This is gonna be me talking off the cuff so forgive me for this, but the more I read about Christianity the more I see certain "patterns"/"tropes" in Islam, let me explain: I've just watched InspiringPhilosophy's video on whether or not God sends people to Hell, but to save a 30 minute watch the general idea is God doesn't send people to Hell, but out of their own pride, stubbornness, and love for other things in their life but God, people essentially send themselves into Hell with the analogy being that the gates of Heaven are open but the gates of Hell are locked from the
inside, if I remember correctly there was a post in this thread that said something along these lines. Outside of the parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus, Hell is described as a dark gloomy place akin to Sheol and not as a place of fire, and Jesus consistently uses "fire" as a metaphor in other parables some of which aren't about Hell.
Even in the Book of Revelations, as sinners are being punished for their sins they don't ask for God's mercy nor to repent but instead they curse God much like how modern day atheists refer to Heaven as a "celestial North Korea" or to God as all manner of things such as dictator, tyrant, and so on, and of course all of this is opposed to the popular vision of Hell being a place of fire and brimstone where you are tortured physically for your misdeeds, this last part is especially important so keep it in mind.
With all of this taken into account, it puts into perspective a lot of things that Mohammed wrote down in the Qur'an (Possibly with the aid of demons if he really
was illiterate as is often claimed, but I think he wrote it all by himself with what's coming next). For example: Muhammed constantly describes "Jahannam" i.e Gehenna/Hell as a place of fire, brimstone, eternal torture, and so on, another name for Hell in Islam is even Al-Nar which means
the Fire, the only thing missing him having his enemies be in Hell a la Dante but he kind of implies that when he wrote about Abu Lahab. Another thing Mo' describes in the Qur'an is how sinners/disbelievers will have their faces turn black as opposed to believers who will have theirs turn white on the Judgement Day, and that said disbelievers will beseech God for forgiveness.
Now what Mohammed describes is not the true but unpopular belief of Hell but, what is even today, a popular misconception of what Hell is. Even his description of what will happen on the Day of Judgement is that of a layman, where sinners would
obviously ask God for mercy instead of cursing him! The more and more you look, the more you realize that Mohammed was writing down the popular idea of Hell, not what Hell actually is, which fits in quite nicely with other details about his life when you realize he was a wandering merchant who would've obviously interacted with the various Jewish tribes around Mecca such as those of Khaybar, Medina, and Bani Qurayza and who would've had passing knowledge of Christianity from local Christians and stories from the Ghassanids (Who were Arab Christians on the Byzantine borderlands).
Soon enough, you start noticing more and more details that are less the revealed truth of God upon an illiterate merchant, and more a lay person's popular misconceptions about the Bible: Pharoah is explicitly stated to have drowned unlike Exodus where it's left unclear (Said Pharoah was likely Rameses III), Mohammed thinking the Gospel (And perhaps the Bible, depending on definition) was one book, and the Trinity being Mary, the Son, and the Father. These are all ideas you could logically if you had a passing idea of what's contained in the Bible and even ones that some Christians hold to this day, mainly the Pharoah drowning bit.
The most poignant point I believe is that while Islam makes sense in terms of broad strokes, it falls apart once you get into details. Take, for example, the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus; It perfectly fits into the prophecy of the suffering servant from Isaiah, it's what the whole life of Jesus has been building up to and his been foreshadowing ("No greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his friends"), and in the end it represents the triumph of God and as a showcase of his mercy and forgiveness. In Islam? A passing mention that the crucifixion appeared to have happened to those present but that Jesus was actually raised into Heaven alive. Now if you don't know too much about Christianity or don't think too hard into it, you might say "Makes sense" but even put two-and-two together and it collapses in on itself, here are some bulletpoints:
- If Jesus was raised into Heaven alive, who was on the Cross and accepted the penitent thief, said the sayings, was brought down, and buried?
Muslim Scholars after Mohammed had to present cope explanations for this, from the ironically Gnostic belief that it was Judas on the cross instead of Jesus (Which opens up a whole other can of worms over who hung himself at the field purchased with the 30 coins) or that it simply was an apparition to fool everyone. Why would God do this when he could just save Jesus, bring him down from the Cross, destroy the Temple and rebuild it in 3 days? Beats Mohammed, he probably didn't think about it too hard.
- Why did none of Jesus' original 12 Apostles contest the claim that Jesus was the Son of God if according to Islam he was simply a prophet and even prophesized that a prophet named "Ahmed" (kek) would come after him?
From my own experiences, there is no comeback which tackles this in a satisfying fashion, Islamic laity will try to change the subject because they don't know or claim that the Bible is fabricated (Which again, even more questions), and I assume Da'wah types would shift the blame onto Paul which is in any case thoroughly explained by Christian apologetics.
- Who then rose from Jesus' grave, who met the Apostles, whose wound did Thomas thrust his hand into, and who forgave Peter and who ascended to Heaven?
In this case, I'd assume both the laity and the Da'wah types would just default to "None of that happened" despite the can of worms which that opens in terms of implications,
Even in the Qur'an, there are elements borrowed straight from Gnosticism or late Christian stories, on the Gnostic side of things, Jesus turns clay birds into actual birds which I believe is taken straight from one of the apocryphal Gnostic Secret Gospels. However the closest thing you can get to a smoking gun when it comes to the realm of elements that Mohammed borrowed and shoved into the Qur'an is the folk story of the "Companions of the Cave", which is 5-6th century story of a non-descript number of Christians who take refuge in a cave during (If I'm not wrong) the Diocletianic persecutions along with a dog and sleep for 200-300 years. Mind you, this story is mentioned nowhere pre-Constantine and by its nature as a folk story would've likely been passed around many times by the laity from Byzantium to Arabia and eventually reaching Mohammed who would include it in the Qur'an for whatever reason.
It really is baffling how much the composition of the Qur'an makes sense when you look at it from the perspective of a skeptic and not a believer, when you take things with a grain of salt instead of conjuring up explanations, copes, and engaging in mental gymnastics. With all this taken into account, you're ultimately left with two possibilities:
A. Mohammed was a man going through a midlife crisis who was literate and went up into a cave in the mountains around Mecca to meditate and wanted to get some action in his life.
OR
B. Mohammed was a man was deceived by a demon during one of his meditations in a cave in the mountains around Mecca and who, once he realized that LARPing as Jesus by peacefully preaching wasn't working out, took up raiding and indulged in his vices and eventually won out.
OR
C. Either of the above but he was mentally ill and deluded himself over time.
tl;dr?
I really, really don't like Mo.
(R)Ed(d)it: Spelling
