A Messianic Jew Responds to
“The Rise of Islam” and
a Clarification of Intent

----- Original Message -----

    From: B.K. [changed to protect privacy]

       To: FamilyBible.org

    Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 9:35 PM

Subject: Possibly invalid argument with respect to Islam

Hi,

First off, I'm a Messianic Jew, and I enjoy your website; so this is meant as a constructive criticism!

You discuss Islam on page http://www.familybible.org/teaching/religions/islam/RiseOfIslam.htm, but I think you may have made a mistake.

On that page, you appear to be discussing the history of Islam, yet at the same time seem to be arguing against it. I would think that before one undertakes to argue against a position, one might first fully explicate that position. Muslims seem to feel that Mohammed spoke with G-d in that cave; you disagree. Great, I'm with you, but the organization of that page suggests that Muslims feel that Mohammed was speaking to a jinn...since you use that fact as a starting point in your argument (indeed, Mohammed may equally well have been delusional). Perhaps it would be better if you first describe what Muslims believe, and subsequently attempt to dismantle their position.

Blessings,

B.K.

Dear B.K.,

Thank you for your comments. Please allow me to clarify my intent a bit.

I did not intend to give the impressions that Muslims believe that Mohammed was speaking to a jinn, but rather to demonstrate who it was that actually appeared to Mohammed.

Actually, in response to this article, I have received email from numerous Muslims who insist that all Muslims believe it was Gabriel who appeared to Mohammed in the cave and Gabriel who gave the Quran to Mohammed. I have also received messages from other Muslims who insist that all Muslims believe that it was Allah who appeared to Mohammed in the cave, and that Allah gave Mohammed some parts of the Quran and Gabriel gave him other parts. I have even had some Muslims tell me that Muslims do not believe either, but rather that they believe that the “appearances” and “visions” were only part of Mohammed’s “state of mind” — which I interpreted meaning imagination or delusion.

Beyond a very few basic points in other articles (the Six Doctrines, the Five Pillars, Islam and the Bible, and the Jesus of Islam), it is not my specific intent (in this article or on this website) to present what Muslims believe. To do so would be a lifetime undertaking, because Muslims have an oral traditional as extensive as that of the Rabbis. [Can you imagine trying to refute the entire Talmud?] From the numerous emails that I have received from Muslims, Muslims themselves cannot agree upon much of what they believe except for their hatred for Jews and Christians, their dedication to the eradication of the State of Israel, and their possession of the Covenant Land. Neither is it my intent (on this website) to try to evangelize or “convert” Muslims. There are other more appropriate forums for that necessary activity.

What I am concerned about, and what I am attempting to unquestionably refute, is the practice of government and religious leaders — whether Jew, Christian, Muslim, agnostic, or atheist — of talking about “the three great monotheistic religions” as if Islam was somehow equal to, or even remotely related to, Judaism and Christianity, and of equating the demon Allah with the G-d of Avraham, Yitzhak, and Ya`akov.

In “The Rise of Islam” I never had any intention of presenting what Muslims believe, but only of presenting the actual historical background of Islam. The demon Allah was both recognized and worshipped as a jinn by numerous Arabic tribes long before Mohammed attempted to unite the tribes under a single religious leadership.

To open the door and allow the introduction of “what Muslims believe” is to open the door to their complete revisionist history in which Avraham offered up Ishmael—not Yitzhak—as a sacrifice, in which G-d made His covenants with Ishmael and his descendants forever—not with Yitzhak and Ya`akov and their descendants forever, in which Jews have never inhabited the Covenant Land, and in which the Jews never had a Temple in Jerusalem.

I do not feel that there is any advantage to catering to lies and falsehoods. When I worked in psychiatry, one of the most important guidelines for the therapy staff was never, not even for a brief moment, to allow one’s self to become in any way either sympathetic with, or involved in, or to indulge the patient’s delusions and fantasies, and to never allow the patient to think, even momentarily, that his delusions had anything to do with reality.

If a math student is attempting to solve a complex set of equations and he or she begins that process with ...

           Let a = 2

           Let b = 3

Therefore: Let c = a + b = 7  ...

... what can be gained by allowing the student to continue a process that from the start is doomed to arrive at the wrong answer because of assumed errors in the beginning?

I feel that it is just as important to draw a similar line when relating to theological falsehood. What can possibly gained by allowing a discussion to continue if it starts with a false statement like “since we all worship the same G-d …” or “since we're all G-d’s children …” or even “since Muslims believe that Allah is the same G-d that Jews and Christians worship …”?

Satan is a liar and the father of all lies. It was his determined objective to prevent the first appearance of Messiah, and it is now his determined objective to prevent the second appearance of Messiah. Although he has been defeated, he refuses to accept that defeat. He has been condemned to eternal punishment, and his present goal seems to be to take as many with him to that condemnation as he possibly can.

In the year 610 Satan appeared to Mohammed in a cave in Arabia and gave him a new “holy book” that refuted the Sacred Scriptures; 1,210 years later in 1820 he appeared to Joseph Smith in the woods near Palmyra, New York, and gave him a new “holy book” that refuted the Sacred Scriptures. Both the experiences and their results are nearly identical because they have the same author. To allow for even a brief moment, even for discussion’s sake, the remote possibility that either appearance had anything to do with the G-d of the Bible can serve no constructive purpose.

As stated on many pages on this site, it is not my intent to belittle, unduly criticize, or “bash” those who hold religious or political persuasions or opinions other than my own. I am not “anti-”anybody; I am only pro-Truth. In response to your comments, I have edited the page a bit in hopes of reducing confusion.

Again, thanks very much for taking the time to contact me.

Shalom b'Mashiach,

Ari

[ Previous ] [ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]
http://familybible.org/Teaching/Religions/Islam/MJResponse.htm
Page last revised Thursday, 11 September 2008 06:06 PM