Is the Christian God the same as the Islamic god?

[Protestant]

This question recently came up with some associates of mine. I had used the term "Allah" in a discussion and I was ganged up on by their justification that the Christian God was the same as Allah. They asked me to prove my point and I never realized that I really had no justification for why I believed they were different. My only justification was that Jesus preached that only by believing him could anyone hope to achieve salvation and I thought it made no sense that "God" would send another guy 600 years later. But a fellow brother was around and he was able to defend my point by this justification.

God
A Triune God
Filled with grace

Allah
NOT a Triune god
Not filled with grace

Would you agree?

[PaulSacramento]

More correctly to say that the Christian understanding of God is not the same as the Islamic one.
Same God, yes, the God of Abraham, but Christians have a very different understanding of God's nature and what God wants for Us and Of Us.

[RickD]

The muslim god is unitarian, isn't he.
The God of the bible, is Trinitarian.

The Muslim God has no son.
The God of the bible, is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

That alone, shows me that they're two different Gods.

[Ivellious]

But Rick, both your description and Protestant's both mean that Christians and Jews don't worship the same God. The Jewish God is Unitarian and has no son either. Yet, most Christians won't hesitate to tell you that they worship the same God as the Jews.

Personally I'd say that Paul is closest to my belief; that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God, albeit in greatly differing ways and with different understandings.

[RickD]

But Rick, both your description and Protestant's both mean that Christians and Jews don't worship the same God. The Jewish God is Unitarian and has no son either. Yet, most Christians won't hesitate to tell you that they worship the same God as the Jews.

Personally I'd say that Paul is closest to my belief; that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God, albeit in greatly differing ways and with different understandings.

Thats a great point, Ivellious. But, I don't go by what "most" Christians say. I would say that Jehovah's witnesses don't believe in the same God as Christians, because they don't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. Muslims, don't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, either. Do Jews believe in the deity of Jesus Christ?
There's your answer.
Look at the story of Saul of Tarsus. He was a Jew. After his run in with Jesus, he saw Jesus for who Jesus really is.
The way Christians tell if someone is a true believer, is by who they say Jesus is.
1 John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

Christians know one name by which we must be saved. Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

[Jac3510]

I'm on Paul's side here, but let me offer some detail. I think we need to be more careful here. On what basis do we decide if two entities are the same thing? In other words, we need to agree on a theory of names before we can answer this question.

A common view is what is called a descriptive theory of names. On [url=http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/spr2010/entries/reference/]this view, “a proper name . . . refers via the descriptive content associated (by the speaker) with that name. This descriptive content is thought to uniquely determine the name's referent." So "the Christian God" would be something like "The Triune Being that sent Jesus into the world to die for sin," whereas Allah would be something like "the God that commissioned Mohammad to take His message into the world."

Now, I reject that view for reasons I won't go into here. My own view is that names are words that represent ideas or concepts, and that ideas or concepts are necessarily associated with certain realities. So suppose I have the concept of a tree. I attribute certain things to it. It is made of wood, has leaves, is a plant, etc. Now suppose an ancient Israelite thinks of the same thing I am. He uses the word ets to describe it. Is ets the same thing as "tree"? Yes, because the words reflect identical concepts. But now suppose that I am thinking of this tree, and yet I hold to some wrong ideas about it . . . suppose I think, for instance, that the tree has smooth bark whereas my Israelite friend is thinking of one with rough bark. Are ets and "tree" still identical? Yes. They are. I just may be wrong in my assertion that all trees have smooth bark, or that this particular tree does. In other words, I can have some wrong ideas about a concept (that is, the concept may be imperfectly formed) and still be thinking of the same concept that you are. You may have a better understanding of the concept than I do, but disagreeing on a concepts attributes doesn't mean that we are not thinking of the same thing.

So, when do we say we are no longer thinking of the same thing? Take the word "Herd." I say that, and I am thinking of a flock of animals (say, of elephants). A German says the same word and he is thinking of what we would call a stove! So things words mean different things when the concepts they are attached to are different concepts. But what makes concepts identical? It can't just be a mistake about their attributes, because we've already seen that some mistakes don't qualify as changing the concept. They just mean that we have an unclear view of the concept itself. That is, we are talking about the same concept--one (or both) of us just are mistaken when it comes to some aspect of it.

I would suggest that the answer lies in comparing the things' essential properties. If they are the same, then the two concepts are identical. If they are similar enough that they exclude all other possibilities, then they are at least attempting to be the same thing. So suppose you and I are both thinking about a fruit and we want to know if the fruit we are thinking of is the same thing. I say that mine is essentially round. So is yours! I say mine is essentially sweet. So is yours! I say the peel is essentially smooth. Oh, no . . . yours is essentially fuzzy. It turns out that apples and peaches aren't identical after all. But suppose that your fruit is essentially smooth. But now suppose that I insist mine is essentially red and you that it is essentially green. Well, it turns out that our apples are identical (there are no other smooth, sweet, round fruits (etc.--add enough properties to limit this to a discussion of apples and not, say, grapes); we are both just mistaken. I mistakenly thought that all apples are red, and you mistakenly thought that all apples are green.

So this shows that there is an approximation of essential properties when it comes to trying to decide of two concepts are identical.

How does all this apply to Allah vs. God?

They clearly have many essential attributes in common. Both are divine. Both are the Creator of the universe. Both are to be worshiped, obeyed, etc. Both are eternal, exist a se, are sovereign, etc. But there are things that they do not have in common. One is unitarian, one trinitarian. One was incarnated, the other not, etc. So are they the same or not?

I would suggest that yes, they are, insofar as we are both talking about the eternal, divine Creator of the Universe. The problem, then, is not that we are talking about different gods. It is that one group (or both) has made some false statements about God's nature. And this, I would suggest, is the biblical answer. In Job 42:7, God says, "My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." If wrongly attributing things to God means that we are no longer talking about the same God, then God could not say that they had "not spoken of Me what is right." They would have been speaking of someone else entirely (the god of their own creation!).

So, tl;dr - yes, we are talking about the same God. There is only one God to talk about. The bigger question is this: are we saying what is right about Him. When Muslims and Christians make contradictory claims, which (if either) is correct? Which, that is, is speaking what is right about Him?

edit:

And let me throw a monkey wrench into everything I said above. Suppose that Allah is actually the name taken on by a demon that deceived Muhammad. Then, at least, Muhammad would have been talking about the demon while thinking he was talking about God. For the demon would be shown to be impersonating God. So here, the Muslim is actually talking about a demon though he intends to be talking about God. So intention is not sufficient to establish identity. The more important question is the reality itself we are talking about. Thus, in addition to the philosophical analysis provided above, it seems a historical analysis can help answer this question as well.

In other words . . . it's complicated.

[RickD]

And let me throw a monkey wrench into everything I said above. Suppose that Allah is actually the name taken on by a demon that deceived Muhammad. Then, at least, Muhammad would have been talking about the demon while thinking he was talking about God. For the demon would be shown to be impersonating God. So here, the Muslim is actually talking about a demon though he intends to be talking about God. So intention is not sufficient to establish identity. The more important question is the reality itself we are talking about. Thus, in addition to the philosophical analysis provided above, it seems a historical analysis can help answer this question as well.

This is true, Jac. At least I believe Allah is a demon masquerading as the creator of the universe. So, Allah is not God. Allah is a wolf in sheeps clothing. If I saw a wolf in sheeps clothing, and you saw a sheep, they would be pretty similar descriptions. But, obviously they're both not sheep.

Now, let me throw in a monkey wrench. Allah can mean God. My argument is that the Allah, that muhammad, and the koran describe, isn't the same as the God of the bible. That's not to say all Arabs that worship Allah, worship that Allah.

[Jac3510]

Assuming Allah is a demon, Rick, you would be correct (I've seen some arguments for that. I'm undecided). But you would have to admit, using that argument, that they believe that they are talking about the same God. So just appealing to one being Triune and the other Unitarian (for instance) is not sufficient in this case, for that would not even work to show that they did not believe they were talking about the same God, much less that they actually aren't.

[narnia4]

Job 42:7 is a good verse to quote here, I think.

The way I see it, part of the problem I see is (and unless I'm mistaken someone mentioned this in the past) that it becomes difficult to know where to draw the line. You could argue that anyone who is mistaken in one small detail (or larger detail) is worshiping an entirely different God. Either William Lane Craig, CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, or Francis Schaeffer could be right, but only one of them could worship the real God... unless they were all wrong in some detail, and chances are that unless you're omniscient (and as far as I'm aware none of those four figures were) you aren't going to know all the details and you'll probably have some misconceptions.

But chances are nobody would take things that far and obviously the Christian God vs. the Islamic God is a more extreme example and maybe a tougher question. Given that verse in Job and others, I would say yes, at least in some sense. I'm afraid linguistic theory isn't something I'm overly familiar with yet. Also have some theological commitments that persuades me to believe that man does have some natural knowledge of God. They understand some of His attributes on a basic level, but they can also attribute things to God that are not in his nature.

[Philip]

they (Muslims) believe that they are talking about the same God

Yep, that's an accurate statement - they THINK they are talking about the same God.

But, as most of us know, merely BELIEVING in God is not enough. And the Christian God DEMANDS that we repent to, accept and commit to/follow ALL that He is - meaning Father/Son/Spirit and believe in Jesus' Resurrection. True OT believers were saved by the very same God, it's just that they had not yet been made aware of ALL of the persons within God, details about Jesus, etc. - knowledge that would only come later. So to reject Jesus, or to not believe He is God, or to disbelieve the Resurrection (as Muslims do), means to not accept God as He really is and ALL that He is. No one can be saved that is in rejection of ANY part of What/Who makes God, God. To reject any PART of God (Father/Son/Spirit), is to also reject God Himself. You can't get your faith in God just partially right - certainly not when it comes to Who He is within His Trinity.

[RickD]

Assuming Allah is a demon, Rick, you would be correct (I've seen some arguments for that. I'm undecided). But you would have to admit, using that argument, that they believe that they are talking about the same God. So just appealing to one being Triune and the other Unitarian (for instance) is not sufficient in this case, for that would not even work to show that they did not believe they were talking about the same God, much less that they actually aren't.

Jac, I made the point to distinguish a trinitarian God, and a unitarian God, to show that in each, there's a different Jesus. In one(trinitarian), Jesus is The son of God, the second person of the trinity, and God Himself. In the other(Unitarian), Jesus was a prophet, a great teacher, not the son of God, and not God. While one may say he believes in the same God, by denying that Christ is God, they deny who God is, and therefore, don't believe in God as He is, but believe in a god of their own making.

[Ivellious]

Philip: I would never say that they are worshiping the same God in a way that a Christian would accept as "worthy of being saved." But as you say, Jews do not accept the resurrection of Christ or that Christ was divine. They clearly do not get saved any more than a Muslim on that fact alone.

[Jac3510]

they (Muslims) believe that they are talking about the same God

Yep, that's an accurate statement - they THINK they are talking about the same God.

But, as most of us know, merely BELIEVING in God is not enough. And the Christian God DEMANDS that we repent to, accept and commit to/follow ALL that He is - meaning Father/Son/Spirit and believe in Jesus' Resurrection. True OT believers were saved by the very same God, it's just that they had not yet been made aware of ALL of the persons within God, details about Jesus, etc. - knowledge that would only come later. So to reject Jesus, or to not believe He is God, or to disbelieve the Resurrection (as Muslims do), means to not accept God as He really is and ALL that He is. No one can be saved that is in rejection of ANY part of What/Who makes God, God. To reject any PART of God (Father/Son/Spirit), is to also reject God Himself. You can't get your faith in God just partially right - certainly not when it comes to Who He is within His Trinity.

You're making the same mistake Rick is. You are confusing soteriology with linguistics. The question "Is X the same as Y" is a linguistic one. We are asking if X corresponds to object Y. The question "Does belief X or believe Y save" is a soteriological one. For instance, some believe that faith in Christ will save; others believe that faith plus works will save. Both believe in the same Christ--the two just have two different soteriological beliefs concerning His work.

To argue, then, that Muslims don't believe in the same God merely because they aren't saved ("belief isn't enough to save") misses the point entirely. The facts, complicated though they may be, are rather clear in this case.

1. Christians speak of God
2. Muslims speak of God
3. There is only one God
4. It is possible to speak incorrectly of God

From this, it is clear that God/Allah refer to the same entity, insofar as both groups are talking about the Creator of the universe (you aren't going to suggest that there are multiple creators, are you?). I suggested that Allah could actually be a demon impersonating God. In that case, Muslims would be trying to talk about the same God you and I are, but would instead--unbeknownst to them--be talking about another being. But their failure to talk about the God we do would not be due to their failure to recognize the Trinity or Jesus. It would be their belief in a deception. You can rather easily, I think, come up with your own illustrations (just think, for instance, of stolen identities. That should get you started . . .)

Anyway, the entire caveat assumes the rather strong position that Allah is in fact a demon. And even then, we could make the case that through their deception, they are being led to make incorrect assertions regarding the same God you and I are talking about (again, go back to your stolen identity illustration).

I would, then, strongly caution against suggesting that Muslims have a "different God." There is only one God. There is only one Creator. Be careful not to think that just because someone misunderstands or rejects one aspect of Himself that He has revealed that they therefore believe in a different God than you. Because, bluntly, if we are going to be that stringent, then give me ten minutes analyzing your own philosophy of God rather deeply and I can assure you that I will find aspects of your theology of God that differ not only from my own, but from what the Church has historically taught, and on that basis, declare that you believe in a different God than the Church historically has. Just as you would object to such an approach, I think you should be consistent in how you apply your scrutiny to others. Muslims, more likely than not, like the Jews and all other monotheists, speak of exactly the same God as you do. The difference is that you understand Him better. And hopefully, you say more than they do concerning what is right about Him (as per Job 42:7). Their mistake is not believing in the wrong God . . . it is not understanding His nature because they have not believed what He said about Himself.

[RickD]

. For instance, some believe that faith in Christ will save; others believe that faith plus works will save. Both believe in the same Christ--the two just have two different soteriological beliefs concerning His work.

I disagree. If you could actually find someone who admits that faith plus works saves, that person would believe in a different Christ, than those who believe that belief apart from works saves. The Christ whose work is enough to save, is a different Christ from the Christ whose work isn't enough to save apart from human works. Only Christ who is actually God, has the power in Himself to effect salvation. A Christ who needs an addition of human works to effect salvation, isn't God, and therefore, is a different Christ.

I would, then, strongly caution against suggesting that Muslims have a "different God." There is only one God. There is only one Creator.

I see what you're saying here, but you're changing the point of the original post. We know there is only one true God. The question is about if Muslims believe in, and therefore, worship the one true God. Or, if Muslims worship a false god. A god who was invented by one who is bent on deceiving man in any way he can, in order to separate man from a saving relationship with the true God.

[RickD]

Who is Allah?

The way I see it, is there are three choices.

1). Allah is just another name for the God of the bible.

2). Allah is a demon, or possibly Satan himself, who desires to put himself in place of God, and wants man to worship himself.

3). Allah is a false god, created by someone who is trying to deceive man, and draw man away from a saving relationship with the one true God.

Jac, while I tend to lean towards 3, I think if you looked into this, you'd see that 2 & 3 are much more plausible than 1.