How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scripture together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.
Obviously a point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).
Suffice it to note some contradictions (which will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):
- The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Instead of combatting and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic). Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
- The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity. Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
- The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat women as possessions.
- The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.
It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.
And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.
—-
Those in the West waiting for an Islamic “reformation” along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation, on the assumption that it will lead to similar results, must embrace two facts: 1) Islam’s reformation is well on its way, and yes, along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation—with a focus on scripture and a disregard for tradition—and for similar historic reasons (literacy, scriptural dissemination, etc.); 2) But because the core teachings of the scriptures of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam’s reformation has naturally produced a civilization markedly different from the West.
Put differently, those in the West uncritically calling for an “Islamic reformation” need to acknowledge what it is they are really calling for: the secularization of Islam in the name of modernity; the trivialization and sidelining of Islamic law from Muslim society.
That would not be a “reformation”—certainly nothing analogous to the Protestant Reformation.
Overlooked is that Western secularism was, and is, possible only because Christian scripture lends itself to the division between church and state, the spiritual and the temporal.
Upholding the literal teachings of Christianity is possible within a secular—or any—state. Christ called on believers to “render unto Caesar the things of Caesar (temporal) and unto God the things of God (spiritual)” (Matt. 22:21). For the “kingdom of God” is “not of this world” (John 18:36). Indeed, a good chunk of the New Testament deals with how “man is not justified by the works of the law… for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16).
On the other hand, mainstream Islam is devoted to upholding the law; and Islamic scripture calls for a fusion between Islamic law—Sharia—and the state. Allah decrees in the Koran that “It is not fitting for true believers—men or women—to take their choice in affairs if Allah and His Messenger have decreed otherwise. He that disobeys Allah and His Messenger strays far indeed!” (33:36). Allah tells the prophet of Islam, “We put you on an ordained way [literarily in Arabic, sharia] of command; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who are ignorant” (45:18).
Mainstream Islamic exegesis has always interpreted such verses to mean that Muslims must follow the commandments of Allah as laid out in the Koran and Hadith—in a word, Sharia.
And Sharia is so concerned with the details of this world, with the everyday doings of Muslims, that every conceivable human action falls under five rulings, or ahkam: the forbidden (haram), the discouraged (makruh), the neutral (mubah), the recommended (mustahib), and the obligatory (wajib).
Conversely, Islam offers little concerning the spiritual (sidelined Sufism the exception).
Unlike Christianity, then, Islam without the law—without Sharia—becomes meaningless. After all, the Arabic word Islam literally means “submit.” Submit to what? Allah’s laws as codified in Sharia and derived from the Koran and Hadith.
The “Islamic reformation” some in the West are hoping for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam—secularization not reformation; Muslims prioritizing secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah’s law; a “reformation” that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history.
Such an event is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam can be true to its scriptures in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does.
margstar says
Thank you for helping us answer the lefts constant attempts to make all religions , (and in their minds most are extremist), equal or relative. They love to push back with this nonsense and are getting no resistance. It’s quite obvious they hate all religious people and Islam gives them a great twisted way to advance their opposition.
friendlykamustaka says
Spot on. Anyone who claims that “all religions are as bad as each other” should be referred to this video, and they will change their opinion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQezdSihI-o
dia61 says
Thank you, Raymond, for another great article. Education is so important because so many people are completely clueless about the differences between Christianity and Islam. Your work certainly helped me to understand the differences and I will always be grateful for the enlightenment. For me, it was education in the form of a life preserver.
Randy Rogers says
The reformation that Islam could undergo is for all its followers to become nominal, tame religious Muslims like most in America hopefully already are, wanting nothing to do with the insane teachings to kill, mame, and destroy.
Unfortunately their primary document is inherently evil at its root, and a violent outbreak could occur anytime a nominal follower starts taking the Qu’ran nonsense seriously. It’s like dormant cancer.
The only hope for them is to meet the risen Christ and be inwardly transformed – not undergo some mere religious outward transformation, but meet the living God. They will no longer be Muslims though and the crazies go after them with a vengeance.
There needs to be a revival worldwide.
PN says
It has long been my view that what we are witnessing in the Muslim world IS an Islamic reformation – back to basics – to the way Islam was during the time of Muhammad and the companions. Frankly, I don’t understand how anyone can understand it differently, unless you actually believe in pixie dust and unicorns….
friendlykamustaka says
Another excellent article. A simple way of looking at what differentiates Christian and Islamic teachings is to concentrate on the difference between the Meccan verses and the Medina verses.
For example verse 10:94 says that Muhammad should ask Christians and Jews about where to find “The Truth”
And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
This bizarre verse, along with verse 5:47, is actually a reason many muslims convert in the first place:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Abj48weoc
So what Muhammad is preaching in Mecca is essentially no different from what is taught in the Old and New Testaments, which is itself a flaw, since they obviously can’t both be right. These two verses are what Sam Shamoun calls the “Islamic Dilemma”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAkcQhQNsaE
When Muhammad gains political power in Medina, the “abrogation verse” comes down (“the rules are going to change from now on…”). He sends threatening letters to the two neighbouring rulers: “Accept Islam and you will be safe”. He uses his position to take revenge on those who have belittled him previously.
In short, what separates Christianity from Islam is what Muhammad did after gaining political power: the imposition of Sharia Law, in order to subjugate Christians and Jews (Quran 9:29).