One of the most non academically sound positions of Muslims is the one about Jesus. They say he never blasphemed by equating himself with God. It is just like saying Guru Maharaji never blasphemed by calling himself God. Not only was Jesus executed by the Jews for blasphemy, most of his followers were too, for thesame reason and not necessarily by Jews. Ethiopians, Egyptians, Romans and etc participated in executing those that followed Jesus. Why would the Jews execute Jesus if not for blasphemy or for spreading what they consider as heretic teaching? He was not a politician or military General. He was just among the many people the Jews executed for heresy. And where did Muslims get their own account of Jesus if not from Jews and Christians? The Apostle Paul was commissioned by the Jews to search for Jesus' followers and eliminate them. Jesus said 'I and the father or Yahweh are one', he also said he was greater than David, Moses and etc. The Jews executed him for this and pursued his followers who scattered all over the Roman empire and beyond. They were later persecuted by the Romans but their immovable resolve won by the 4th century or so and Christianity became the state religion of Rome when Emperor Constantine got converted, and the faith was tinkered with to appeal to Gentiles. Easter and Christmas are Gentile holidays existing before Jesus was born. Christ was added to the name and the day of worship changed from the Jewish Sabbath day or rest day which early followers of Jesus used to the day of the worship of the sun God called Sunday and etc. The idea that Jesus never called himself God as Guru Maharaji is doing today does not appeal to common sense at all. I see it as a manifestation of a vendetta that Mohammed had for Jews who would not touch him with a long pole and derisively laughed off his claim of being the last prophet. He retaliated by ordering his followers to stop facing Jerusalem to pray as he earlier directed them and start facing Mecca instead. This would have caused onlooking Jews to burst into laughter. As would be expected, he alligned himself with the legacy of Jesus in further retaliation against the Jews and promoted him as a messenger of Allah whom they rejected the way they are now rejecting him. It must also be noted that Christians helped Prophet Mohammed in his early struggles against the Jews and Arabs. This also partly explains his soft spot for Jesus. I have dwelt on the matter a lot and this is my conclusion. There are many Christian dominations in the middle East that did not really fall under Roman influence and none of them portray Jesus as a mere Prophet. He surely was someone like Sat Guru Maharaji. Confident that he was God which was why the Jews executed him. If the Jews had accepted Prophet Mohammed, he would of course have joined them in castigating Jesus as a heretic and Jerusalem will today be the holiest city of Islam where Muslims face to pray, instead of being the third holiest. The mood of the Jews can also explain why Prophet Mohammed chose the somewhat lower title of 'Last Prophet'. The Son of God title was a no go area if he were ever going to convince the Jews. But what is in a name? Both claims are equally narcissistic. One putting the other down is like the pot calling the kettle black. Why Muslims don't realise this is what amazes me