against God.

But your question is how could Muhammad been in league with Satan if he claimed, as Christians do, that Satan is the enemy? I think the answer might lie in the perception that Muhammad didn't realize he was a tool in Satan's hand. Muhammad regarded himself as an ambassador of the true God (and therefore an enemy of Satan), but Christians would say Muhammad was deluded and wrong about that—that he was truly an agent of Satan posing as a prophet of God, and he used that position to work against God (without necessarily realizing it). It's one of the strategies of the deviousness of Satan.

It is the perception of Christians that Islam is the greatest of all Christian cults. Muhammad took the writings of the Bible, changed them to suit his preferences, made Jesus not divine, made sure people were told not to read the originals ("Oh, the Bible is holy, but it's so corrupted you can't really give it any value"), and replaced it all with his own "holy book." The Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses did the same thing, but on a much smaller and non-violent scale.

Have I understood your question correctly?

[Sensible]

I don't think he said anything wrong when he said the Bible has been changed when it has proven to be correct plus I'd say that the old testament concept of God is correct and the Muslim concept of God is correct and the Jews believe that the Muslim concept of God is correct which leaves Christianity as the one being corrupt.

[jimwalton]

The problems with this perspective are many.

1. By the time Muhammad came along, it was decently recognizable what the NT said.

2. Muhammad based his writings about NT characters and teachings on the NT itself, so if the NT was corrupted beyond hope, then so is the Qur'an. According to history, Muhammed was in contact with Christians as a child, and I seem to recall his mom or his wife was a Christian, but I can't find it right now.

3. Muhammad changed the NT more than any of the manuscripts do.

4. There are plenty of variant readings of the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an is not exempt from the same copying issues the Bible has.

> I'd say that the old testament concept of God is correct and the Muslim concept of God is correct and the Jews believe that the Muslim concept of God is correct which leaves Christianity as the one being corrupt.

Obviously you are free to conclude as you wish. As I read the NT, it is an astounding "Part 2" to the OT, with remarkable chains of thought, theme, theology, and fulfillment that convinces me that it is the legitimate fulfillment of the OT (with the OT concept of God still being correct), leaving Islam as the latecomer who changed the text to suit his beliefs. And even those changes are still being debated. But that's just my assessment. You are free to believe as you choose.