69 million page views


Reader comment on item: Something Rotten in Denmark?
in response to reader comment: The Two-Edged Sword of Islam

Submitted by Sword of Islam (United Kingdom), Mar 2, 2006 at 00:21

Amazing to see how a point of view badly made often results in the Domino Effect of that point being badly argued against! Armageddon, you really need to think before you make these statements. I understand where the emotion is coming from but making such irrational points without backing them up with intelligent support makes you look as bad as some of the morons with an opposing point of view such as Libyan or Hind Samy, to name a few. That makes you look as if you're no better than they are.

Insofar as the responses to your post go they are not much better!

In a nutshell, the Bible and the Qu'ran do not complement each other. One of them is 'wrong'. There is no logical alternative. Obviously different people have a different interpretation as to which one it is hence the different religions.

The proper name for the Christian faith is Judeo-Christian - the Judeo part referring to Judaism (Jewish). Jesus was a Jew. He, and his followers, read from the Torah (The Scriptures). The Torah is an integral part of The Bible - Christians simply call it The Old Testament. This is why Jews and Christian are jointly called People of The Book. The 'Book' is The Torah. Characters and stories have not been changed or modified. They are the same. This is not so with the Qu'ran.

The fundamental difference is that both Christian & Jew follow the teachings of The Torah, the Christian being more influenced by The New Testament than the Old (Torah). My understanding of the Qu'ran is that are fundamental differences with some of it's interpretations of stories when compared to the same stories in The Torah, especially in relation to the stories of Isaac and Ishmael, amongst others. Unless I am very much mistaken (which I doubt) both Jew and Christian believe that the offspring of Issac are the 'chosen people' whereas Muslims believe that this honour belongs to Ismael. This basically means that good Muslims must believe that The Torah has been corrupted as the 'Word of God' is infallible. There is no logical alternative explanation. Logically, this means that you may profess respect for it but you cannot be said to 'follow it' if it is corrupted. One cannot follow both teachings if they contradict each other. Therefore by offering alternative interpretions and meaning of what are fundamentally the same stories you are effectively saying that The Torah and The Gospels are corrupt. Having a counter accusation that you have 'copied' these stories and changed the interpretations to reflect more favourably on your own belief is quite mild by comparison. The initial accusation was poorly made but a point badly made does not make the point bad! If you believed in The Torah as both Christian and Jew do then accusations of 'plagiarism' would not hold any water. However the differences are such that a completely impartial judge could only have two choices when deliberating on such a subject.

A. Either the Christians and Jews are following a corrupted text and that it's corruption means that it cannot be the 'infallible' Word of God and that the Qu'ran is God's 'correction' of this corruption.


B. That Islam 'plagiarised' Biblical stories and changed certain elements to reflect more favourably on it's beliefs.

I cannot see a third alternative. I would welcome a logical alternative to this conclusion.

Jesus wasn't given a 'book'. If he was given a book he certainly didn't show it to anybody. David wasn't given a 'book' - the Psalms are a compilation of works from different authors. The Torah was not a single 'book' revealed to one person by an angel. The Gospels (New Testament) are a compilation of eye-witness accounts and interpretations that were compiled bu the followers of Jesus within sixty years of his death. This gospels were later brought together to form the New Testament and The Bible, as a complete entity, did not exist until the 4th Century AD. Therefore The Torah is a fundamental part of Christian belief. The Torah contains a record the Law of God. The Gospels contain a record of the Compassion of God. The existence of the New Testament does not negate The Torah. They are the two sides of the same coin. They are complimentary. At least as far as Christians are concerned.

So if Jews and Christians both believe that The Torah is the 'divine word of God' (which a good Muslim simply cannot believe for the reasons mentioned above) it cannot be said that Christians are 'copycats'. We are part of the same family. Jesus was a Jew. A Muslim may argue this point but does that mean that Mary (Maryam) and Joseph were also not Jews? And if not, what about their parents, etc, etc. Christians simply believe that Jesus was the Messiah while Jews do not. We believe that the Gospels are an expansion rather than a replacement for The Torah. My understanding of Islam (correct me, if I'm wrong) is that many followers believe that Jesus 'took' the Gospels with him when he ascended to Heaven (hard to believe given that they didn't actually exist at that time) or that they were rendered obsolete by the revelation of the Qu'ran (meaning that either the texts had been corrupted or that an 'infallible' God had been wrong!)

So although the texts of Islam and Christianity may 'share' characters with the same (or similar names) there are fundamental differences that mean they are mutually exclusive beliefs. These differences appear superficially minor but on close inspection it is clear that these alterations fundamentally change the character and meaning of each individual and therefore means that their own simililarity is the name that they bear. Which makes them different people.

So my conclusion is that any label of 'copycat' attached to the Christian faith is ridiculous for the reasons mentioned above. Given that it is an intrinsic belief on the part of good Muslims that the Torah and The Gospels were 'corrupted' I think that any accusations of 'copycat' are comparitively mild and certainly easier to argue against in intelligent terms other than ' We're copycats? YOU'RE copycats'!!

Suffice it to say that when Christians and Muslims use their respective texts to beat each other over the head with the debate goes nowhere. When they use the same texts to praise each other we have the same end result - it may be nice, but is ultimately useless. So keep it intelligent, guys, and don't bother. It's political and cultural - not religious.


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: © 1968-2024 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.)