How Judaism views Christianity and Islam?
Surely it is narrow-minded and deeply disapproving? Well, it actually praises the non-Jew who believes in the Almighty and keeps all laws of decency, self-control and justice. This is the highest level of life. This in-depth analysis responds to common atheist arguments, and how these faiths do have many answers. It is ideal for those questioning faith, atheism, or interfaith perspectives.
Real Judaism’s Views on Christianity and Islam
Obviously, Islam and Christianity do not need or welcome some white-bearded Rabbi claiming to defend them. They can do this infinitely better themselves. But it is essential to understand Real Judaism’s approach to them. We obviously cannot personally accept any religion that does not have our own judicial probity. But the positive effect of these faiths on individuals and populations is obviously beneficial in many ways, profound and has created our cultural environment.
Other intelligent, moral, logical people’s faith in their religion cannot be dismissed. Their faith is noteworthy. That which they believe is not for Jews, but transforms the non-Jewish world.
Rabbi Jacob Emden’s Views on Righteous Gentiles
A very great leader, Rabbi Jacob Emden (1697-1776), revered and studied to this day, stated that Righteous Gentiles – believing, moral non-Jews – were fulfilling the highest form of their purpose. The Jews were given a different path.
Concerning ‘Deist non-Jews who behave morally by following the seven laws given to Noah…. [This would include Orthodox Muslim and Christians.] .. are not idol worshippers; rather, they adhere to the practices of past generations… Therefore their blood is precious in our eyes and would remain so …. ’
More of Judaism’s Views on Christianity and Islam
He writes variously of Christianity and Islam in a positive manner. He wrote to the Kaiser that Christianity:
‘brought about a double kindness in the world. On the one hand, it strengthened the Torah of Moses majestically, as mentioned earlier … and on the other hand, it did much good for the Gentiles (providing they do not turn about its intent as they please, as some foolish ones have done because they did not fully understand the intent of the authors of the Gospels.’
‘You, members of the Christian faith, how good and pleasant it might be if you will observe that which was commanded to you by your first teachers; how wonderful is your share if you will assist the Jews in the observance of their Torah. You will truly receive reward as if you had fulfilled it yourselves – for the one who helps others to observe is greater than one who observes but does not help others to do so – even though you only observe the Seven Commandments. I have written similarly (elsewhere) that … the Gentile who does not (have to) observe the (Torah’s) 613 commandments, but supports it, is considered among the blessed.’
And of course the same will apply to Muslims.
Both are distinct from Judaism in relying ultimately on pure faith in the initiation of their religion but it is ridiculous to dismiss them in favour of the animalistic atheism of those who mock them. Both groups live at best lives of profound goodness and morality – yes, within their own faith. If doctrine, history and politics have made them murder us – this does not undermine their faith. Their lives, except for this, are exemplary.
Contrasting with Atheism:
Just look, in contrast, at the empty, and ultimately lonely, lost lives of their atheist critics – whose fame is based on ridicule and existence marked by self-adoration and shallow distraction. Their deaths are generally lonely, depressed and marked, not by a sense of achievement but by a sense of emptiness. They have often made no other human actually happier. Their private lives were often marked by selfish and shallow behavior. Many lived an egoistic immoral life – justified by atheism. They have changed no one. Some – because of a positive and fortunate personality – may have indeed made the world a better place. But this was despite – not because of their myopic atheist views. Others – with a bitter and unpleasant personality – have simply made everyone including themselves – miserable. This, they claim, is the cost of honesty.
Here are some of the most common and apparently serious arguments that atheists have leveled specifically against Christianity and Islam. I’ve grouped them thematically and kept them concise.
They are absolutely not accepted by Real Judaism.
It is important to emphasize also that men’s interpretation and manipulation of their religion does not nullify it.
These answers are those used by these faiths themselves. They are not Real Judaism’s answers at all. We do not even suggest that we can or should provide any answers for those perfectly able to do this.
Lack of Evidence / Burden of Proof: Atheist Claims and Responses
Atheists claim: Extraordinary claims (resurrection of Jesus, angelic revelation of the Qur’an to Muhammad, miracles, etc.) require extraordinary evidence, which is absent.
ANSWER: A lack of evidence proves a lack of evidence. Nothing more. This is illogical and unintelligent – what on earth is ‘extraordinary’ evidence.
Atheists claim: Both religions rely heavily on ancient texts whose authorship, transmission, and historical accuracy are deeply contested.
ANSWER: But if evidence were found these arguments would fall away. And no sane person suggests that the 325 CE Nicaean Conference did not publish Constantine’s New Testament or that the Koran was not published as the authentic version by the third caliph ʿUthmān (r. 644–656 CE) standardized the text into a single codex (muṣḥaf) around 650–656 CE.
Atheists claim: Personal “religious experiences” are not verifiable and occur in contradictory religions, so they cancel each other out as evidence.
ANSWER: Why do people who reject religion suddenly become experts on religious experiences? It is sheer unintelligent, illogical dishonesty to claim religious experiences cancel each other out. Obviously if they deny another religion this is the case but most simply do not. Presumably atheists accept those religious experiences that do not ‘cancel each other out’(?!)
Problem of Evil / Suffering: Addressing Atheist Objections
Atheists claim:
An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good Deity is logically incompatible with the amount and distribution of suffering in the world (natural disasters, childhood cancer, animal suffering, etc.). The free-will defense fails for natural evil and for the eternal punishment (Hell/Jahannam) of finite sins. Islam’s and Christianity’s doctrines of eternal torment vastly amplify the problem of evil.
ANSWER: The inability to understand the problem of unfathomable pain and evil – does not impinge on the veracity of a religion – only the difficulty of accepting that we cannot understand everything. This is impossible for the vain, brilliant, educated atheist ‘genius’. Man must understand everything or – at least – be sure he will eventually. After all, he is the most intelligent of the apes.
Moral Critique: Responding to Ethical Challenges
Atheists claim: Both religions endorse or command acts that modern secular ethics considers immoral: Christianity: eternal torture in Hell for non-belief, genocide in the Old Testament (Canaanites, Amalekites, Midianites), endorsement of slavery (Exodus 21, Leviticus 25, New Testament household codes). Islam: apostasy and blasphemy punishments, lesser legal status of women in inheritance and testimony, endorsement of slavery and sex slavery (Qur’an 4:24, 33:50), corporal punishments (flogging, amputation, crucifixion).
Divine command theory makes morality arbitrary: if The Deity commands genocide it becomes “good” by definition.
ANSWER: Merely because a religion endorses things that we today find morally unacceptable has no impact upon its veracity. Yes, the religion is genuine and indeed recommends this ‘unacceptable’ behavior. It will have a plethora of answers – but even if none were acceptable – the religion would still be genuine but its morality not acceptable to you. And then? Your “morality” is created purely by the post-Christian values you inherited from – Christianity!
THE FOLLOWING SUMMARIZES GENERAL ANSWERS FROM THE CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM FAITHS THEMSELVES TO THE PLETHORA OF OTHER AND LESS SPECIFIC CRITICISMS PUT FORWARD:
Bible Contradictions: Christian and Muslim Perspectives
Bible contradictions (genealogies, resurrection accounts, “Can The Deity be seen?” etc.)
ANSWER: Most cited “contradictions” dissolve when genre, authorial intent, and ancient literary conventions are taken into account
Resurrection narratives are complementary, not contradictory in the formal logical sense (different emphases, partial reports, like four eyewitnesses describing the same car accident from different angles). Ancient historiography did not demand identical wording.
Qur’an: abrogation, chronological issues, linguistic “errors”
ANSWER: Abrogation (naskh) is explicitly acknowledged in the Qur’an itself (2:106, 16:101) and is not a bug but a feature—later rulings can refine or replace earlier ones for a community in changing circumstances. Muslims see this as evidence of progressive revelation, not incoherence.
Most linguistic or grammatical “problems” cited by Western critics (e.g., “broken plurals,” non-standard word order) are normal classical Arabic features that only look odd to someone expecting modern fusḥā or Indo-European grammar. Native classical Arabists (even non-Muslim ones like Theodor Nöldeke) do not regard them as errors.
Doctrinal Development: Evolution Within Faiths
Both religions distinguish between (a) development of understanding (allowed) and (b) invention of new dogma (not allowed). Newman’s “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” (1845) and the Islamic concept of tafsir + ijtihad serve the same function: the seed is the same, the tree grows.
ANSWER: Critics treat any change in formulation as evidence of falsity, but that standard would also falsify science (Newton → Einstein followed by quantum) and philosophy.
Psychological and Sociological Explanations: Countering Naturalistic Views
Atheist claims: Cognitive science / evolutionary psychology explanations destroy faith’s logic.
ANSWER: These explain why belief in supernatural agents is easy/natural, not why it is false. The same faculties that produce false positives (superstition) can also track real agents which could logically include The Deity.
Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism turns the table: if our cognitive faculties evolved only for survival, we have no reason to trust them on abstract questions like metaphysics or logic—including the conclusions of evolutionary psychology itself.
Atheist claims: Geographical distribution suggests local circumstances generate different faiths.
ANSWER: Truth is not democratic, but the argument cuts both ways: atheism is overwhelmingly concentrated in post-Christian, affluent, late-modern societies. If sociology explains Islam in Saudi Arabia, it also explains secular humanism in Sweden.
Christianity spread fastest where it was least culturally advantageous (1st-century Roman Empire, 20th-century China, sub-Saharan Africa), suggesting something more than cultural transmission.
Atheist claims: Faith-healing, ‘speaking-in-tongues’, martyrdom
ANSWER: Parallels prove commonality of religious experience, not falsity. If a Mormon feels “burning in the bosom,” a Pentecostal speaks in tongues, and a Sufi experiences “fana“, this is evidence for a transcendent dimension that different traditions access imperfectly—not proof that all are delusional.
7. Specific Doctrinal Absurdities: Addressing Core Beliefs
Atheist claims: Christianity supports vicarious redemption / human sacrifice
ANSWER: The crucifixion is not the punishment of an innocent third party; it is the single figure voluntarily bearing the consequences of human sin. Classical theology: Anselm, Aquinas, and the Eastern concept of theosis frame it as healing and recapitulation, not pagan propitiation.
Atheist claims: The moral intuition “punishing the innocent is wrong” assumes retributive justice is the only valid model.
ANSWER: Restorative and participatory models (common in ancient Near Eastern and Jewish thought) are different.
Atheist claims: Islam: eternal hell for disbelief (shirk) vs in response to finite sin
ANSWER: Traditional Islamic view: shirk is not just “wrong belief” but wilful, persistent rejection of the One who continuously creates and sustains you every moment. It is ongoing rebellion, not a single finite act. Hell is continued self-exclusion from the source of all good.
The same logic appears in Christianity (Matthew 12:31–32; Hebrews 6:4–6): some rejection is final because the person has made themselves incapable of repentance.
Atheist claims: Infinite punishment for finite creatures
Both religions say sin against an infinite Deity has infinite disvalue (Anselm, al-Ghazali). Critics reject the premise, believers accept it. It’s a standoff over moral ontology, not an internal contradiction.
8. History of Violence and Suppression: Historical Context
As we mention at the start, no serious defender claims Christians or Muslims have always been nice. The question is whether the core teachings logically entail violence or whether fallen humans distort any ideology (Christianity, Islam, Enlightenment secularism).
Modern data: the most secular 20th century was by far the bloodiest in raw numbers (World Wars, Holocaust, Great Leap Forward, etc.). Correlation is not causation, but the “religion = violence” narrative is empirically shallow.
9. Argument from Reasonable Non-Belief: Why Hiddenness?
Classical theism never promised unambiguous, coercive evidence; it promises sufficient evidence for those who are open (the “sensus divinitatis” and moral argument in Christianity; fitrah in Islam).
Hiddenness is partly explained by the necessity of free will: a “sky banner” revelation would coerce belief, undermining love and moral responsibility (Kierkegaard, Swinburne, Islamic occasionalism).
The existence of intelligent, sincere non-believers is predicted by the doctrine of original sin / fitrah clouded by upbringing and desire.
10. “One More Deity” Argument: Asymmetrical Rejection
The symmetry is superficial. Christians and Muslims do not reject Zeus or Vishnu for the same epistemic reasons atheists reject the Abrahamic Deity.
Pagans gods are contingent, finite, immoral, part of the furniture of the universe.
The Abrahamic claim is that one necessary, transcendent, simple, morally perfect Being is the ground of all existence (classical theism). The arguments (cosmological, contingency, moral, etc.) are asymmetrical.
A better analogy: Rejecting leprechauns or orbiting teapots (empirical claims with no evidence) vs rejecting a necessary being whose non-existence would make rationality, morality, and existence itself unintelligible to many philosophers (Plantinga, Swinburne, Aquinas, Ibn Sina, Maimonides).
Reasonable people can (and do) remain theists after engaging all these criticisms deeply.
Conclusion: Judaism’s Unique Position
But we must remember that the Jew cannot entertain Christianity or Islam. This is simply because he has forensically proven, judicial proof beyond any reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the unbroken chain and the central claim of his religion. His is not a ‘faith’: it is an historical fact – as proven elsewhere.
However, this does not diminish these faiths.
Leave a Reply