For a while now I’ve been bothered by the term ‘three Abrahamic faiths’. It’s a term that has been bandied about by many denizens of the naïve ‘bagels and bhajis’ interfaith circuit. The phrase has been used by those who see all three major monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam as sharing a common heritage. Unfortunately the idea that these faiths share a common readily identifiable ancestor is, to use an expression common in the United Kingdom, a load of old bollocks.

Even the most cursory examination of the Torah, the Christian bible and the Islamic Koran will reveal extreme differences between the character of Abraham. In Judaism Abraham was the the primary forefather of the Jewish people who was told by the Eternal One that he would be the progenitor of a populous nation. In Christianity Abraham was the one who turned away from idolatry but his position as a Jewish patriarch was still recognised. Both of these views of Abraham are compatible with one another and both Christianity and Judaism accept the story of Abraham as laid down in the Pentateauch, or Five Books of Moses. However the Abraham of the Koran was, as befits a violent shitbag religion like Islam, a violent hate-filled character burning with bile for Jews and Christians. The Islamic Abraham wasn’t merely inspired by the Biblical Abraham but is a character stolen from the Torah and turned into a violent hateful individual who bears no resemblance to either the Jewish Abraham or the Christian Abraham. Therefore the idea that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all ‘Abrahamic Religions’ is a monstrous lie.

The facts behind this monstrous lie that Islam shares the same patriarchal ancestor as Judaism and Christianity is comprehensively busted in an article published in the New English Review entitled ‘Rabbi Schloss, Texas Taqiyya and a Shabbat that’s fairly Shalom’. In this article, the author, Hugh Fitzgerald, writes about an interfaith event that took place after Rabbi Deborah Schloss of Temple Beth Tikvah in Clear Lake Texas, invited local Muslims to take part in an ‘interfaith Shabbat service’. Rabbi Schloss made the statement that the three monotheistic religions shared the same ancestor that of the patriarch Abraham. But Mr Fitzgerald saw through this empty and excessive naïve statement and said in the New English Review:

Let’s stop right here, with the “many similarities between the two Abrahamic faiths.” The phrase “Abrahamic faiths,” which has become quite popular in interfaith discussions, has been held up for examination by skeptical scholars, but their findings seem unfortunately never to filter down to the level of such determinedly interfaithing clerics as Rabbi Schloss. Aaron W. Hughes, a Professor of Judaism, has described the category “Abrahamic religions” as coming into use only recently, and notes that “it is a ‘vague referent.’” It is, according to Hughes, “largely a theological neologism” and “an artificial and imprecise” term. “Combining the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions into this one category might serve the purpose of encouraging ‘interfaith trialogue,’ but it is not true to the ‘historical record.’ Abrahamic religions is ‘an ahistorical category.’ There are ‘certain family resemblances’ among these three religions, but the ‘amorphous’ term Abrahamic religions prevents an understanding of the ‘complex nature’ of the interactions among them. Furthermore, the three religions do not share the same story of Abraham.” The main connection is that the three monotheistic faiths all recognize a role for someone named Abraham, but the Abraham of Islam is so different from the Abraham of Judaism as to make claims of commonality ludicrous.

In Judaism, Abraham is the first Patriarch of the Jewish people and the first person to teach monotheism. In Islam, on the other hand, the Muslim Abraham (or Ibrahim) is the one who with his son Ishmael built the Ka’aba, and first gave Muslims their name, for “the faith of your father Abraham” is Islam:

“And strive for Allah with the endeavour which is His right. He hath chosen you and hath not laid upon you in religion any hardship; the faith of your father Abraham (is yours). He hath named you Muslims of old time and in this (Scripture) ,that the messenger may be a witness against you, and that ye may be witnesses against mankind. So establish worship, pay the poor-due, and hold fast to Allah. He is your Protecting friend. A blessed Patron and a blessed Helper!” (Sura 22:78 — Pickthall)

“He hath ordained for you that religion which He commended unto Noah, and that which We inspire in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish the religion, and be not divided therein. Dreadful for the idolaters is that unto which thou callest them. Allah chooseth for Himself whom He will, and guideth unto Himself him who turneth (toward Him). (Sura 42:13)

In the Qur’an, the repeated phrase “the religion of Abraham” means Islam, and that “religion” is commended to Jews and Christians, who are rebuked for having rejected it:

“Say: Allah speaketh truth. So follow the religion of Abraham, the upright. He was not of the idolaters.” (Sura 3:95)

“Say: O People of the Scripture! Why disbelieve ye in the revelations of Allah, when Allah (Himself) is Witness of what ye do?” (Sura 3:98)

This is a denunciation of Jews and Christians for disbelieving in what Allah has revealed.

“Say: O People of the Scripture! Why drive ye back believers from the way of Allah, seeking to make it crooked, when ye are witnesses (to Allah’s guidance)? Allah is not unaware of what ye do.” (Sura 3:99)

A further denunciation of Jews and Christians for turning others aside from the way of Allah.

In Islam, Abraham is not “shared” with the Jews and Christians. He is, rather, appropriated in the same way that other figures from Judaism and Christianity, such as Noah and Moses and Jesus, were appropriated, but endowed for Muslims with a completely different significance, as prophets of Islam. Just as the Islamic “Isa” is quite different from the Christian “Jesus,” the Islamic “Ibrahim” has little in common with the Jewish “Abraham.”

According to the Qur’an, Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian:

“Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man (hanif) who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.” (Sura 3:67)

Abraham offered only “hostility and hate” toward Jews and Christians:

“There is a goodly pattern for you in Abraham and those with him, when they told their folk: Lo! we are guiltless of you and all that ye worship beside Allah. We have done with you. And there hath arisen between us and you hostility and hate for ever until ye believe in Allah only – save that which Abraham promised his father (when he said): I will ask forgiveness for thee, though I own nothing for thee from Allah – Our Lord! In Thee we put our trust, and unto Thee we turn repentant, and unto Thee is the journeying. (Sura 60:4)

One doubts that Rabbi Schloss is aware of just how much the Muslim Abraham differs from the Abraham of the Torah. The Abraham of the Qur’an is not a Patriarch of the Jews; he offers Jews only his “hostility and hate” because they do not accept Allah. The figure of Abraham is not a unifying but a divisive figure. As Mark Durie has noted, “For Jews he is the Torah-observant father of the Jewish nation, and a reminder of God’s irrevocable covenant with the Jews. For Muslims he is the prototypical Muslim prophet, a prominent forerunner and validator of Muhammad’s claim and the ground of Muslim claims that Islam both predates and supersedes the Biblical faiths.”

What is clear from her comments is that Rabbi Schloss has allowed herself to be persuaded by that deceptive phrase about “Abrahamic faiths” to assume “commonalities” among those faiths that, for Muslims, simply do not exist. These two Abrahams are very different, and the appropriation of the figure of Abraham, turned into a Muslim who “hates” Jews and other Infidels, is nothing for Rabbi Schloss to celebrate.

Read the rest of this fabulous article pricking the bubble of interfaith idiots like Rabbi Schloss via the link below:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/66067

It’s plain to see, at least to those of us who know what Islam really is, rather than how it pretends to us Kuffar what it is, that Rabbi Schloss has been the victim of Islamic Taqiyya or lying to promote Islam. She’s been taken in, like all too many Jewish Rabbis and Christian clerics have been taken in, by kind words from Muslims which are empty of any substance or any truth. Those from faiths such as Judaism and Christianity, or other Eastern faiths such as Hinduism or Sikhism, are used to being told the truth from those who they interact with in interfaith environments, because we normally tel the truth to others. However Islam has provisions and permissions to lie to non Muslims if that lie advances Islam.

Rabbi Schloss had been exceptionally naïve over this ‘interfaith Shabbat’ and has brought Islamic lies and Islamic liars into her synagogue. Even worse than her own naivety Rabbi Schloss has probably helped to convince members of her congregation that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ and may probably cause at least some of those she is supposed to be looking after to drop their guard with regards Islam. This is something that cannot be forgiven as she has probably helped to endanger those who have believed her rubbish that Islam is compatible with civilised societies. If one of her congregation end up being overly trusting towards Islam and because of that are hurt of killed then the blame for these hurts and deaths can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of Rabbi Schloss.

It’s wrong and indeed impossible to make peace with those who follow ideologies such as Islam that state that they want you dead, but this rule is something that Rabbi Schloss has failed to comprehend.