Islam and Christianity: Concepts of God's Identity
Revisited

------------------------

In 2003 in response to a reporter's question, President George W. Bush said that he believed Muslims and Christians "worship the same God." Criticism from both Christians and Muslims quickly followed.  Many, in both camps, thought that President Bush was being politically correct at the expense of theological accuracy.

In our Politically Correct culture, many have sacrificed basic logic for a misguided concept of toleration. In a free society, it is imperative for people to be allowed to disagree.  To simply disagree about one thing or another is not the same thing as being intolerant.

In fact, some people’s concept of toleration today is anything but tolerant. For example, some who take the position that the God of Islam and the God of Christianity are not the same God have unhappily discovered that they often receive very intolerant responses by some so-called “tolerant” people. These “tolerant” people seem to miss the fact that in telling others that they have no right to hold the position they do, they themselves are being intolerant of the other persons’ position.

Of course, one can sympathize, or, at minimum, understand, this knee-jerk, politically correct response.  After all, over the years, many well-meaning religious people (including both Christians and Muslims, and many other devotees of most other religions as well) have indeed been intolerant in the name of their God or gods. Sometimes their intolerance has culminated in the senseless slaughter of innocent people. The infamous 9-11 attack and some of the early Christian Crusades depict this quite well.

Nonetheless, it is possible to methodically delineate the logical, philosophical, and theological reasons why one believes that these two religions do not worship the same God without being disparaging, derogatory, belittling, or intolerant. In this Coffee Talk, the main point is not to say that one religion is right and one is wrong.  The thesis is simply this: Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God *.

Toleration
With regard to Islam and Christianity, there seems, especially lately, to be ideas that have confused the concepts of "toleration" and "identity." While it is right to tolerate various theological and ideological concepts in a free society, that toleration should not be confused with identity. Furthermore, toleration should not be confused with mindless conformity and acceptance.

First, it is important to simply explain what toleration is and what it is not. Toleration is the “Official recognition of the rights of individuals and groups to hold dissenting opinions, especially on religion ("Toleration” American Heritage® Dictionary, Internet). The two key points here are (1) recognition of the rights of individuals and groups and (2) dissenting opinions. Furthermore, “The term ‘toleration’ . . . generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still ‘tolerable,’ such that they should not be prohibited or constrained” (“Toleration” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet). And, last, The Catholic Encyclopedia says it as well as any:  “By religious toleration is understood the magnanimous indulgence which one shows towards a religion other than his own, accompanied by the moral determination to leave it and its adherents unmolested in private and public, although internally one views it with complete disapproval as a 'false faith'” (New Advent, Internet). Also, Aristotle’s statement sums up this concept quite well: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

However, far from these correct views and definitions of toleration, many today have so abused the word that it has taken on a pseudo-meaning; it has been redefined not only to imply but explicitly to state that all moral values, all beliefs, all lifestyles, and all truth claims are equal.  There is no “false faith.” All are good. All are equal. Furthermore, to many of the self-appointed  “keepers” of the Politically-Correct lexicon, if one should deny this pseudo-meaning, such a person is labeled intolerant and is worthy of their contempt and exclusion, which is, ironically, the very definition of intolerance.

In spite of the confusion about the term toleration, we can see logically what it really means by simply thinking of the fact that we have heard of people who have a high tolerance for pain. The point of such a statement is obvious: the person in question is able to endure pain. This is the ordinary way that we use the word toleration.  This is helpful for us to understand the idea of toleration. This ordinary understanding of the word toleration highlights the fact that toleration is something held by a person toward something else (person, beliefs, etc.) that he perceives as negative. It would be absurd to say that a person has a high tolerance for what he believes in, or that he has a high tolerance for what he favors.  With this in mind, we can define toleration as that which involves three interrelated conditions: “When an agent tolerates something: (1) He holds a negative judgment about this thing; (2) He has the power to negate this thing; and (3) He deliberately refrains from negation” (“Toleration” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet).

So, I can (and should) tolerate the free exercise of other religious perspectives in our free society. Likewise, in our free society, others can (and should) tolerate my free exercise of my religious perspectives. However, while I can (and should) believe that all people are worthy of respect, and I can (and should) believe that all people have the right to every aspect of human dignity, I do not have to believe that their “God” and my “God” are the same God. Likewise, neither should others be compelled to sacrifice their intellectual integrity and be forced to believe that my “God” and their “God” are the same God. We can, in true toleration, signified by the respect of one another’s human dignity, simply disagree. This is neither bigoted nor narrow-minded. In fact, differences of opinion and true toleration coupled with the individual human rights to openly disagree have been the very bedrock for learning and growth throughout man’s history. For example, if a child’s silly notions based on his or her extremely limited knowledge were always accepted as equal to all other truth claims, the child would never learn. None of us in this society really believes that we should allow children to simply and helplessly flounder in their ignorance.  In fact, most would see this sort of “toleration” as immoral.  What, then, is the “magic age” when we stop challenging people with truth claims that we believe would actually help them?  Do we stop challenging people’s beliefs when they reach 6 years old?  Do we stop attempting to help people truly understand the facts of life when they are 12?  21? 50? Who sets the age limit?  And, what topics are fair game about which to disagree and which are not?

Is it all right for a person with a PhD in mathematics to correct a child’s mathematical calculations, or is that intolerant? How about correcting an adult’s calculations?  And, while it seems perfectly acceptable for a PhD in theology to challenge and correct a child’s ideas of God in a Sunday school class, when does it become intolerant? Is it when the PhD corrects an adult’s theological concepts? Or, is one topic (mathematics) fair game while the other (theology) is taboo?  If so, why? And, if so, who sets these rules? If a novice carpenter is building a house that is structurally unsound, does not the architectural engineer actually demonstrate positive concern by challenging the person’s building technique?  Or, is he or she being intolerant of the novice carpenter’s “beliefs” on how to build a structurally safe home?

While I can (and morally should) accept others who disagree with me as my co-workers, neighbors, friends, and relatives, and show them due respect as human beings, I do not have to accept their religious perspectives as being correct any more than an architectural engineer has to accept the idea that the house built by the novice carpenter is structurally sound. Toleration does not require me to blindly accept the idea that a Muslim and I worship the same God, nor am I required to accept Islam as being spiritually compatible with Christianity. Likewise, neither are Muslims required to blindly accept the idea that Christians and they worship the same God, nor are they required to accept Christianity as being spiritually compatible with Islam. What is truly intolerant is forcing people with mutually differing and distinctive perspectives to deny those perspectives for some dubious concept neo-unity.

A difference of theological opinion is not intolerance.  Intolerance would be to demand all to believe as I do or die, or vice versa. It is not opinions that make bigots; it is forcing others to conform to one’s opinion that makes bigots. As Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, (1742–1799), has said: “Don't judge a man by his opinions, but what his opinions have made of him” (Lichtenberg, Internet).

However, despite the mutually differing viewpoints about God between Islam and Christianity, many people of various religious backgrounds are now attempting to say that these are in reality the same viewpoints. This is simply irrational and theological bumbling.

In the American, politically correct world, even many well-meaning Christians who correctly desire to treat all people with dignity and respect do not comprehend the magnitude to which the politically correct ideology has infiltrated their thinking. If one starts with the premise that it is not politically correct to “exclude” anyone in any area for any reason and that all ideologies are equally good, right, and true, then it follows that one must somehow make allowances for all people in every religious category. So, shall such religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, Asatru, Hare Krishna, Jehovah's Witnesses, Wicca, et al, be included in the “same God” category of Christianity and Islam?  If not, why? The same right of differences of opinions that would disallow these religions as part of the “same God” category should likewise be extended to Islam and Christianity. 

Think for just one moment: all of the text books for World Religions classes go to great pains to delineate the distinct characteristics of the various world religions. 

Yet, now it seems that we are being told that we should simply throw wide-open the “toleration doors” so that all religions can come together as one large lump of homogenized spirituality.

If we were to do that, however, the “God” that that would emerge from such a homogenized spirituality would be a confused, blended “God” with no distinct qualities that identifies him (it) as either the God of Islam or the God Christianity. This homogenized, blended God would be a religiosity monstrosity.

It may come as a surprise to some that many (most?) Muslims agree with the basic thesis of this Coffee Talk; that is, Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God. This thesis is certainly not a “Christian only” belief.  The belief behind this statement is not limited to so-called “irrational and intolerant” Christians. Muslim Hava Lazarus-Yafeh states:

. . . Muslim authors could neither accept nor understand the dogmas of Christianity, which they viewed with greater suspicion than those of Judaism. Muslim authors sometimes even depicted Christianity as being a false, concocted opposite of Judaism: And they [the Christians] saw that the Jews believed Jesus was a mad magician [sdhir, madjnan] and a bastard, so they said: "He is God perfect and the son of God"; and they saw that all the Jews were being circumcised so they dropped circumcision completely; and they noted that the Jews exaggerated the laws of purification, so they abandoned them altogether; and they saw the Jews refraining from eating or touching and sleeping with a menstruating woman-so they permitted to sleep with her; and they took notice of their prohibition of [the meat of] swines, so they made it lawful food and even started to regard it as the symbol [shi'dr] of their religion; and they saw them refraining from much of slaughtered meat and [many] animals, so they made it lawful [to eat] everything that is smaller than an elephant even unto a mosquito [ma dana-1-fil ila-1-ba'ada] and said: "just eat what you wish and leave what you wish-no objection"; and they saw the Jews facing Jerusalem in their prayer, so they started facing the east. . . and they saw them keep the Sabbath, so they chose Sunday, and desecrated the Sabbath, although they admitted that the Messiah [al-masih] glorified the Sabbath and kept [its laws] (Lazarus-Yafeh 63).

Then, there is this interesting statement from the Qur'an, Chapter 3: “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good)” (Qur'an, Internet). And, there are numerous other statements within Islam that clearly indicate that they do not consider the God of Islam and the God of Christianity to be the same. The Qur'an emphatically teaches that Allah considers the doctrine of the Trinity to be a great falsehood. The Qur'an states:

"(Allah) the Most Merciful has begotten a son!" Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, that they should invoke a son for (Allah) the Most Merciful. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) the Most Merciful that He should beget a son: Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) the Most Merciful as a servant (“Ten Misconceptions About Islam,” Internet).

Next, David Noss makes this clear in his statement that:

In the famous Muslim creedal formula the first part reads: la ilaha illa Allah, (There is) no god but God. This is the most important declaration in the Muslim iman (articles of faith). No statement seemed to Muhammad more fundamental than the declaration that God is one, and no sin seemed to him so unpardonable as associating another being with God on terms of equality. The Arabian idolaters who worshipped many gods and goddesses were obviously guilty of this sin of sins, but also were any Christians who said, “God is the third of three” (Noss 540).

Now, obviously this is a clumsy representation of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, but the Muslim point is still clear: to believe that God is a triune being is to have the wrong God, i.e., the Christian God is not the same being as the Muslim God. This in itself is not bigotry on their part; it is, rather, a difference of opinion as to the identity of God.

A Fundamental Breakdown in Christian Theology
A Christian missionary to Muslims had just announced to a group of Christians (of which I was a part) that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. To this statement, I responded: “It takes a fundamental breakdown in Christian theology to believe that.”  However, it should be noted that it also takes a fundamental breakdown in Islamic theology to believe that, as we have just seen from the quotes above. Furthermore, if this missionary truly believed that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, why was he a missionary to Muslims?  There is no need to convert those who already believe in the right God. Thus, his missionary efforts are superfluous at best, and radically confusing and socially divisive at worst.

Basic Discernment
It is an elemental act of discernment that keeps the identity of these "two Gods" from being confused and undergoing some sort of metaphysical metamorphosis into a single Supreme Being. Again, this is not an issue of religious bigotry; it is an issue of discerning the most fundamental distinctions using logic and theology. Some have problems with the word “discern” or “discernment.” It is sometimes considered a lofty representation of a deep ability to reach into our inner being and somehow mystically pull out the nebulous ability to qualify items for inconsequential and insignificant classifications. However, the word discern is simply not that esoteric. Its definition and application are really quite pedestrian. It means simply to perceive or recognize as being different or distinct; to distinguish. So, discernment is not some nebulous, mystical ability that is subject to all sorts of debate and review. Those who need to debate and review before they can conclude that a fish and a frog are different are being either incredibly boorish or incredibly stupid. Discernment is the basic (instinctual) ability to distinguish between things. The two words "discernment" and "distinguish" are synonymous terms.

It’s really simple. Things that are not alike differ from one another in some ways . . . two of those ways are (1) essential elements, and (2) constructs.

Logic and Chemistry
An illustration may be helpful here: A 2' x 6' sheet of metal is not the same thing as a 2' x 6' sheet of plywood. These two sheets have the same construct (size and dimensions) but they differ in their essential elements (metal and wood). However, two sheets of plywood may differ in construct (size) but not element. But, even when two sheets of plywood differ only in construct (size), it is a simple act of discernment to distinguish between the two. It does not take a genius to know that a 2' x 2' sheet of plywood is not the same thing as a 2' x 6' sheet of plywood.

It seems foolish to even have to say this but if two things (compounds) have all the same elements except one, they are not the same compounds. In other words, one small, essential element makes two things different.

Discerning the Constructs: A Sample of CO and CO2
Consider CO and CO2. In this sample, the elements are the same but the constructs differ. Compare carbon monoxide (CO) with carbon dioxide (CO2). Note the one element difference is not even in the essential element but in the construct: CO and CO2. These small molecules only differ by the number of oxygen atoms.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is what we exhale from our lungs and is the source of bubbles in pop, beer, and champagne. It is non-toxic.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a product of incomplete combustion, e.g., when something burns and there is limited air or oxygen like the fumes that come out of a car's tailpipe. It is extremely toxic.

So, while we can inhale large quantities of CO2 in the bubbles in pop, beer, and champagne with little or no effect, it is deadly to inhale large quantities of CO in the fumes from your car's exhaust.

Discerning the Elements: A Sample of CO2 and SiO2
Now consider CO2 and SiO2. In this sample (which is in reverse of the CO and CO2 above) the construct is the same but the elements differ. Remember the carbon dioxide (CO2) above? Well, using the same construct, we will change one of the elements: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless nontoxic gas and is the source of bubbles in pop, beer, and champagne. But, Silicon dioxide (SiO2) is a solid and is insoluble in water. In fact, it is sand.

Note the difference is only the first element. In CO2 the first element is Carbon. In SiO2 the first element is Silicon. Just that one elemental difference makes an extreme difference between a non-toxic gas and sand.

The point so far is this: if two things have different elements or constructs, then they are certainly not the same thing. For example H2O and H2O are the same thing. And, H2S and H2S are the same thing. But H2O and H2S are not the same thing, and it's just as simple as that.

Is the number 3 the same thing as the number 1?
If an object has three elemental components and another object has only one elemental component, who would think that the two items were the same? Yet, when people talk of God, they somehow think that they can leave these most basic elements of logic behind. The problem is that when one leaves logic behind, one can make anything out of (or into) anything.

Following logic and chemistry let us use "formula labels" for the two Gods of Christianity and Islam; this will help us see how they differ.

Discerning the Constructs: D1P3 and D1P1

D1P3: The Christian God is D1P3.
D1 stands for the fact that God is One Substance. He is divine (or divinity). So, the Christian God has only one substance. The Christian God is also P3. P3 stands for the fact that God consists of (i.e., construct) Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, the Christian God is (D1P3) One Substance (essential element) + Three Persons (construct).

D1P1: The Islamic God is D1P1.
D1 stands for the fact that God is One Substance. He is divine (or divinity). So, the Islamic God has only one substance. The Islamic God is P1. P1 stands for the fact that the Islamic God consists of only One Person. Thus, the Islamic God is (D1P1) One Substance (essential element) + One Person (construct).

The difference between D1P3 and D1P1 is obvious and easily discerned. These two “Gods” are no more the same as are H2O (water) and H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide), which also have the same essential element but differ only in construct.

Let's Turn to Theology
Now, some might attempt to rationalize and argue that since there is only one true God anyway, no matter what a person thinks he is worshiping (D1P3 or D1P1), then that person is actually worshiping the one true God; he just calls him by a different name (Allah or God) or has a different idea of His essence or construct (D1P1 or D1P3). This argument might have had some weight if Christians had not concluded, formalized, and codified their theology to argue and advocate that the Christian God is precisely D1P3. And, the Muslims have likewise concluded, formalized, and codified their theology to argue and advocate that the Islam God is precisely D1P1. Neither religion has left open for debate the construct (P3 and P1) of God. It is simply a matter or the most fundamental discernment to see that D1P3 and D1P1 is not the same thing. Since Muslims vehemently deny that Jesus is part of the Godhead, something that Christians vehemently affirm, then, again, it is a matter or the most elemental discernment to see that these two are not the same God. In fact, their identities of who God is could not be more different.

Next, the Second Person of the D1P3 himself made this bold declaration: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). This is something that Christians believe and that Muslims deny. Understand this: for the Christian there is no worship of God without the worship of His begotten Son as deity. For the Muslim there is no worship of God that includes the worship of Jesus as God’s begotten Son, who himself is deity. For the Christian, to deny God’s begotten Son as deity is sin. For the Muslim, to accept God’s begotten Son as deity is sin. (Or, to even accept the idea that God has begotten a son is sin.)

So, to say that Christians and Muslims worship the same God — when Muslims deny the Triune God (D1P3) and the deity of Jesus Christ while Christians affirm the Triune God (D1P3) and the deity of Jesus Christ — is to have a most fundamental breakdown in both logic and theology (of both faiths). To claim that the Christians’ Triune God and the Islamic anti- Triune God are one and the same is to nullify the doctrine of God for both Christians and Muslims.

It is Really Elemental
We discern between things all the time with relative ease, but some seem to “get mystical” when it comes to discerning who God is. For example, a Big Mac is not an apple, and anyone with the ability to see, smell, touch, or taste can discern the difference. And, if an object has three elemental components and another object has only one elemental component, then these two objects are not the same thing.
            Black is not white and east is not west.
            Trees are not rocks and dogs are not cats.
            D1P3 (the Christian God) is not D1P1 (the Islamic God), and vice versa.
It really is that simple.

A Rudimentary Understanding of the Trinity
It is understandable that someone who is ignorant of theology (e.g., President George W. Bush) may make a fundamental error concerning the identity of God. One would not expect a non-Christian or even a young Christian to be able to point out the essential differences between the God of Islam and the God of Christianity. But, those who have been Christians or Muslims for years should at least know the basic essence of whom it is that they claim to worship.

Without prejudice or animosity, one can simply state that there is a basic philosophical difference between the simple, undivided unity of Islamic monotheism and the complex, trinitarian unity of Christian monotheism. In essence it is this: the Christian God has a construct of three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Islamic God has a construct of one solitary person. And, 3 and 1 are not the same thing, not philosophically, not logically, and not theologically. Christians accept Jesus as the Second Person of the Triune God. Muslims neither accept Jesus in this capacity, nor do they accept the identity of a Triune God. These two theological concepts are irreconcilable.

While the element of the Islamic God and the Christian God is the same, i.e., Deity, the construct is radically different, i.e., the undivided unity of Islamic monotheism and the complex, trinitarian unity of Christian monotheism.

D1P3 is not the same as D1P1.
Certainly the D1 of both Islam and Christianity is the same, but the P1 and P3 are not the same. So, while the element is the same, the construct is radically different. The difference between in D1P3 and D1P1 is obvious and only a politically correct agenda can ignore the basic facts of this obvious distinction in the name of some forced concept of unity and a misunderstanding of the word “toleration.”

Concluding Remarks
To conclude, let us end with two quotes: one from the Bible and one from the Qur'an, and let the reader discern if there is any fundamental difference in the God of Islam and the God of Christianity:

“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad) He is God the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone” (Quran, Chapter 112).

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16, New King James Version)

While some might like to attempt to reconcile these two opposing statements, let us take them at face value. The Christian God has begotten a Son, who is himself deity. The Islamic God has not begotten a Son, the idea of which is an abomination to them. Are these, then, the same God?

In a pluralistic society, such as we live in, we truly need to respect and tolerate differing view points. However, homogenizing the God of Islam and the God of Christianity obliterates the differences. And, I think Stephen Prothero—the chair of Boston University's Department of Religion—stated it well when he said:

Coming at the problem of religion from the angle of difference rather than similarity is scary. But the world is what it is. And both tolerance and respect are empty virtues until we actually understand whatever it is we are supposed to be tolerating or respecting (Prothero, "True or False").

When people promote the idea that Christianity and Islam worship the same God, they do so from the basis of political correctness, and they are not discerning the elemental differences between the two. Any construct of “God” without Jesus as the second person of the Godhead is not the God of Christianity. Any construct of “God” with Jesus as the second person of the Godhead is not the God of Islam.

===========================================================

* In keeping with the non-polemic nature of this Coffee Talk, all references to the term “God,” will have the upper case “G.”

References

Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph (1742 - 1799). The Quotations Page, 1994-2007. 2 July 2007 <www.quotationspage.com/subjects/opinions>

Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava. “Some Neglected Aspects of Medieval Muslim Polemics against Christianity.” The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 89, No. 1. (Jan., 1996), pp. 61-84.

New Advent. “Religious Toleration” The Catholic Encyclopedia. 2007. 2 July 2007 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm>

Noss, David S., A History of World's Religions (10th Edition). Prentice Hall, 1999.

Prothero, Stephen. "True or False: The Major Religions Are Essentially Alike," Newsweek, Inc., 2-9 July 2007 <www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19389350/site/newsweek>

Qur'an, Soorah Aal'imraan 3:85. University of Southern California, USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts. 8 July 2007 <www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.085>

Sanneh, Lamin. "Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?" Christian Century. May 4, 2004 <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058 /is_9_121/ai_n6173725>

“Ten Misconceptions About Islam.” University of Southern California, USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts. 8 July 2007 <http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/ misconceptions.html>

“Toleration” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000 <http://www.bartleby.com/61/34/T0253400.html>

“Toleration” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006 <www.iep.utm.edu/t/tolerati.htm>

“Toleration” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration>