Board index ‹ Islam

[Sensible]

Does Mark 3:25 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.

[Sensible]

The problems with this perspective are many.

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

> 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.

I don't see much of an issue with this. I believe some things in the Bible are true. It's like claiming the NT can't be ture because it copies from the old testament.

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

Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7 and the story of the adultress women along with the longer ending of Mark were thought to be the Bible but now we now from sinaiticus that the verses are not in the oldest manuscripts therefore they are false. I'm not sure what you mean he changed the NT.

> 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.

Correct, there are around 5 different 'versions' of the quran but there are no theological differences. The most major one is about washing your feet and because the quran was meant to be read in different dialects, there are different words used but we know from the Birmingham manuscript and the uthman manuscript that the quran wasn't changed.

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

There is no mention of the trinity in the old testament, there is no salvation by jesus dying through sins, there is no mention of God being a man or being in the form of a man. I don't think any Jew believes that the new testament is similar, in fact I think they'd say the quran is similar . (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.

[jimwalton]

> It's like claiming the NT can't be ture because it copies from the old testament.

As I see it, Mohammad has taken a self-contradictory position. He based the writings of the Qur'an on the writings of the Bible, and he got his information about Jesus (Mary, etc.) from the NT, but then he says the NT is corrupt beyond reliability and should be trusted, that only the Qur'an should be trusted. Here's the problem. You can't use it as a source and then claim it's unworthy to be used as a source.

> Acts 8.37; 1 Jn. 5.7

These are minor, minuscule changes. These are not significant, and we know about them (that they aren't authentic), so they don't affect the reliability of the text.

> "Muhammad changed the NT more than any of the manuscripts do." ... I'm not sure what you mean he changed the NT.

- Sura 2.116 says "Allah has begotten a son." But that's not Jesus? The NT claims Jesus is the begotten son of God (Jn. 3.16).
- Sura 2.136 says Jesus is a prophet along with Abraham, Moses, etc. The NT claims Jesus is not one of the prophets (Heb. 1.1-3).
- Salvation for Muslims is by submission to Allah and doing good works (Sura 2.112, 281, 286). The NT claims no one is saved by doing good works (Eph. 2.8-9).
- The Qur'an teaches to kill unbelievers and sinners (Sura 2.191). The NT teaches to love our enemies (Matt. 5.44).
- Sura 2.194 teaches a Muslim to take revenge against infidel aggression. The NT teaches not to take revenge (Rom. 12.17-21).
- Sura 2.229-232 teaches a different approach to divorce than the NT.
- Sura 3.3 confirms the authority of the Gospels. But what good is that recognition if the Gospels are so corrupt as to be non-authoritative?
- Sura 4.171 says it's impossible for Allah to have a son. The NT claims that Jesus is the Son of God.
- Sura 4.157-158 says that Jesus didn't die, but Allah instead took him to heaven. This is in direct contradiction to the NT.
- Sura 4.34 gives permission to men to beat their wives (lightly). Th NT claims that a husband should love his wife, serve her, sacrifice for her, and even die for her (Eph. 5.25-29).

Need I go on? Muhammad changed the NT far more than any of the manuscripts do.

> there are around 5 different 'versions' of the quran but there are no theological differences.

'Uthman destroyed other copies of the Qur'an, and Ibn Ma'sud refused to hand over his copy for destruction. How do we know 'Uthman's copy was better than the others?

But then there is evidence that changes to the Qur'an continued after the time of 'Uthman. There are Hadiths that say that parts of the Qur'an have been lost, forgotten, or revoked. Both the Qur'an and the Sunna give the same evidence. There are Hadiths that refer to lost surfs. There are even variants in present-day manuscripts.

So if the Qur'an is truly uncorrupted, why does the Muslim world not publish the oldest Qur'an manuscripts, as the Bible does? It makes one think there is something to hide.

> 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.

Then we radically disagree.

> There is no mention of the trinity in the old testament

Sure there is. Psalm 110.1-2; Psalm 2.6-7, 12; Isaiah 9.6; 48.16-17. God in the OT is often referred to with a three-fold title (Dt. 6.4; Num. 6.24-26, Isa. 6.3; et al.)

> there is no salvation by jesus dying through sins

Sure there is. Isaiah 52.13-53.12, explaining Jesus' dying for our sins as foreshadowed by the sin offering (Leviticus 4; 10.17).

> there is no mention of God being a man or being in the form of a man.

Sure there is. There are many prophecies about the Lord in the form of the Messiah coming to earth as a man who is a descendant of David's (Gen. 3.15; Ps. 110.1; Isa. 7.14; 9.6; Isa. 53 and many others).