The other day, I posted a video critiquing Franklin Graham for calling Islam a very evil and wicked religion. The gist of my response was essentially he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. In short, Christianity emerges from the Jewish religion which includes key founders like Moses, Joshua, and David, all extremely violent men who carried out actions on civilian populations that we would consider war crimes. In addition, David especially has a highly problematic history with women including multiple wives and concubines (including one wife attained by murdering her husband). And David ended his days as an elderly man in bed with a young girl named Abishag who was somehow necessary to keep him warm.
As I said, don’t throw stones at the moral character of Muhammad if you live in a glass house.
One commenter named Thomas replied by conceding that Christianity has had a violent past at times but he insisted that when we contrast Jesus to Muhammad, we see a striking contrast:
“It is true that Christianity has a violent past (and sometimes present). This is because it happened whenever people moved away from Jesus, the founder of Christianity. That is, Christianity is peaceful at its root, because the Lord Jesus was a man of peace. When Christians return to their roots, they cannot remain violent and intolerant. The founder of Islam, on the other hand, was a warlord who had sex slaves, plundered caravans and had people murdered who made fun of him. He spread his religion with the sword. That is why the roots of Islam are not peaceful. Summarized like this: If Christianity wants to become peaceful, it must return to its roots. If Islam wants to become peaceful, it must overcome its roots.”
Thomas went on to expand his point of contrast:
“the Lord Jesus, the root of Christianity is peaceful. In order for many bad things not to happen again, it is the task of a Christian to constantly return to that root.
“On the other hand, the root of Islam is Mohammed and he was not a man of peace but did many terrible things. Therefore, it is the task of peace-loving Muslims to constantly overcome their roots if they want to prevent bad things from happening again.”
I don’t deny that there is an enormously significant contrast between Jesus and Muhammad. In my argument I referred not to Jesus but to Moses, Joshua, and David. And so, I replied to Thomas by pointing out that his view seems to imply “that Jesus had to take his disciples away from the Jewish ‘root’ of Christianity (Moses; Joshua, David) much as you believe Muslims today must take Islam away from the violent roots of Muhammad.”
In short, the dilemma returns. To put it bluntly, the way Thomas has framed the issue places him in danger of Marcionism. Even worse, it also constitutes an even more direct moral indictment of Judaism. Conversely, if he chooses to adopt a nuanced understanding of how Christianity and Judaism both relate to some of the morally ignoble actions of their founders, he should extend that same charity to Islam.
