Critique of Walter Veith's Views On Islam

[Patrick Lawrence]

First of all please forgive any spelling errors etc. I have been up all night (could not sleep) and I am dyslexic. So between the two I am sure there are some errors.

Any way this is a critique of Walter Veith's teachings about Islam. I have seen his claims about Islam being started and controlled by the Catholic church going around. And having done a lot of research into Islam I new this was clearly wrong. But I thought I would check out his video any way. But it was worse than I thought. He has no clear and logical case for what he is saying. So I thought I would go point by point and comment on some of the problems. All of my points are easy to research and based on basic history etc. Much different than the sources he tends to use and I do comment on his sources.

Critique of Walter Veith video about Islam being created by the Catholic church. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCmSBfVXEmA&

The source of the idea that Islam was created by the Catholic Church seems to be from Alberto Rivera who was not a good source for history. And was almost certainly was a fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rivera And this seems to be exactly where Walter Veith gets his information. Rivera claimed to have been given this information by the Jesuit General Cardinal Bea. And also found the information in the Vatican archives. His claims about Islam would only have been made by some one who new very little about Islam and history.

> Mohameds first wife was Catholic nun. – From my research this is only based on Alberto Rivera who is not a good source for history. And was almost certainly a fraud as mentioned above. I can find no information that Khadija bint Khuwaylid was a nun or for that matter a Catholic. That all seems to come just from Rivera.

> Cresent and moon and star shows they took pagan symbol from Catholic church. ---- False Muslims did not use symbols early on. Their flags were of simple solid colors like black and green. They did not believe in having special symbols like the cross for example. So early on they would use colors or writen verses from the Quran printed on things. It was not until something like 600 years later that these symbols were adopted. No one knows for sure why they were adopted. But many believes it was the Ottoman's that did when they finally captured the Christian Byzantium capital of Constantinople as they used it for a symbol. But the Persions and others had used this symbol so no one is exactly sure. But it does seem to be the Ottoman Empire that started using the cresent moon and star.

>The same symbols are on Mosques and Catholic churches therfore theya re the same religion. - Very common symbols like sons in decorations is not proof that religions are the same. So finding a Mosque with a Sun symbol some place on it and a Catholic church with a sun symbol some place on it does not mean it is the same religion. The sun symbol is one of the most basic decorations. And do not forget it was not even used for hundreds of years in Islam. This argument is like saying the pentagram and the Dallas Cowboys star looks the same so they have to both be run by the Devil.

>Nuns and Muslim women were the same clothes. So they are they same religion - Nuns and Muslim women do not wear exactly the same clothes. They are only the same in that they cover the entire body. You could also compare Muslim womens swim suits to 19th century Protestant womens swim suits. They are very much the same but it does not mean they are the same religion.

>Muslims and Catholics both have saints so have to be the same religion. - In Islam is it forbidden to have shrines and pray to saints etc. While this does happen some it is not a core teaching of the Quran or Mohamed. As a matter of fact the reformation type Muslims who only go by the Quran like the Wahabbis have destroyed shrines, etc.

>Priests are just men so they are the same. - All traditional Christian religions and the Jewish religion do not allow female priests or pastors. And the Bible does not have female priests or pastors.

>There is an eye symbol is Islam and also in Catholicism so they must be the same. - The truth is the eye symbol is the hamsa and predates Islam and is a regional cultural tradition. It has been adopted under different names in the same area by Muslims, Jews and Christians (including protestants). This is another symbol that is not mentioned in the Bible or Quran. It seems to culturaly be some what like the Native American dream catcher is becoming in the US. A general charm people from all regilions use without thinking about it.

>Mosques and Catholic churches are built on pagan places of worship so all three are pagan. - It is common in all history for places of worship to be build on or in former places of worship. Pagan places became Christian places of worship and Christian places became Muslim places of worship and they then became Christian again and then back to Muslim. And Catholic places of worship became protestant places of worship.

>The Catholics created Islam to get rid of the Orthadox and other Christians in the middle east. - There are many logical problems behind this. The main one being without Islam weakening the Christian Catholic church protestant ideas would probably never have survived.

>The area where Islam took over was all Christian. - The area was not all Christian it was a mixture of Jews, Christians (different varieties) and Pagan. Matter of fact many of the very first to fight against Islam were Pagans.

>Islam only took over countries that were not Catholic then went away to let the Catholics take over. - This is just crazy. If you read the history you can see the life and death struggles over the ages as Islam and the West battled each other for control. You can see the ebb and flow of power on each side. You can see the battle for towns, castles, cites, kingdoms and oceans etc. You can read in depth about the personal desires and actions of key players at all levels on both sides over long stretches of time.

>Walter Veith to make his argument quotes from other fringe sources like Nesta Helen Webster. - Nesta was an early 20th century conspiracy theorist. She was very anti-semitic and became involved in several right-wing groups including the British Fascists, the Anti-Socialist Union, The Link, and the British Union of Fascists. She was also the leading writer of the "The Patriot", an anti-Semitic paper, where she supported the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany. She later published Germany and England in which she suggested that Adolf Hitler had successfully halted the Jewish attempt to control the world. She was also an occultist who believed she may have been reincarnated.

>The structures of some of these societies and groups were some what they same. So they must all be part of the same huge conspiracy. - There are basic structures that have formed in many places in the world without contact that are some what the same. It does not mean they are all part of the same plot.

>The Ottoman Empire was created to get rid of the Orthodox Christians. - Just reading history you can see this is not true. They attacked both Orthadox and Catholic countries. They were stopped by force not by some hidden plan. And the Orthadox bore the brunt of the attacks because of geographic location not a plot.

>Osama Bin Ladin is a high ranking freemason. - There is no evidence for this at all.

>The Pope/Catholic church never complains about not having relgius freedom in Muslim Lands. - This is clearly false. A quick search will show the Catholic church complaning about Islam. You can start at the current pope and go back. Matter of fact the current pope gave a famous speech and used this quote. “"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". “. This quote was from Paleologus who spent most of his time in power fighting the Muslims.

>Uses Helena Blavatsky the Ocultist as a source. - The problem with this is not that she was into the ocult but that she was an amature in it. Books like The Sources of Madame Blavatsky's Writings show that she plagurized most of her work and it was full of errors. Quoting second rate ocultists as fact does not help build a strong case.

>Spends a large amount of time quoting a personal site about Mary by some one named Allan Choveaux. - I can find no information that this is any more than a site by some random Catholic person. This is like some one trying to make a case about Adventists by quating a page setup on the internet by some random Adventist.

>Takes the belief that all people must be united under one religion by the muslims and applies it to the Catholics. - The Muslims do believe all men will be united under one religion at the end of time. But that religion is NOT the Catholic religion or any form of Christianity. They believe all the people of the world will be united under Islam.

>Says there is no difference between Catholic theologians and muslims theologians. - This is simple not true at all. Finding theologian that is catholic that agrees on one point does not make his statement true. It is like saying because some early Adventist did no believe in the trinity Adventist theologians and Muslim theologians believe the same thing.

[Stan]

Patrick, thank you for posting that. Are you aware of the AlHanif movement? That is where Adventist work in Muslim countries and can teach 27 of the 28 fundamental believes out of the Quaran? Walter Veith's sensationalism is hurting that work.

[Gibs]

I think he is fighting the movement to a one world religion and the merging together the most are pushing for. I am with him on that, that would be like trying to make the ten toes one toe and you have two feet.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gail]

Veith seems to be getting stranger as time goes on.

I agree with Stan- if you get a chance check out Al Hanif. It is a more humane and more loving and winsome way to connect with those of Islam.

[Gustave]

patrick, you think Veith's video teaching on Islam was bad you should check out his "Battle of the Bibles"...

...If anything it's even more false - but as the saying goes many people just want their ears tickled.

...And Veith absolutely provides that service better than any SDA.

[Gibs]

Gustave,

I take it you do not go with the KJV being the Bible with the best manuscripts. You should also see what Gail Riplinger has put forth and her book "New Age Bible Versions" cannot be refuted. If you do not have it, get a copy as it should be on every Christians bookshelf.

I once used the RSV and the NKJV but soon became aware some of the passages were not as they ought to be and am a strong supporter today of the KJV. I love it.

Another plus with it, on your computer you can with a good Bible software run the Hebrew Greek dictionary right with it and see the meaning of every original word from the best of the manuscripts and they are the ones kept pure and God has seen to it.

I don't think I stand 100% with W Veith on all things but on the above two I am with him, you bet.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gustave]

Gustave,

I take it you do not go with the KJV being the Bible with the best manuscripts. You should also see what Gail Riplinger has put forth and her book "New Age Bible Versions" cannot be refuted. If you do not have it, get a copy as it should be on every Christians bookshelf.

I once used the RSV and the NKJV but soon became aware some of the passages were not as they ought to be and am a strong supporter today of the KJV. I love it.

Another plus with it, on your computer you can with a good Bible software run the Hebrew Greek dictionary right with it and see the meaning of every original word from the best of the manuscripts and they are the ones kept pure and God has seen to it.

I don't think I stand 100% with W Veith on all things but on the above two I am with him, you bet.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

I mostly use the DR or KJV for my study of Sacred Scriture however I have about every version that exists on my shelf.

[Kountzer]

There were occasions in the past when I watched & listened to what Dr. Veith had to say about islam and catholicism. I thought he made plausible arguments. I haven't totally accepted what he has to say on this issue. Some things won't be fully known until Jesus comes back.

Most of the stuff presented on his network Amazing Discoveries is a lot more trust worthy than some of the anti sda stuff posted here by several loose cannons.

I personally have no interest in finding 27 of 28 fundamentals in the quran. None.

[Lysimachus]

Walter Veith's Total Onslaught series has proven to be a series that has converted thousands and thousands of people to Adventism.

I have had more success in my witnessing through his videos than any other.

I would not put him down as much as you guys are doing. He may be wrong on a few points, but you can always clear those up with people after they're done watching the videos.

Numerous people come back to me and say that he is easy to understand, and doesn't race through the lectures so fast (like David Asscherick).

Doug Batchelor is good too, but Walter Veith is more thorough in breaking down the texts exegetically.

[Patrick Lawrence]

Hey guys glad you like the post. And thanks for the replies. The posts seem to bring up a couple of related things. And I will just kinda tell you where I stand on them for better or worse.

On Walter Veith. He does have some somethings I agree with. For example he is correct on his views that another remnant will not be coming out of the Adventist church. But what I have seen of his Conspiracy theory stuff it is just like his Islam video. He builds arguments on bad information from bad choices. And he makes huge leeps of logic have no information to warrant them. So I believe Walter Veith is hurting the 3 angels message. Ellen White and Jesus are good models for us. Neither one was big into the conpiracy theories like he is. Matter of fact Ellen White on this is very interesting. In her time these conspiracy theories were as popular as now and really probably even more popular. But as she is shown from God what is important to us it is NOT conspiracy theories. Matter of fact I believe her warning about sensational books and religion apply to this. "You may be sure that pure and undefiled religion is not a sensational religion. God has not laid upon anyone the burden of encouraging an appetite for speculative doctrines and theories. My brethren, keep these things out of your teaching. Do not allow them to enter into your experience. Let not your lifework be marred by them. 584 {CCh 325.6} " Also when warning about sensation books she says they include "strictly historical writings" so they do not even have to be fiction. Although what he is teaching is fiction. Any way that came out way to long sorry

On other Adventist Muslim outreach methods. Well sadly I could and maybe should write a critique of some of them also. There problem is they go to far the other way. The contradict history, the Bible, the Quran, Ellen White and the Haddith to paint Islam as something it is not. That is some paint Islam as a good movement from God to be able to preach to Muslims easier. Some go so far as to say Mohamed and Islam were sent by God to protect his word and truth. And some even have Islamic converts that are well part Adventist and part Muslim in their beliefs. I think I will write something quick on Islam. Mainly because I see to extreme views on it and the truth is some place in the middle.

[dialoguewithus]

I would say that one could make the case that some of the false teachings of the Catholics helped encourage the development of Islam and guided it into some of its most extreme teachings, such as eternal hellfire. Also Islam may well have reacted against some of the Trinitarian ideas, including the tendency to replace the Holy Spirit in the Trinity with Mary.

[12tribes]

Both the Papacy and Islam started around the same time and both are church/state powers

[Patrick Lawrence]

dialoguewithus that is a valid point. But I would not use the word guided. It seems to be more of a case of Mohamed barrowing from many sources. But the same has been said of the Christian faith so we have to be somewhat careful how we go about this subject. For example many claim many ancient christian ideas like the animal sacrifices were just barrowed pagan ideas. But we believe the pagans corrupted ideas from the Christians. And that is pretty much what Muslims believe. The Bible was corrupted and they mohamed was sent to restore it. I think if we carefully look at how we think of things and defend them etc we can get a better understanding of how to reach Muslims.

12tribes are you suggesting they are the same?

[12tribes]

12tribes are you suggesting they are the same?

No but, there are some similarities

[Aussiemike]

I take it you do not go with the KJV being the Bible with the best manuscripts. You should also see what Gail Riplinger has put forth and her book "New Age Bible Versions" cannot be refuted. If you do not have it, get a copy as it should be on every Christians bookshelf.

I don't think I stand 100% with W Veith on all things but on the above two I am with him, you bet.

I once saw a video by Riplinger. She claimed that the new versions taught heresies. Then she mentioned those heresies and they were things that SDA believe. I then realised that she was full of rubbish. As i remember she said that the new versions teach annihilation of the wicked. A real heresy.

Here is an article refuting here book.

http://bible.org/article/why-respond-gail-riplinger

Veith has lost the plot in my opinion. He used to preach the 3 angels messages. Now he just seems to preach conspiracy theories.

[Aussiemike]

Why Respond to Gail Riplinger?

Study By: James R. White

Riplinger’s works have been reviewed, and rejected, by numerous Christian leaders and scholars. For most, it’s a waste of time to even discuss the issue, since it’s so obvious that she is a troubler of the brethren, a woman who is out of control, setting herself up as an expert on topics about which she knows nothing at all. Her inability to function as a scholar is plain to anyone who wishes to see. The impact she has had in disrupting churches, damaging missions work, and in generally causing trouble, is hers to answer for.

In closing, though, we should actually be more troubled about what Gail Riplinger’s work says about the church as a whole. Where has discernment gone? Why didn’t someone sit her down a long time ago and try to straighten her out? And what is worse, why are men to this day letting her go on her merry way, spreading falsehoods, and even encouraging her in such activities? I have been informed (but have not taken the time to verify) that Mrs. Riplinger was recently granted an honorary doctorate by Jack Hyles for her work, New Age Bible Versions. Can someone explain how a person who doesn’t even have the first bit of undergraduate training in any of the fields relating to Bible translation can be given an honorary doctorate for having produced the most error-filled volume on the topic ever to grace the planet? Is “acrostic algebra” the stuff of doctorates? One may well forgive Gail, for she is obviously deceived; but what of the many others who encourage her to continue on in her path of disturbing the work of the Church? Might not they be even more liable? It would seem so.

[John317]

I take it you do not go with the KJV being the Bible with the best manuscripts. You should also see what Gail Riplinger has put forth and her book "New Age Bible Versions" cannot be refuted. If you do not have it, get a copy as it should be on every Christians bookshelf.

I love the KJV too, Gibs, but Gail Riplinger is not to be trusted as a source of information about the manuscript evidence and the translations.

Read books from both sides of the issue.

If you read Riplinger's book, be sure to also read James R. White's book. His book is very well documented and covers the subject much better and more thoroughly than Riplinger does.

[John317]

Sad but true, Aussiemike. I have the same questions.

[Gustave]

Both the Papacy and Islam started around the same time and both are church/state powers

Where is it that you establish that the Papacy and Islam started around "the same time"?

[John317]

History. The papacy arose about 500-600 AD and so did Islam.

[phkrause]

Have watched the first 5 minutes. So far have not seen anything that is wrong. Have bookmark so I can watch the rest when I have more time. Just to let you know, have seen a number of his lecture's and find them to be pretty informative and accurate.

[Patrick Lawrence]

I believe in about the first 5 minutes these are two of the problems. (copied from first post.)

> Mohameds first wife was Catholic nun. – From my research this is only based on Alberto Rivera who is not a good source for history. And was almost certainly a fraud as mentioned above. I can find no information that Khadija bint Khuwaylid was a nun or for that matter a Catholic. That all seems to come just from Rivera.

> Cresent and moon and star shows they took pagan symbol from Catholic church. ---- False Muslims did not use symbols early on. Their flags were of simple solid colors like black and green. They did not believe in having special symbols like the cross for example. So early on they would use colors or writen verses from the Quran printed on things. It was not until something like 600 years later that these symbols were adopted. No one knows for sure why they were adopted. But many believes it was the Ottoman's that did when they finally captured the Christian Byzantium capital of Constantinople as they used it for a symbol. But the Persions and others had used this symbol so no one is exactly sure. But it does seem to be the Ottoman Empire that started using the cresent moon and star.

[Lysimachus]

I found this link pretty interesting:

http://www.discerningthetimesonline.net/RCCandIslamComparision.html

The article agrees with you Patrick, but it also does not nullify a strong Islamic and Catholic connection. It looks at it from a very balanced perspective.

Walter Veith may be wrong on just this one particular, but have you watched all his other 35 videos in his Total Onslaught series?

They are dynamite. This series is enough to recommend to any new person you are trying to win over to the faith. Then you can clear up small errors/details like this later.

I do not know of ONE prophecy/seminar series where I have been able to agree with every single point the speaker mentions. What you have to do is just pick the best, and then later on, when the time is ripe, and the person is comprehending enough, weed out the few little stragglers.

[Patrick Lawrence]

Well it says "but they were not in any league, real or imagined. ". The comparison they have is not really balanced. Matter of fact it has errors. Below is each of the comparisions they make with my comments after the --> in each one. Sorry it is a little hard to follow I do not have time to reformat it.

1. Both The Roman Catholic Church and Islam believe that only they are the one true church/religion. ->

So do Adventists.

2. The Roman Catholic Church and the Islam require mandatory fasting. -> For different reasons.

3. The Roman Catholic Church worships, prays to and gives titles of God to Mary. Islam highly esteems

Mary and she is mentioned 34 times in the Qu'ran.

"Even the infidel Muhammed glorifies Mary in his Koran, saying, 'The angels shall say to Maryam, "Allah

has chosen thee; he has made thee exempt from all stain'". The Marian (Roman Catholic) Bible

-> Islam does not esteam Mary more than many protestants. And they do not believe at all in the things

some Catholics teach about Mary. And it seems Mohamed did not really understand what Christians believed

about the trinity and thought Marry might be part of it. See the verse below where it talks about NOT

worshiping Marry. Quran 5:116 When God asked Jesus, son of Mary "Did you tell men to consider you and

your mother as their gods besides God?" he replied, "Glory be to you! How could I say what I have no

right to say? Had I ever said it, You would have certainly known about it. You know what is in my soul,

but I do not know what is in Yours. It is You who has absolute knowledge of the unseen.

4. The Roman Catholic Church and Islam base their salvation on a complicated system of works and deny

salvation by faith alone. There is no assurance of salvation in either religion. ->

They have VERY different views on salvation. They are nothing alike. For example Muslims do not believe

in the plan of salvation in any form. They do not believe Jesus died for our sins. They do not beleive in

the holy spirit helping us over come sin. They do not believe in the ineherent sin of man and on and on.

5. Both cults deny the Biblical view of the Atonement. The Roman Catholic Church doctrine dictates that

one must go to Purgatory to have his sins purged, Jesus just paved the way. The Muslims believe

their works will save them but will not know until Judgment Day. This is because there is no

atonement for sin, and God's grace does not exist. -> It really is not the same at all.

6. The Roman Catholic Church claims visions and apparitions in an effort to add false doctrine. Muhammad

claimed to be purified as a child by angels. He claimed to receive revelations from

Archangel Gabriel. -> Adventist/Protestants believe in visions tc also.

7. The Roman Catholic Church uses a rosary for their prayers, Islam uses prayer beads. The rosary/prayer

beads are concepts taken from paganism. -> This is a pagan thing but is not just a Catholic and

Islam thing. It is used by many religions... Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Anglicanism,

Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Bahá'í Faith

8. The Pope is the vicar or substitute of Christ for the Roman Catholic Church. In Islam, Muhammad is

called the last and final Messenger of God, the successor to Jesus. -> This is really not the same.

Mahamed was the greatest and last prophet. But he is not considered a substitute for Christ like the

Pope nor God on earth like some Catholics believe. It is very different.

9. The Roman Catholic Church and Islam have their own divorce system. The Roman Catholic Church grants

anullments and Islam allows a man to divorce his wife by telling her she is divorced.->

Not sure what this is even about there was even a divorce system in the Bible even thought God did not

like it.

10. Islam rejects the Trinity doctrine, the Deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith and teaches

that Christians should be killed. However, the Roman Catholic Church accepts

them and believes that they are offered salvation because of their faith in Abraham. -> This is

not true. Islam teaches that people of the book (Jews and Christians) can live in Muslim lands without

converting.

11. Both church organizations believe that leaving their church will result in eternal damnation. -> And

Adventists dont? What do Adventists believe about people that accepted the 3 Angels message became

Adventists and then leave the church?

12. The Roman Catholic Church and Islam share a hatred for the Jews. -> So do many protestants, leftist

and fascists this proves nothing.

13. The Roman Catholic Church and the Islam base some of their doctrine on pagan traditions. For The

Roman Catholic Church the traditions of a goddess, rosary, pope, relics, purgatory,

transubstantiation, praying to dead people, and idol worship are all based on paganism. The

Allah of Islam was actually a pagan god, and not even the major deity. -> This is just false. But

they do have some pagan ideas they believe but so does every protestant church.

14. The Roman Catholic Church and Islam have added books to support false doctrine. The Roman Catholic

Church has added the Apocrypha and Islam the Qu'ran.-> People could say the exact

same thing about the books by Ellen White Adventists use.

15. The Roman Catholic Church priest system (including Popes) has a history of sexual abuse of women and

children. Islam has a history of (including Muhammad) sexual abuse of women and

children.->The truth is the same can be said for the Christian church. It is made up of both the saved

and unsaved. And even the saved can slip into sin and do terrible things. And I know this is a shock but

even Adventists can do these kinds of things.

16. Both religions believe in using FORCE to spread their version of the one true god to the

unbelievers.-> This is common to religion not just these to. And what do you do with the old testament

where Gods peope take over entire lands and kill or drive out the people?

17. Both religions believe in a union with the state or of using the police powers of the state to

compel obedience to their tenets. -> Again this tends to be common to all relgions. And could be said to be true for old testament.

18 Both religions have a "holy" shrine in which the believers are taught to look to as their

headquarters e.g. Mecca and the Vatican. -> These are not really the same. A better comparison would be Mecca and Jerusalem.

[Patrick Lawrence]

Also Lysimachus I will look at more of Veith's stuff. I have seen it but not for a while. And I do not want to comment on things off hand.