> I have been reading letters sent to this newsgroup for a few months and > I have noticed that every now and then a Muslim has a few questions which > he/she would like answered. I too would like to have one question answered > and that is : What is the Christian answer to Islam ? Let me explain this > question a little further. I have read earlier that Islam is satans work and > other answers, but I wish to know what is the offical Christian answer if there > is one at all. > Audil Virk *****MY OPINIONS ONLY***** > That was the question that started our last discussion, which I just closed off early in this month. There are quite varied perspectives. A lot of our readers seem to be receptive to the idea that Mohammed might actually have been inspired by God. One reader tried to convince us that nothing in the Koran is inconsistent with Christianity, though he used non-standard interpretation of the Koran, that I suspect is not quite what Mohammed had in mind. No one believed that Islam is Satanic. However many of our readers accept the traditional Christian view that salvation is available only to those who specifically accept Christ. For them, Islam -- whatever its other virtues -- causes problems because it doesn't contain the Gospel. It could be Satan's work in that sense. I've been reading up on Islam since the discussion, to try and get a more accurate view of what it actually believes. It seems to be that Mohammed really did try to reform a group of people who badly needed it. In a general sort of way most of his ideas are consistent with Christianity and Judaism There are some statements in the Quran against Christianity, but in my view he didn't quite understand what Christians really meant. However the whole concept of the suffering servant, and God coming to earth, was quite foreign to him. He certainly has a concept of a merciful God, who cares about his people. However the overall impression I get is rather harsh, when compared to Jesus. In some ways he looks more like someone from Judges than the NT. I think there are two reasonable approaches for Christians: - that God was working through Mohammed, but that he didn't get the whole message - that while he accomplished some good, ultimately it is a case of "works righteousness", because the whole Christian idea of grace and faith is missing. Ultimately it may prove to be a snare, because it makes people think they are following God, but doesn't present him correctly. People's decision between these perspectives is going to be based on whether they think that God only saves those who have explicit faith in Christ, or whether they think God is active among many religions, and is willing to accept people who follow him even though they may be missing major parts of his message. One thing has become fairly clear from both my reading and the postings here: Communication with Moslems is difficult for me, because they don't seem to have much of a concept of what I'd call critical thought. Educated Christians generally understand the way the Bible was transmitted, and whether or not they agree with things like the documentary hypothesis, they at least have some idea of what the evidence looks like. And there are scholars who try to evaluate the evidence using reasonably objective methods. Biblical archaeology and literary study of the Bible goes on among a community of scholars that includes Chritians, Jews, and atheists. While they don't agree on everything, they are able to use a good deal of each others' work. Moslems consider that the entire Quran was dictated by God. To talk about Mohammed as an author, and to look at any kind of literary analysis could get you killed. Every Moslem I've seen post or gotten email from maintains that the Quran was transmitted without error directly from Mohammed. The only treatment I've seen from a non-Moslem scholar says that there is good historical evidence that the same kinds of variations in different manuscripts existed with the Quran as with the Bible. The difference is that at some point Moslem scholars decided to make an official version, and they managed to destroy all the others. Among Christians, there is a good deal of scepticism about miraculous events such as Medjugorje. In discussions with Christians, Moslems will cite as fact Moslem traditions of a similar sort, with little evidence that there's any attempt at objective investigation. (The continued use of the Gospel of Barnabas is a good example.) While I understand that many Moslems are not fundamentalists in the social or political sense, from the point of view of how they deal with evidence and with their own tradition, I have yet to see one that I wouldn't classify as a fundamentalist. This makes discussions very difficult, because if they're not willing to look at evidence, there's not a lot I can say. As far as official answers, this depends very much upon the group. Catholics now accept the concept that God saves non-Christians. Conservative Catholics think it's pretty rare. But statements following Vatican II suggest that there is some value in Islam, even if it is missing critical elements. It's possible that something more recent has been said about Islam, but the Dogmatic Constitution that came out of Vatican II has a couple of references that support this view. They seem to be based on Karl Rahner's idea of the "anonymous Christian" -- one who has encountered Christ but doesn't know it is Christ. I would guess that liberal Christians would take a similar view. My own church (Presbyterian Church (USA)) has made statements about both Judaism and Islam suggesting that God can save people through them. Of course as Christians we believe that ultimately God saves us through Christ. Thus Moslems are missing something important. But it doesn't necessarily damn them. Protestants don't seem to have any explicit arguments like the one for "anonymous Christians". The arguments I've seen generally are more from the point of view that people in Moslem lands don't have a real chance to hear the Gospel, and it would be unfair of God to damn people in such a situation. However I think some people do accept the "anonymous Christian" idea. It's really the only way I know of to hold onto the idea that salvation comes only through Christ, but still accept that people in other religions can be saved. More conservative Protestants believe that salvation is through accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. While they typically do not (at least on this newsgroup) denounce Islam as Satanic, its teachings about God and salvation are erroneous in such as way that Moslems will not be saved. I don't think there needs to be a specific statement on Islam. This position is the obvious implication of the idea that salvation is available only through faith in Christ. And that idea is central to the teaching of most Protestant groups.