69 million page views

D.Patterson's comment & Wallace Liechty's question

Reader comment on item: [The Search for Moderate Islam:] A Reply to Lawrence Auster
in response to reader comment: Deeper knowledge of two "Good Books" leads in different directions

Submitted by A (Keen) Student of Islam (India), Mar 2, 2005 at 12:16

I refer to D.Patterson's comment (January 28, 2005 at 10:36) and Wallace Liechty's question (Jan 30, 2005 23:37) about a Quranic basis for forgiveness. He proposed a "reality check" involving the founders of Christianity and Islam.

The real "founder" of Christianity was Saul/Paul, who fabricated the mythical Jesus Christ, possibly basing his concoction on the lives of several real, contemporaneous Jewish messianic aspirants, contenders or revolutionaries of the time, with a certain Yehoshua ben Yusaf coming closest to our modern-day impression of Christ! Incidentally, no source independent of the New Testament even mentions a Jesus Christ. The popular pre-existence of most attributes of this "only son of God" (e.g. virgin-birth, last supper, crucifixion, resurrection - even his date of birth) in the belief-systems prevalent in the Roman Empire at the time, is too much of a coincidence to not suspect skullduggery on Saul/Paul's part! He hijacked the purely Jewish concept of "Messianic Expectation" to give scriptural authenticity to the role of "saviour" he had invented for his Christ. According to this belief, the advent of the incumbent "messiah", or "deliverer" was to liberate the Jewish nation POLITICALLY from the Roman yoke. The concept had no spiritual, philosophical or any other overtones. The logically weird fairy tale of Christ giving up his life to atone for humanity's presumed inherent sinfulness (in itself, too much like ‘passing the buck') was something Saul/Paul invented and propagated to beguile and lure the na├»ve and mainly gentile citizenry of the Roman Empire into the new religious scheme he had floated.

It is thus quite clear that there WAS NEVER any single, historical person called Jesus Christ. Moreover, because the man claiming to be messiah had failed quite conclusively in his role as political emancipator, he could not, according to the Jews, be the "true one" prophesied in their scriptures. With the historical as well as scriptural bottom knocked out, Jesus Christ, per se, is an untenable proposition!

As such, Patterson's "reality check" in the case of the "unreal" Christ of "Paulinity" is not only impossible, but will yield little more than illogical, fanciful, undependable - even incredible - improbabilities.

Patterson also states in connection with Christianity: "those who tormented the Jews (or Muslims) could not have been following the teachings of the "Book"", and mentions the Christian ideal of "turning the other cheek". However, the history of Paul's "Christianity", with which innumerable ancient and generally peaceable civilizations across the globe have had mostly fatal encounters incessantly for 2000 years, shows that having already been slapped once, the other cheek which was "turned" for the second slap always belonged to its hapless victim! And, in approbation and appreciation of acts that would undoubtedly be condemned as willful, evil and cruel by softer, enlightened inspirations, persons perpetrating heinousness in god's name got canonized and eternally venerated in Christendom as "saints"! We are yet to hear even so much as a murmur of protest at this continuing state of moral perversion from any serious Christian, who obviously seems to have no misgivings about accepting it rather cheerfully.

But, unlike that in the case of a mythical Christ, a "reality check" on Muhammad (PBUH) who was a real, historical figure, will give some positive results. One only needs to ascertain how Allah's revealed instructions progressively changed in intent, tone and tenor as Muhammad (PBUH) grew in political influence and military power. From His early divine directives of "no aggression or violence", Allah, like the mosaic Jehovah, felt obliged to command the Prophet (PBUH) to "slay all infidels" after the conquest of Mecca. Even in this day and age, it shares with its elder sibling, Christianity, a penchant for world domination, in the fulfillment of which certain acts, which might be considered despicable by modern (secular) standards, need to be performed most unwillingly! So, essentially there is really no difference in inspiration of both; only their methods vary. So much for "reality checks"!

Forgiveness of the cardinal "sin" of disbelief is unacceptable to both!

Patterson also mentions Jihad. Again, as history substantiates, Jihad is only the Arabic word for Evangelism. Just as Jihad – in any of its variations, from moderate to extremist – is an inalienable part of every serious Muslim's faith, so is Evangelism that of every serious Christian's. The record of evangelization of Africa and the Americas is hardly any different or less gory than the Islamization undertaken by zealous Muslims!

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2023 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)