Catholic Considering Islam

[sedonaman]

Mohammed is a prophet,…

Mohammed performed no miracles, by his own admission. The only proof he offered of his alleged prophethood was essentially his claim that he was one. What kind of proof is that?

“Of course, any person, man or woman, can stand up and claim to have a message from God. But the question is how are the rest of us to know whether or not that individual is actually God’s messenger of truth or if they are just pretending or delusional? What objective evidence or proofs are available to demonstrate that an individual is speaking as God’s appointed messenger? What proofs does that individual messenger point to as evidence to substantiate their claims?

… one of the main ways that Mohammed attempted to support his validity was [to] draw similarities between those who rejected him and those who rejected previous apostles sent by God.”

This is a logical fallacy if there ever was one. Who has not experienced rejection at some point in their lives? There are posters on this very forum who reject my messages; does that make me a prophet? Is anyone who did experience rejection in religious matters therefore a prophet? The only way Mohammed can be a prophet is if you already believe he is a prophet. We might conclude he is the original Bootstrap Prophet.

References:
Evidentiary Religions – Islam
Contents
Introduction
Koran and Judeo-Christian Apostles
Koran and Judeo-Christian Scriptures
Koran Contradicts Judeo-Christianity (Part 1)
Koran Contradicts Judeo-Christianity (Part 2)
Koran Contradicts Judeo-Christianity (Part 3)
Koran Contradicts Judeo-Christianity (Part 4)
Another Gospel and Explaining the Success of Islam (Part 1)
Explaining the Success of Islam (Part 2)
Explaining the Success of Islam (Part 3)
Islam Conclusions

Critique of Islam

 

[sedonaman]

… your bibleNT is no more reliable now. Much manipulation has been done in it. So it is not fit for any serious discussion.

But Mohammed used it to validate his prophethood. Since it is not “reliable” and not “fit for any serious discussion”, Mohammed can’t be a prophet. Save yourself before it’s too late.

 

[sedonaman]

I invite muslims debating to read Bible as much as they can so they know and understand what Christians believe.It will be easier for Muslims this way.

Personally, I think it would be easier for people to understand what we believe if they read the Catechism first.

 

[leighfus]

I have a feeling that this thread is going disintegrate into a fury of arguments and harsh words but I pray not…

I became Catholic in 2007 after a year of RCIA. I have struggled to be the best Catholic I could be, I studied theology like crazy, I went to Mass, and I followed God.

I have to say that I am impressed with Islam, very very impressed. The Qur’an is like a beautiful ray of light. Muhammad (pbuh) is a wonderful example. The Muslims I know follow Christ’s example better than most Catholics, they are more peaceful and loving than I thought possible. Their devotion to God is absolute. And the evidence for Islam is piling up for me. I know many here have negative opinions about Islam, Muslims, and the Prophet Muhammad and I did too once but now that I have put a lot of time into studying the religion and talking to many people, I have discovered the true Islam. True Islam is not the fanatical religion of the media nor is it a woman-hating, gun-toting, violent mockery of religion as I had been taught. It very well might be the most peaceful faith on earth. God is in Islam, I can’t deny it any longer. Believe me I’ve tried!
I love the Church, but God has led me to Her and God may be leading me to Islam. I am willing to put everything else aside to follow God where He wills, even if I must put aside my beloved Mother Church. I will submit to God in all things, He will lead me where He wills.

I hesitate to ask…thoughts?

please keep it civil

pax vobiscum
Irish

many books are beautiful but they are not the Divine inspiration of God. I implore you to read the Bible and find the truth for yourself. The bible teaches that the world will try to persuade us to false teachings. In Colossians 2:8 Paul cautions us, “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”

In Christian Love,
Leigh

 

[Cecilianus]

Re Jews and Muslims in Spain:

Jews in Visigothic Spain, along with their coreligionists in North Africa, had assisted the Islamic invasion, which why Jews and Muslims together were at strife with the Christians of Spain for the next seven hundred years. They were acting in reaction to the attempt in 616 AD to forcibly baptize them ordered by Sisebut (a Visigothic king), who was excommunicated by a local ecclesiastical synod for attempting to impose baptism by force. He was Catholic, but following his Arian ancestors in his methods.

Re Paul: His conversion was revealed by Jesus to Ananias (Acts 9). He did not marry so that he could dedicate his life to God, as all Catholic and Orthodox bishops do, and since when has being killed been a sign of falseness? In Our Lord’s words, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that killest the prophets, and stone them which are sent unto you, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” - Jeremiah and (according at least to an apocryphal account) Isaiah being numbered among those stoned to death?

By the way, the fulfillment of the Old Law by the New is quite clearly taught in the Gospels - so much so that they even need to quote Jesus as affirming that He came “not to destroy but to fulfill” lest the synoptic Gospels be mistaken for a condemnation of the Old Covenant.

 

[Cecilianus]

DeusVult09;5664777:

Paul invented many things. The list is long and will be presented to you sometime. In any case your bibleNT is no more reliable now. Much manipulation has been done in it. So it is not fit for any serious discussion

.

Evidence please? The NT is one of the most faithfully copied documents ever compiled - far better preserved than any other ancient text. For evidence, see the link below, in which the number and age of the earliest manuscripts are compared with those of other ancient writers (Plato, Thucydides, Livy etc.)

vivificat1.blogspot.com/2009/09/on-integrity-of-new-testament.html

What I want to know is, if the NT was manipulated, where was the outrage and uproar over it? Catholics in the Patristic era (unlike during our post-Vatican II day) didn’t put up with that kind of stuff. There was rioting in the pews when they introduced St. Jerome’s Vulgate in place of the older Latin translation (both of which we still have - and they’re extremely similar). Passions ran high and people were bloodily persecuted over the difference between the words homoousios and homoiousios. To say that the entire NT was manipulated and fabricated from a proto-Muslim/Judaizing document to a Christian one strains credibility.

 

[bosnian_muslim]

So what? This is true by the end of the TENTH century, but not before. And even so, again, so what? Is the fact that the majority of Christians converted to Islam after 300 years of oppression supposed to be teaching me something? Yeah, being treated as a second class citizen and forced to pay humiliating taxes is not good, and many people converted rather than continue living that way. In this respect, Spain is no different than the other places Muslims conquered.

muslim Spain is known for its tolerance,beautiful architecture etc etc…we brought civilisation to Europe,before muslims they/we didnt know what taking a bath meant lol.The thanks was to kill the muslims and convert the mosques into churches

The forced conversions of who? Muladis? Jews? Christians? (It is not clear who you’re talking about here)

i have been reading abour the forced conversions of muslims and jews only

No one ever converts to Islam for any other reason then that they just loooove it so much. Nevermind how many period resources that you can show that prove otherwise or how many scholarly books you can cite, it’s all “anti-Islamic” and therefore a distortion that is useless against the power of Muslims’ willful ignorance of the truth of their own history.

Because there were no forced conversion,the nonmuslims had to pay jizya thats all…it made many people convert because of the economy,but thats still not force.Those that saw christianity as important continueed beeing christians,

The ottomans even saw it in their own interest to keep nonmuslim populations,because of the jizya

Indeed. Again, not to be rude, but what is your point here? That the Bosnians were nicer to the Jews at that time than the Spanish were?

my point is to show you how much better the nonmuslims had it under muslim rule

Latinos do not see Islam as being a good religion for them. It has far better success among blacks, for whatever reason.

in recent years there have been more and more muslim converts among latinos

I guess…if you’re an idiot. This reminds me of the Taliban excuse for blowing up the Buddha statues at Bamiyan, that they might lead the people of the area to idol worship. Hahaha. I don’t know if that’s actually the reason given, but that was reported in some news outlets…silly, isn’t it? “Idol” worship of the Buddha by who? There are no Buddhists today in Afghanistan!

There are illiterate,foolish people everywhere.There are those who believed that by praying to the buddha their wishes will become true.There are always preislamic traditions kept after a people converts,same with christianity.

Here in Bosnia even orthodox people gather togheter with muslims to pray next to the famous graves of “seven muslim martyrs”(brothers who died 300 years ago in some kind of jihad)…it is believed that they make miracles(lol)…its against islam,but it does not stop fools believeing in it

Even in Mecca,the heart of islam some people started to pray to the grave of Amina(Mohameds mothers) thats why her grave was destroyed 200 years ago.Fatimas grave is still there somewhere,but it is kept secret where.It is best so.shaytans best weapon is to fool people,so they first think how they are honouring the “saint”,next you know they pray to it.And thats shirk(idol worshiping)…it happened to all religions only not to islam and judaism

Ouch. My feelings. Hey, don’t forget to offer salat to Allat, al-Uzza and Manat in kind…

what is Allat al uzza and manat? its first time i hear about that

 

[bosnian_muslim]

hey Bosanka where is your proof Paul changed 90% of the religion? All he did was say that gentile converts don’t have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish law as they are under the grace of Jesus Christ . That is not changing 90% of the religion or inventing Christianity that is nowhere near it.

Who corrupted Jesus’ teachings Mohammad or Paul? As far as I am concerned the Koran is the word of Mohammad not god. You are free to think otherwise.

Now you are going on about catholic history again what about the forced conversions and massacres undertaken when the Muslims invaded the Byzantine empire? Or the kidnapping of children and forced indoctrination of children Islam by the ottomans please dont complain about something your own religion is guilty of. it sickens me it really does.

You complain about the atrocities in Latin America but what about the 17 million killed by Tamerlane. Muslims always do this and it hacks me off they complain about catholic history when their own is just as bad

As i have already proven the moors treated the jews very badly so please stop going on about that.

Not to mention the 4 million Assyrians, Armenians and pontic Greeks killed by the ottomans last century alone. You think you muslims have a perfect history?

The difference is that all those misstakes were made by the ottomans,they are not islam,they only follow islam.On the other hand christians had the blessing from the pope himself,and as far as i know you guys believe he is divine,and can not make mistakes,so what christians did represents christianity…while the horror some muslims did can not represent islam

it is as simple as that

 

[thunderballs75]

The difference is that all those misstakes were made by the ottomans,they are not islam,they only follow islam.On the other hand christians had the blessing from the pope himself,and as far as i know you guys believe he is divine,and can not make mistakes,so what christians did represents christianity…while the horror some muslims did can not represent islam

it is as simple as that

Actually, many times the crusaders went expressly against the Church’s teachings and the pope’s wishes. In fact, many times Pope Innocent III specifically excommunicated the crusaders. And in truth, the majority of crusades were not under papal patronage.

 

[Cecilianus]

muslim Spain is known for its tolerance,beautiful architecture etc etc…we brought civilisation to Europe,before muslims they/we didnt know what taking a bath meant lol.The thanks was to kill the muslims and convert the mosques into churches

What’s the point of this argument? The Muslims were the first to kill the Christians and convert the churches into mosques. The intellectual exchange went both ways - Muslims receiving Greek philosophy from the Christian monks and later the Christians receiving Islamic commentaries on it and development of it. As far as the killing goes, why do you think you have the upper moral ground?

(And yes, I love Islamic architecture.)

Because there were no forced conversion,the nonmuslims had to pay jizya thats all…it made many people convert because of the economy,but thats still not force.Those that saw christianity as important continueed beeing christians,

Dhimmitude consisted of much more the jizya (which itself was much worse than any socialist regime today or any fine you would get in an American court - so to call it “the economy” that made people convert is wrong). Humiliating restrictions concerning dress and harsh impediments to the practice of religion (building new churches and baptizing adults were illegal, for instance) were part of dhimmitude, as well as the punishment parents underwent (losing all of their property to their son) if their son converted.

my point is to show you how much better the nonmuslims had it under muslim rule

Since when has Christianity ever imposed dhimmitude on Muslims? The only place where Islam was ever persecuted was Spain after the reconquista - and you really expect any nation to permit foreign occupiers to stay just after a 700-year occupation ended? Forcing the enemies to leave is basic common sense politically - it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong. And don’t forget who started the conflict by invading the peninsula to begin with.

There are illiterate,foolish people everywhere.There are those who believed that by praying to the buddha their wishes will become true.There are always preislamic traditions kept after a people converts,same with christianity.

But native traditions don’t last millennia after the people converts, and there aren’t any Buddhists in Afghanistan any more. Having a historical statue around does not make it an idol. And, furthermore, I don’t think that most Buddhists actually worship either Buddha or statues of him - though there are many different Buddhist sects and there are always exceptions.

Even in Mecca,the heart of islam some people started to pray to the grave of Amina(Mohameds mothers) thats why her grave was destroyed 200 years ago.Fatimas grave is still there somewhere,but it is kept secret where.It is best so.shaytans best weapon is to fool people,so they first think how they are honouring the “saint”,next you know they pray to it.And thats shirk(idol worshiping)…it happened to all religions only not to islam and judaism

Praying to a saint does not make him or her an “associate” (literal meaning of shirk) with God, as if God needed help - they are only saints because God granted them His grace to begin with. They have nothing without God; they are saints precisely and only because of their love for God, and every Catholic and Orthodox in the world knows this.

what is Allat al uzza and manat? its first time i hear about that

The “three daughters of Allah” - originally popular pagan goddesses. The verse that enjoins their veneration was originally included in the Qur’an and then deleted on the grounds that it was revealed by Satan and not God - hence the name “satanic verses”. Salman Rushdie’s novel was named after that verse, which is why the Iranians refuted him by calling for his head.

 

[Cecilianus]

The difference is that all those misstakes were made by the ottomans,they are not islam,they only follow islam.On the other hand christians had the blessing from the pope himself,and as far as i know you guys believe he is divine,and can not make mistakes,so what christians did represents christianity…while the horror some muslims did can not represent islam

it is as simple as that

The pope is not divine, and he can certainly make mistakes. What Christians believe is that he holds an office instituted by God, that he is appointed to lead the earthly Church in Christ’s absence, and that as such he is prevented by the Holy Spirit from formally, publicly proclaiming error to be Catholic doctrine when all of the following three circumstances apply:

1. He is speaking through his authority as Universal Pontiff (in which case we say he is speaking ex cathedra - “from the chair” of Peter).
2. He is speaking to the whole Church, and not just a part of it.
3. He is speaking on a matter of faith and morals (his opinion on everything else - be it specific political opinions, the weather, or scientific judgments - cannot be said to be infallible since none of those opinions were revealed in Scripture to begin with; they are not a part of the deposit of faith).

A fourth, unspoken criterion is that he needs to be speaking freely, rather than under duress (as has happened probably only once in history, when Pope Liberius was forced under torture to sign an ambiguous document which he recanted as soon as he escaped).

 

[sedonaman]

…we brought civilisation to Europe,before muslims they/we didnt know what taking a bath meant lol.
…
There are illiterate,foolish people everywhere.
…

Since when is the job of Islam to bring “civilization” to other people, especially by force? Since when is the job of Islam to educate illiterate people and to make foolish people wise?

 

[Cecilianus]

Since when is the job of Islam to bring “civilization” to other people, especially by force? Since when is the job of Islam to educate illiterate people and to make foolish people wise?

Well, that’s normally what religions try to do - the Jesuits did the same, except without the use of force.

 

[Steven_John]

Paul invented many things. The list is long and will be presented to you sometime. In any case your bibleNT is no more reliable now. Much manipulation has been done in it. So it is not fit for any serious discussion.

Interesting comment, i would like to see some of the support you have for your claim.

What is keen to me i have prayed much over this man over the last year.

I think it is important to see that i guess Pauls gospel must be able to stand on their own, that is without the other 4 you are familiar with the other 8 or 9 common gospels we are missing now and without a Jewish back ground.

I say this because Paul went far away to people without the same cultural heritage just with his gospel where as most today will have all five gospels and the Torah.

Try putting aside all you know and being like a child and read Pauls words, interesting our come?

I think we dont have lots of Christians where i live today but have more like messianic Jews with some other doctrines.

 

[Cecilianus]

Interesting comment, i would like to see some of the support you have for your claim.

What is keen to me i have prayed much over this man over the last year.

I think it is important to see that i guess Pauls gospel must be able to stand on their own, that is without the other 4 you are familiar with the other 8 or 9 common gospels we are missing now and without a Jewish back ground.

I say this because Paul went far away to people without the same cultural heritage just with his gospel where as most today will have all five gospels and the Torah.

Try putting aside all you know and being like a child and read Pauls words, interesting our come?

I think we dont have lots of Christians where i live today but have more like messianic Jews with some other doctrines.

Paul’s Gospel???

I’ve never heard of it - it must be really obscure, even for apocrypha.

Why would you take seriously something that obscure, considering what a major figure Paul was? Why do we not see the Church Fathers - or somebody - talking about it if it were really written by St. Paul himself?

 

[Steven_John]

Paul’s Gospel???

I’ve never heard of it - it must be really obscure, even for apocrypha.

Why would you take seriously something that obscure, considering what a major figure Paul was? Why do we not see the Church Fathers - or somebody - talking about it if it were really written by St. Paul himself?

Yes my mistake poor choice of words all five Gospels are Gospels of Jesus (pbwh)

I should have said the gospel according to Paul

Please forgive me, my upbringing was in Catholic school and we spoke of Lukes gosple etc.

 

[Jay53]

Yes my mistake poor choice of words all five Gospels are Gospels of Jesus (pbwh)

I should have said the gospel according to Paul

Please forgive me, my upbringing was in Catholic school and we spoke of Lukes gosple etc.

You are mistaken. There are only 4 Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

St. Paul’s writings are part of the New Testament, but they are not considered “Gospel”.

Unless you are referring to something different. ???

 

[Steven_John]

You are mistaken. There are only 4 Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

St. Paul’s writings are part of the New Testament, but they are not considered “Gospel”.

Unless you are referring to something different. ???

No i stand corrected and ty4 that,
I thought the gospel was the good news and that Paul preached the good news of Jesus.

What you say makes so much more sense in some ways and none in others.

If Pauls writings are not gospel how did he start the first Christians at Antioch?

 

[Jay53]

No i stand corrected and ty4 that,
I thought the gospel was the good news and that Paul preached the good news of Jesus.

What you say makes so much more sense in some ways and none in others.

If Pauls writings are not gospel how did he start the first Christians at Antioch?

Gospel means “Good News” and Paul did preach the teachings or “Good News” of Jesus Christ. His Epistles, however are not what are called “Gospel”.

I have no idea what you mean by your last question. I believe that St. Paul did go to Antioch with St. Barnabas and that many people were converted to believe in Jesus and His teachings. And this is where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts11:26), but I don’t know what you mean by Paul’s writings being gospel. Paul was preaching the good news of Jesus - that He is the Son of God, He was raised from the dead, He gave us His Body and Blood etc. ???

In my Bible, regarding the Life and Epistles of St. Paul, it says:

“… Having returned to Damascus, he stayed there for a time, preaching in the synagogues, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. For this he incurred the hatred of the Jews, and had to flee from the city. He then went to Jerusalem to see Peter (Gal. 1, 18) to pay his homage to the head of the Church. Later he went back to his native Tarsus and began to evangelize his own province until called by Barnabas to Antioch. …”

 

[Steven_John]

To clarify the last question and follow the same terminology as you.

One does not need the Gospel to become Christian Pauls epistles are sufficient.

I would argue that the Gospel is the revelation in Jesus Christ of God’s mercy to sinners and indeed the Paul epistles are credited to have been that or he would not have started the Christians.