Parallel with the Temptation of Jesus

Jesus said no. Muhammad said yes.

Note: To research Islam, I like to use older references from at least a century before political correctness set in. 

Observation:  From Islam’s 7^th century beginning to 1947 it was always considered a heretical religion. There was no great central thought or myriad Abrahamic Islamic references to Muhammad or the Koran, and no religion of peace myth. Suddenly in the 1960s Islam was elevated to an Abrahamic Faith equivalent to Judaism and Christianity, and Muhammad was then mythically referred to as a peaceful prophet who had received revelations from God. The world, having accepted this politically correct myth, is suddenly aghast at the wrath of ISIS, the killings, rapes, and executions, however, expecting peace and love from a heretical demonic religion of hate, after having given it the advantage of the benefit of the doubt since 1960, is the ultimate textbook example of blind unrealistic liberal naiveté.

That being said, we now look at the 1861 printing of The Life of Mahomet, VOL II, pp 91-96, by Sir William Muir (biography HERE). (If the link above shows a book with 2 blank pages, click the right side of the "book" to "turn" two or three pages until you reach the title page.)

"The early doubts of Mahomet, and his suspicion of being under the influence of Genii or Evil Spirits, suggest the enquiry whether that suspicion had in reality any true foundation, or was the mere fancy of an excited imagination. It is incumbent upon us to consider this question from a Christian point of view, and to ask whether the supernatural influence, which appears to have acted upon the soul of the Arabian Prophet, may not have proceeded from the Evil One and his emissaries. It is not for us to dogmatize on so recondite and mysterious a subject; but the views which Christian verity compels us to entertain regarding the Angel of darkness and his followers, would not be satisfied without some allusion to the fearful power exercised by them, as one at least of the possible causes of the fall of Mahomet - the once serious enquirer - into the meshes of deception. Assuredly, Mahomet himself lived under the deep and constant conviction of the personality of Satan and his Angels, and of his own exposure to their influence.

"The nature of such influence, as well as its possibility, may perhaps be best illustrated by the temptation of which our blessed Savior is related in the Gospels to have been, at the opening of his ministry, subject. Let us endeavor briefly to follow out the parallel:

"In his first approach, Satan taking advantage of the cravings of hunger, tempted Jesus (temptation to minister from supernatural sources to personal wants) to contravene the Law of his human existence by supplying his temporal wants through his supernatural powers. But sternly did He throw away the suggestion, and throughout his life appears to have ever refrained from bringing Divine power which He possessed to the relief of his personal wants.

"An analogous temptation was ever ready to entrap the footsteps of Mahomet. He, indeed, was not possessed of any inherent supernatural ability. But, as a teacher who professed himself inspired, he arrogated a spiritual power which he continually tempted to misuse in subservience to his personal necessities and even to his erring desires. The subsequent needs of his life too plainly prove that he fell into the snare.

"In the second scene our Lord was tempted to seek spiritual and lawful ends, by unlawful means - to manifest his Messiahship by a vain-glorious display of supernatural energy. The object was legitimate; but the means would have involved a rash and presumptuous tempting of Divine providence, to which his humanity owed a perfect subordination. Jesus was to advance his religion by no such unauthorized expedients - however much it was the object of his mission, upon appropriate occasions, to display before the world the Divine glory of his nature, or show with what tremendous energy and Godlike manifestation He could have supported his teaching. “If He be the Son of God, let Him come down from the cross,” was a suggestion from the same source, yet He descended not. It was the law of his human life to deny himself the use of that power, by which He could have summoned Legions to work out his plans and blast the machinations of his enemies.

            

"What a melancholy light does the comparison cast upon the career of Mahomet! He, it is true, owned no divine energy. But he was tempted to assume a forged weapon of fearful energy and temper by which to work out his ends. That Instrument was the NAME OF GOD. As his scheme advanced, he betook himself to other means; and sought by temporal inducements, and by the force of arms, to extend the Worship of the One God. The subtle nature of the temptation was the same here as in the narrative of the Evangelists - to compass a pious end by unlawful means.

"Again, the Devil tempted Jesus (tempted to be a compromise with evil and the world) to fall down and worship him by the promise of the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. Perhaps the nature of the satanic insinuation may be thus conceived. A death struggle was at hand between the kingdom of Jesus and the world; a mortal combat, in which, through Death itself, Life was to be won for his people. To the world’s end, the power of darkness would form an awful antagonism to the power of Christianity, impeding its spread, and often recapturing its very conquests. Was it possible to compromise the struggle? Would Satan abate the fierceness of his opposition? If he were even to remain neutral, how would the conquest be lightened, and what millions more might be brought into the kingdom of Heaven! And this might be gained by the acknowledgement of a Power that in reality leads captive the great mass of mankind. By so slight a compromise with the spirit of the World, was it not incumbent to secure such vast and noble ends? A little concession would avoid a struggle of inconceivable anguish and loss, with certainty secure a vast and glorious success not otherwise to be hoped for, and all tending to the honor of God. Thus would the wordling have reasoned, and thus decided. But Jesus knew of no compromise with Sin, even in its most hidden form; and, fully conscious of the fearful nature of the approaching combat, rejected the alluring offer.

"So not did Mahomet. He listened to the suggestion, and was tempted to seek a compromise between Religion and the World. The effect was a politico-religious system, forming the closest combination imaginable between worldliness and spirituality, between Good and Evil. Barely so much of virtue and of spiritual truth is retained as will appease the religious principle which exists in man, and his inward craving after the service of his Creator, while the reins of passion and indulgence are relaxed to the utmost extent compatible with the appearance of goodness. Mahometanism indeed presents a wonderful adaptation to fallen humanity. The spurious imitation of godliness satisfies the Serious; the laxity of its moral code, and the compatibility of its external observances with inner irreligion, present no barrier to the Sensualist.

"Whatever compromise was made by Mahomet on the one hand, the expectations held forth on the other were well fulfilled; for the Kingdoms of this world and the glory of them, followed in rapid succession in the train of Islam. 

"I think I need to offer no apology for the introduction of this parallel. If we admit that our Saviour was at the commencement of his mission the subject of a direct and special temptation by the Evil one, we may safely assume that a similar combat possibly was waged, though with far other results, in the case of Mahomet.

"Happy would it have been for the memory of the Arabian Prophet, if his career had terminated with his flight from Mecca. Then, indeed, the imputation of a compromise such as has been above supposed might, with some show of justice, been branded as uncharitable and unwarranted. But the fruits of his principles, as exhibited in connection with his prophetic office, at Medina, are of too unequivocal a character to allow a doubt that if he acted under a supernatural guidance, that guidance proceeded from no pure and holy source.  Ambition, rapine, assassination, lust, are the undenied features of his later life, openly sanctioned by the assumed permission, sometimes even commanded by the express command of the Most High! May we conceive that a diabolical influence and inspiration, was permitted to enslave the heart of him who had deliberately yielded to the compromise with evil? May not Satan have beguiled the heart in the habitude of an Angel of light and, even when insinuating his vilest suggestions, have professed himself a Messenger from the God of purity and holiness? If so, what as assimilation must gradually have been wrought between the promptings of the Evil one from without, and the subjective perceptions of Mahomet within, when he could imagine, and with earnest and sincerity assert, that the Almighty had sanctioned and even encouraged his debased appetites!"     

Sir William Muir
______________

From his biography - "Mahomet," said Muir was "By whatever deceptive process, led to the high blasphemy of forging the name of God … Thenceforward he spoke literally in the name of the Lord." Muir singles out incidents in Muhammad's life, such as his multiple marriages, some incidents when enemies were allegedly assassinated and especially what he called the "Satanic Verses." This refers to a tradition that when Muhammad recited Surah 53 verses 19-23, which refer to three of the pagan goddesses as "but names," Satan, who always tries to pervert revelation, instead the words that they were exalted cranes, whose intercession could be sought. Following his lengthy description of this so-called "compromise" with monotheism, or "concession," Muir surmises that if Muhammad was Satanically inspired once, perhaps he was always Satan's mouthpiece? Muir had it that Muhammad was prone to some type of melancholy or sickness and that light constantly struggled with darkness in his mind. Muir posited a moral declension; Muhammad was initially close to accepting Christianity but parted company from Christians and Jews when they refused to accept his message.

In the end, Muir concluded that Islam stifles freedom, retards social progress and represents a threat to civilization itself. Furthermore, the sword was used to silence dissent.

His original book " The life of Mohammed" was initially published 1861 in four volume tomes in which every detail was irrefragably proven to be a true fact in translating the Muslim Scholars; Al- Wakidi, Al- Tabari and In Ishak, the initial writers of the Hadiths. (These are initial writers of the Prophet's biography but not Hadiths)

Previously I wrote a similar article on this same subject HERE.