FIRST-PERSON: Are God & Allah the same? [Updated with commentary]

Posted on Apr 23, 2007 | by Emir Caner

With commentary

FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--In some far-flung field around the world a Southern Baptist missionary enters a territory which has remained hostile to the Gospel for some time. Upon entering the mountainous village, he is able to speak to some of the villagers about eternal matters. They are uninhibited to speak about their faith, although reticent to accept any other opinion, and this missionary quickly gains a cursory understanding of their god. He is an all-powerful being who blesses both the just and the unjust. He reveals himself through miracles. Additionally, these villagers believe that there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood.

Ah, well this proves that their god is not the Christian god because Yahweh doesn’t need the shedding of blood to forgive sin. I certainly wouldn’t want to worship a god who cannot forgive sins without reparations. I myself do not need reparations to forgive others. I forgive others because I love them and not because I have punished someone.

In fact, these villagers believe that their god has a son and that this son was once dead and now has come to life! Now, can this missionary then assume that the god the villagers are describing, due to so many similar characteristics, is the same God the Scripture reveals?

If your answer is yes, you have fallen prey to a tactic the devil has used since the Fall in the Garden of Eden.

The devil (or the Satan) was not in Eden.

The devil, the best counterfeiter in history, plays upon the attributes of God and places them upon another, even himself.

Yes, but just because the Satan can do this doesn’t always mean that he IS doing this in such a circumstance. Man is quite capable of doing this on his or herself, without the assistance of the Satan. ... Do evangelicals still get upset when someone refers to the Satan by using definite article “the”?

Ironically, the situation above is not foreign to the Scripture, for Elijah is that missionary who found himself in a strikingly similar situation in 1 Kings 18:20-40.

Also, recall when Aaron made a golden calf and told the Hebrews, “These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” (Exod 32:4)

I actually read some select chapters out of C.S. Lewis’s The Last Battle this past weekend. There is a great chapter where Shift the ape convinces so many Narnians that Aslan is also known as Calormen god, Tash. Thus they begin to refer to them as Tashlan. Nice illustration of syncretism. ... Of course, while Aslan is proven to not be Tash and the latter is proven to be a demonic creature, Aslan states that those who worshipped Tash faithfully were actually worshipping Aslan faithfully though they did not know it. This is probably the most controversial part of the series but few ever mention it.

The Jewish people had fallen into idolatry, specifically Baal worship. Although Baal worship differed regionally, Elijah came across the form of Baal worship which believed that Baal is the son of El, the most high god.

Ah, yes, El Elyon – the god worshipped by Melchizedek.

Baal was once dead, but like the fall harvest, has come back to life. Baal required a blood sacrifice for appeasement to El, albeit the sacrifice is not of Baal himself but of a first-born son of each family.

Yes, which is another good reason why God did not require such a sacrifice of his son. Too many of us confuse pagan sacrifice and the sacrifice offered to and from Yahweh.

Baal was all-powerful and could be seen in miracles such as raining down fire. Yet, Baal was not mistaken as Jehovah. Elijah rhetorically asks the Israelites who are worshipping a false god, "How long will you falter between two opinions? If the Lord is God follow him; but if Baal, follow him" (1 Kings 18:21).

Today, similar debate has revolved around the two largest faiths in the world, Islam and Christianity, and whether the god of the Koran is the God of the Bible. Simply put, the god of Muhammad is not the Father of Jesus. The subject in its essence is not a linguistic issue, but a theological matter with eternal ramifications. To say that since Allah is Arabic for God and YHWH is Hebrew for God, Christians and Muslims worship the same God is beyond naïve –- it is blasphemous.

Yahweh is not Hebrew for “god”. The Hebrew for “god” is el or elohiym.

Hmm, do Mormons and Southern Baptists worship the same god? Do Christians and Jews worship the same god?

When Elijah challenged his fellow Jews to follow the one true God, he did so without regard to linguistics. Indeed, the etymology of Baal is derived from the root word for Lord or Master. If the matter at hand were merely about words and similar nomenclature, Elijah's statement would make absolutely no sense. Would the Israelites not be worshipping the same god as their forefathers since they have a title similar to that of their forefathers? Would Elijah not owe an unqualified apology to the prophets of Baal for assuming their worship was a façade and their god nonexistent? How could there even be such a theological animal as a "false god" if the word "god" is used in conversation? And for those who argue linguistically, would they be comfortable praying to Baal today since it is only another word for Lord?

Baal, El, Elohiym, El Elyon are all derived from the same Semitic word el, which means “god”.

As someone who came out of a Sunni Muslim background, I can personally attest that I rejected God as Father (surah 5:18), Jesus Christ as the Son of God (surah 5:116; 19:88), and the very person of the Holy Spirit (surah 70:4).

Which is why Sunnis who reject Christ will not be saved.

What part of the Triune God did I understand? I was an idolater, plain and simple, and the vacuity in my prayers only proved that point. Like the Israelites who worshipped Baal, I know too well the great pain of praying to a non-existent god. As 1 Kings 18:29 describes, "There was no voice; no one answered, no one paid attention." To argue, then, that I was worshipping the true God, just inadequately or incompletely, would have been to place false light upon my total darkness.

Jews. Look at the Jews. What god to they now worship? Look at the Jews during the first century. They prayed to Yahweh but rejected Yahweh’s son. What God were they then worshipping?

My Muslim mind would have interpreted such folly as insisting that Muhammad did receive at least some of his revelation from the one, true God -- that in some ways he was a true prophet.

There is a difference in receiving revelation from God and getting information of the revelation recorded in Scripture.

Again, the Jews have the OT which they received from Yahweh, but they reject his Son.

This is not an argument which denies that God is sovereign over Muhammad and all followers of Islam. But as Timothy George noted in a recent Christianity Today article, "No devout Muslim can call the God of Muhammad 'Father,' for this, to their mind, would compromise divine transcendence. But no faithful Christian can refuse to confess, with joy and confidence, 'I believe in God the Father ... Almighty!'

Again, Jews refer to Christ as “Father” even though they reject his Son.

Apart from the Incarnation and the Trinity, it is possible to know that God is, but not who God is." Even modern Muslim apologists recognize the difficulty in arguing that Christians worship the same god as Muslims. In a recent editorial in the PakTribune (Pakistan News Service), Ahmer Muzammil asserted, "I believe that whoever believes in one Allah (God) without any partners, sons, daughters or incarnations, whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims, or whoever they might be, they all believe in the same Allah (GOD) that we do and that Jesus, Moses, Adam, Noah, and Mohammad called masses to the same GOD." The latter part of the quote, attributing Islamic devotion to Old Testament prophets, is key to understanding why the Koran states, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our God and your God is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)" (surah 29:46). Muslims do not believe the God of the Old Testament, especially as seen in the Major and Minor Prophets, is their god since the Old Testament is a corrupted collection (surah 3:78) which fails to clarify that Abraham, Moses, and the other prophets were actually Muslims. Islam, in denying the revelation, denies the Revelator.

Sort of like how Peter and Paul were Roman Catholics?

Yes, Muslims do not “believe” in the God of the OT if we use “believe” to mean “saving faith”. While they may have cognitive belief in the God of the OT and worship him, since they reject the Son of the God of the OT, they do not have the belief that saves. If they did have the belief that saves they would believe in the Son. Everyone who has faith in the Father has faith in the Son. All who have faith in the Son already has faith in the Father.

The Koran further substantiates the claim that Christians do not worship the same god as Muslims. Surah 5:72 denounces partnering "other gods with Allah," and warns those who do so, "Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode."

Jews often say that Christians do not worship the god of the OT. Are they correct?

Surah 112:3, perhaps the central passage in the entire discussion, explicitly divorces Allah from the Christian God, explaining, "He begets not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him." Ultimately, Allah "forgives not (the sin of) joining other gods with Him" (4:116).

I’m reminded of the “Creationist” argument which states, “Christians should not believe what Atheistic Evolutionists say except when they say that evolution proves that there is no God. THAT is something that they say that you can believe!”

It is clear, then, that according to Islam Peter committed this heinous sin when he publicly proclaimed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). The church itself is built upon this confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, indeed, in the very character of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. To remove Him from the Godhead would be the death knell of the church, the end of Christianity. "There is no other foundation that anyone can lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11).

The rejection of Christ is why both Judaism and Islam are false systems of belief. This and not their worship of God.

Rejecting each person of the Trinity, the God of the Old Testament and New Testament is replaced by a figment of Muhammad's imagination, a god that beyond the somewhat similar characteristics of monotheism and transcendence resembles only remotely the God of the Scriptures. It behooves us as Southern Baptists to stand unwaveringly against the ecumenists and syncretists who try to convince us that Muslims and Christians worship the same god.

Again, he has not proven such. However, as I have said, if it was true that “Muslims and Christians worship the same god”, it would not be of any significance.

When Baptist scholars like Charles Kimball state, "The name for God in Islam, in Arabic, is Allah. This is not another god. This is the God. It's the same God that Jews and Christians are talking about," Southern Baptists must ardently stand against such theological heresy.

It’s not heresy.

For the sake of ensuring that the Gospel is preached faithfully and biblically, it is imperative that Southern Baptist leadership stand united on this crucial and non-negotiable issue. While Kimball and other prominent Baptists are creating confusion with a corrupt notion of the One True God, SBC leaders should draw a line of separation from them by boldly affirming that He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and rejecting the grave theological error that others are promoting.

Yes, but saying that “God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is not a refutation of the argument that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

Since an assent of the god of Islam is ultimately a rejection of the Triune God, any such person who holds to such aberrant views should have the integrity to resign from any position of leadership held within the Southern Baptist Convention.

This is not a logical argument. Regardless, I’m not going to assent to an aberrant argument simply because I agree with the position that followers of Mohammed are not in a saving relationship with God. My agreement of this position does not chain me to particular arguments or even to any person or people and their movements simply because we agree on a particular truth.

This is what I hate most about politics: the ever-present tendency to adopt popular opinions, people and movements (regardless of their merit) in order to support a particular, common agenda. I desire far more freedom to pursue the truth than politics generally allows.

To equate the god of Islam with the God of the Bible is to reject the God described in the Baptist Faith and Message, the doctrinal statement which Southern Baptists have accepted for more than eight decades as a confessional statement ensuring theological accountability in our convention. Evidence strongly suggests that the vast majority of Southern Baptists uphold the distinction between the god of Islam and the God of the Scripture.

No comment.

In a recent survey, it was stated that 79 percent of evangelicals do not believe Muslims and Christians worship the same god. If that is the case within evangelicalism, it is certain that the percentage of Southern Baptists, more conservative than evangelicals at large, reject this belief in even greater numbers. Let's reassure Southern Baptists that what they believe is not in vain, that without Christ, religions and their gods are false.

I strongly agree. Religions without Christ are false. However, this is not the argument being made by Dr. Caner. If it was, then I would probably not need to challenge it (though I might if he was articulating it incorrectly).

Now here is the question which only one evangelical SBC person so far has been willing to answer: “do Jews and Christians worship the same God?”

The only reason this one person did so was because I left him no other option than to answer it or walk away. I told him that I admired his courage and I did!

Our voices must be heard on the issue or else our zeal for the lost will diminish and the clarity of the Gospel will be muddled. I pray our response to the situation will be vastly different from that of the Israelites who, when confronted with this issue, "answered [Elijah] not a word" (1 Kings 18:21b). This hour must be one of courage and not cowardice, for if the doctrine of God is compromised, other crucial doctrines will soon fall to the ecumenists as well. Truth is immortal.

Let it be known that I am neither challenging nor reinforcing the belief that Allah is or is not Yahweh. I’m only challenging the argument being made. This should be evident from the fact that I explicitly state that followers of Mohammed who reject Christ are not in a saving relationship with God. I need to say this because too many people assume that if one challenges an argument for a particular position, the one challenging is doing so to reject the position. This is not the case at all.

My frequent challenges of this particular line or argumentation are designed to support the centrality of Christ in process of salvation. After all, my theology is Christo-centric. Worshipping God (either as Yahweh or Allah) means practically little without Christ. Hence, my frequent references to Judaism.

Dr. Caner’s is quite rightly trying to establish the truth that followers of Mohammed are not in a saving relationship with God. This is true. However, the line of argument he has chosen to follow is that followers of Mohammed are not in a saving relationship with God because Allah and Yahweh are not the same god. This argument is both unnecessary and ill-effective. In fact, it appears to be counter productive. Dr. Caner comes off as saying that if Allah and Yahweh were on and the same god, then Muslims would be saved. This is not the case. My perennial example is that of Jews who do worship Yahweh but do not accept the Son of Yahweh. Are they in a saving relationship with God because they worship him? No, they are not.

Truly, Allah is a word that simply means “god”. It means “god” just as el meant “god” in the ancient world. Again, Baal, El, Elohiym, El Elyon and Allah are all derived from the same Semitic word el, which means “god”.

As I have said on other occasions, there are Middle Eastern Christian believers from Islamic backgrounds who follow Jesus Christ and not Mohammed but who nevertheless refer to Yahweh as Allah. They do so because if an Arabic speaking person wants to say the word “god” in their language they must say Allah. For example, let us say that a English-speaking follower of Wicca refers to some god such as the Moon and refers to it as a “god”. If this person is converted to the Christian Faith and begins to follow Christ he or she will still use the word “god” to refer to Yahweh. Their continued use of the word “god” does not imply syncretism but their understanding that they now follow the TRUE god. The same is true with the use of Allah.
Jews, Christians and Muslims all identify their respective god as the God who acted in history as recorded in the OT. Who is right?

See also:

Worshipping God in Vain

The God of Mohammed in Greensboro

CULTURE DIGEST: Saudi Arabian textbooks still promote hatred, religious discord (with Discussions about Islam and ... well, Masons really)