Second Thoughts

evidence has accumulated in support of his prophethood that there are no realistic grounds for denying it. (See: The Bible, The Quran, and Science by Dr. Maurice Bucaille) Then why have the same reasons which led the Church to acknowledge Galileo failed to make it acknowledge Mohammad? The reason is the different nature of the two figures. Galileo was an astronomer; his case was one of astronomical learning. But Mohammad was a prophet; his case was one of divine revelation. This explains the different nature of the two cases. To acknowledge Galileo is to acknowledge a scientific truth alone, whereas to acknowledge Mohammad is to acknowledge a religious truth. For the Church, recognition of Galileo’s findings was recognition of an external event which did not affect it in any way. Its own particular structure continued to function as usual. But to accept the prophethood of Mohammad is an event which is directly connected with the structure of the Church. The truth of the matter is that by accepting Mohammad, popedom forfeits its right to exist; the whole edifice of Catholicism falls to the ground. The Prophet Mohammad taught monotheism, whereas the whole structure of the Church today is based on the doctrine of the Trinity. Mohammad taught that Christ was God’s Prophet, whereas the Church has built its creed around the belief that he was the son of God. Mohammad made personal actions the basis of salvation, whereas the Church bases salvation on the doctrine of atonement. Recognition of Galileo has not changed the Church’s religious position. But if the Church were to recognize Mohammad, it would have to deny its position as upholder of the true religion. And who is ready to recognize others when that entails denying oneself? □ There is no more astonishing career in history than that of the founder of this religion (Islam) and scarcely any man has more profoundly influenced the destinies of the world. He was, of course, favoured by circumstances, but he knew how to turn them to his purposes and he faced adversity with the determination to wring success out of failure. While he could not have succeeded in another place or at another time it is tolerably certain that no one else could have succeeded at all. —E.E. Kellett, in his ‘A Short History of Religion,’ (London: 1933), p. 333.