by Harry Osborne
In the past few months following the September 11th attacks, our attention has been focused upon Islamic teaching. The media and our politicians portray Islam as a form of religion similar to "Christianity" in its claims and moral teachings. However, we want to look at Islam over the next few weeks and see that it is far from true Christianity and far from a "peace-loving" system aimed at raising morality. We begin by looking at the life and claims of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and compare him with Jesus as presented in the Bible.
Much of the story about the life and teachings of Muhammad comes from a book called the Hadith. Contained within this book are sayings, deeds, teachings and rulings alleged to come from Muhammad. However, the book was compiled two hundred years after Muhammad's death. Think about the accuracy of a book you might write about a character who died in 1802 when the source for that book is information handed down orally over the past 200 years. That is precisely the situation with the writers of the Hadith. The writers had never even met Muhammad, nor did they know anyone who had met him! In contrast, the divinely inspired New Testament was mostly written within 40 years of Jesus' death and fully completed within 70, the last book being written by one of Jesus' closest associates - the apostle John.
We are told that Muhammad was called to be a prophet in 610 A.D. while in a cave by himself. This "vision" is said to have come after Muhammad had spent six months in isolation to meditate. No one else was there to witness this call, nor is any objective evidence given in Islam to sustain its validity. When we contrast that to the claims of Jesus and the prophets of the Bible, the difference is clear. At least 35 miracles of Jesus are recorded in the New Testament. Even Jesus' enemies admitted that He worked miracles. Their only response was that He worked them by evil's power, a charge Jesus showed to be ridiculous (Matt. 12:22-29). If Jesus worked such miracles, the only explanation to be given is that God verified Jesus' claim to all authority (Matt. 28:18-20) through those miracles. No mere man has the power to perform miracles. If they occur, God must be the source.
The evidence exists for modern man to evaluate the reliability of those testifying to the factuality of Jesus' miracles. For instance, the apostles died under persecution rather than denying their testimony. They testified to the authenticity of Jesus' miracles (Acts 2:22). If such testimony were a lie, why not recant and live? The early history of Christianity is replete with examples of those who withstood abuses of all kinds rather than deny their faith in the miraculous power and divine authority of Jesus. Why would they do so if such power was a fraud? Remember, these martyrs were not fanatics given to extremist actions, but thoughtful men of rational action. Their first reaction to the death of Jesus was to flee and save themselves. What caused their change?
The nature of the miracles claimed support their validity. Luke says that Jesus healed one of the men bent on His murder who had an ear severed by a sword (Lk. 22:50-51). If the claim were false, why would his enemies have remained silent? Their silence supported the truth of the claim. Of those 35 or so miracles recorded in the Gospels, the greater portion were so specific that opponents could easily disprove them if they were a lie. Many were done in the sight of those who hated Jesus. All of them were open to objective evaluation.
Three early opponents of Christianity are notable: Celsus in the 2nd century, Porphyry in the 3rd century and the Emperor Julian in the 4th century. None questioned the reality of Jesus' miracles. If they were fiction, why the silence?
The New Testament also says the apostles and prophets who revealed the message of the Gospel worked miracles to prove their claims as spokesmen for God (Heb. 2:3-4). When men claimed to speak for God in the Bible, their claims can still be rationally examined by objective evidence. However, no such evidence exists for Muhammad as a "prophet" of God. For instance, Muhammad was not sure whether his original "vision" came from Allah or evil spirits. His wife ultimately convinced him that God was the source. Folks, if Muhammad was not sure of the source of his vision, how can others be sure?
Jesus and the prophets of the Bible never had a problem determining whether it was God or an evil spirit that spoke to them. The evidence given can be the basis for a rational faith even today that Jesus is exactly what the Bible claims. No such claim can be reasonably made for Muhammad.
Orthodox Moslems believe the Koran to be divinely inspired only in Arabic. They believe Allah has preserved the present Arabic Koran as a perfect, verbatim copy of the original Koran which is in heaven. The fact remains that the Koran does not plainly state the means of inspiration nor the evidence of such. Compare this with clear passages claiming divine, verbal inspiration as the source of the Bible and stating the evidence for that claim (2 Tim. 3:14-17; 2 Pet. 1:12-21; 1 Cor. 2:10-13; Jn. 20:30-31; et. al.). Despite this fact, some Moslems today want to claim a greater inspiration for the Koran than the Bible. The Koran itself is the greatest refutation of that claim!
The Koran was not written down until after the death of Muhammad. It is interesting to note that Muhammad's followers drafted the "revelations" of Muhammad from memory. These followers gave no evidence of divine guidance to aid the accuracy of their memory. The external evidence gives no compelling reason for a rational person to conclude that the Koran is from God. The message of the Koran is as carnal as its origin. The Koran views sin as the result of violating carnal provisions of societal order rather than a divine standard for individual, moral purity as taught in the Bible. For instance, it limits men to four wives rather than the higher standard of life-long fidelity in a monogamous marriage found in the Bible (Matt. 19:3-9). The Koran tells Moslems to abstain from "obscene language and acrimonious disputes" while on their pilgrimage (2:197). How does that compare with Bible instruction regarding the speech of Christians (Eph. 4:29-32; 5:3-4; Col. 3:8; 4:6) This low standard explains the acceptance of lying and murder to achieve a desired end. Such evil has been justified by some respected religious leaders of Islam.
Islam claims no need for the atonement of sins. The Koran teaches that one is saved upon the basis of merit. Certain works done by people upon the earth (eg. prayers, pilgrimages to Mecca and death in Holy War) earn a place in heaven for the individual. In comparison, the Bible teaches that all have sinned and by merit can only earn death as a result (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). Salvation is not possible except for the grace of God (Eph. 2:1-10). Clearly, works of obedience are involved in the salvation given from God, but they do not make salvation a result of human merit. We are saved by grace.
For instance, the Bible says that baptism is essential for salvation (Acts 2:38; Mk. 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). Does this means the one who obeys God's command by being baptized earns his salvation by some meritorious work? Certainly not! When we see the Bible teaching on baptism, we recognize that it fits perfectly into the concept of salvation by grace, not human merit. Only the blood of Christ can cleanse one's sins and make possible the gift of salvation. Baptism is, however, the point at which the man of faith appeals to God for cleansing (1 Pet. 3:21) and is saved by Christ's blood (Rom. 6:1-11). Thus, the Bible teaches that one must humble himself to accept God's plan of salvation, not arrogantly claim to save himself.
When one compares the Bible message to that of the Koran, there can be no question about which one bears the marks of divine authorship. The Koran is a mixture of ancient Arabian polytheism, mysticism, Judaism, and perverted forms of Christianity. The Bible stands alone in presenting God's plan to bring man from the mire of sin to a divine standard of moral purity.