If you want to get to grips with what Mohammed peddled to his audience, and fully comprehend original Islamic theology (prior to the Hadith retcons), you have to understand that Islam began as a Christian heresy. Once you realise this, it makes more sense.
Let's dip into that.
The Islamic tradition claims Mohammed battled polytheistic pagan idol-worshippers. That's likely fiction. Historically, Mohammed vied with Jews and Christians, which is why the Quran talks about their beliefs so much, whereas it doesn't delve into supposed "Meccan" paganism.
To run his scam, and persuade Jews and Christians to follow his new religion instead of their existing ones, Mohammed had to depict both Judaism and Christianity as flawed, and Islam as a celestial correction Allah had sent down for humanity to follow. He did this via Jesus.
Mohammed claimed both Jews and Christians were wrong about Jesus and thus displeased Allah. His narrative went like this: Allah gave Jews the Torah, a true revelation. But Jews corrupted his teachings. So Allah sent Jesus to be the Messiah, bring the Gospel, and get them in line.
Jesus being the Messiah sent to fulfil the Torah is straight-up Christianity (I know "Messianic Jews" are a thing, but they're very much a fringe group). It's the main way Mohammed distinguished his religion from Judaism, theologically. It also introduced classic antisemitism.
By doing that, whenever Mohammed wanted to trash Jews instead of courting them, he could bring out traditional Christian accusations of Jews scheming against Jesus and causing the crucifixion. The first screenshot here shows a relevant Quran passage:
So far, so good, at least for Mohammed's purposes. In theory, he'd provided a reason people should follow his religion instead of Judaism. But that wasn't enough. He couldn't just promote Christianity, which already claimed Jesus as the Messiah. That'd ruin his plan.
That's where the heresy part came in. He had to swerve away from mainstream Christianity and depict it as likewise being flawed, an inferior and corrupted version of Allah's true teachings. Mohammed's solution was to say, yes, Jesus was the Messiah, but he wasn't divine.
This led him into somewhat clumsy theology, because he was taking a belief system in which Jesus was the son and incarnation of God, removing that aspect, but keeping the rest so he could trash Judaism too. E.g. He still preached the virgin birth, but just as a random miracle.
Understanding this foundation of Christian heresy helps us understand other aspects of Islamic theology. For example, we can see how the Christian version of Jesus now gets his role divided between his Islamic version and the Quran.
Jesus is still the Messiah, sure. But he's no longer "the Word" or "Logos", as described at the beginning of the Gospel of John. Instead, he brought Allah's word in the form of "the Gospel" (see Quran 5.46 above), Christians corrupted it, so Allah gave Mohammed the Quran.
People who are familiar with the doctrine of the "uncreated Quran" will see a parallel here -- in both cases, the Word / Logos was supposedly with God since the very beginning. In Christianity, that's Jesus. In Islam, the Quran.
Earlier, I referred to Mohammed running a scam. That's my assessment of the man. I know some ex-Muslims see him as mentally ill and deluded, but to me things like Quran 8.1 and 33.53 are too blatantly fraudulent -- a dishonest cult leader lying for his own benefit.
From that perspective, we don't have to try and explain what Mohammed actually believed about the Torah, the Gospel, Jesus, and all the convolutions he makes in his rending and rendering of Jewish and Christian theology. He just cobbled together a Christian heresy to scam people.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a common problem among Muslim apologists -- they cling to the notion that Islam and Mohammed are perfect, as if the bad things Muslims do never have anything to do with the religious ideology they follow.
In this case, he's overlooking the racism in Islam's core texts.
Antisemitism is the most common form of racism found in the Quran and Hadith, by far. A handful of examples below. Mohammed accused Jews of betraying Allah, murdering prophets, and scheming against Jesus. The Hadith legends built on that with further accusations and insults.
What's less well-known is that the Hadith also contains hints of anti-black racism. Insulting black people's looks ("head like a raisin") and the enslavement of black people were already around back then.
When we cite Quran verses that show bad things (e.g. slavery, rape, wife-beating, homophobia, antisemitism), apologists say we don't understand them properly because we haven't studied them "in context". So, let's talk about context and why it matters -- because it actually does.
The context of the Quran is that Mohammed, a cult leader, preached sermons to (A) establish the fiction of his prophethood and (B) get whatever particular thing he wanted at a given time. Akin to a politician's tweets. Except Mohammed pretended they were Allah's speech.
Once you understand that context, you can unravel the scam and see where he wanted to achieve something petty (e.g. getting rid of his dinner guests). Where he drew from older texts and legends (e.g. the Alexander Romance and non-canonical gospels). Where he lied to libel Jews.
The Hadith collections aren't historically reliable. To begin with, there's all the stuff about splitting moons and making trees walk and so forth. But even beyond that sort of supernatural mythology, many historians are now sceptical about even their basic historical claims.
For example, Mohammed's "Meccan" opponents probably weren't polytheistic pagan idol-worshippers. They were more likely fellow monotheists who disagreed with him about the role of angels and angel intercession. Which, side note, is pretty funny when you consider that many...
...present-day Muslims call upon Mohammed for intercession. They're doing the exact same "shirk" Mohammed probably flipped out on the "Meccans" for. But setting that aside, historians don't even agree on whether Mohammed was ever actually in Mecca. If he wasn't, that's another...
That's the key thing. When Muslim fundamentalists howl for blasphemy bans, they want to peddle their harmful rubbish unopposed. They can preach falsehoods about Mohammed and the Quran, the same falsehoods that persuade people to join ISIS, but we can't tell the truth about them.
For example, consider what Asia Bibi was accused of and sentenced to death for. It was a false accusation. Her real "crime" was drinking from a cup Muslims use. But the lie's still instructive. They accused her of saying Jesus brought good to humanity, and Mohammed didn't.
Regardless of how you feel about Jesus or comparative theology or whatever else, that would've been a perfectly valid thing for a Christian to argue. Or a non-Christian, for that matter. It's an entirely reasonable belief. But supposedly uttering it almost got her killed.
Well, mocking the rest is also free speech -- that's what a lot of (e.g.) stand-up comedy is based on. But setting that aside, these things are fundamentally different. Black people, gay people, and women are human beings. Islam's a set of ideas and claims.
It's the difference between trashing young-Earth creationism for its falsity and opposition to all serious science vs. harassing and abusing a creationist in the street. The former's fine. The latter isn't. People have rights, whereas your beliefs and claims don't.
Furthermore, the central claims of orthodox Islam deserve particular attention, criticism, and mockery for a few reasons.
1) They make assertions about our cosmic fate. If Islam's true, most of us are going to be tortured for all eternity. So it's in our interest to examine it.
It's why I usually refer to "fundamentalists" or "fanatics" rather than, say, "extremists" or "radicals". Rejecting the Quran's origin myth would, in a context of Islam, be "extreme". But I fully support it. Whereas I don't support the fundamentals that underpin orthodox Islam.
You sometimes see non-Muslims (apostates or otherwise) refer to "true Islam" or "proper Islam", just as orthodox Muslims do. But I don't find that particularly useful. Besides, what's "proper Islam"? The supernatural claims Mohammed made weren't...
...true, to begin with. Established, mainstream historical scholarship is that the Quran's of human rather than extraterrestrial origin. It's no more from beyond this world than the pyramids, even if more people believe one false claim than the other. But even if we set that...