How do I as a Catholic refute these Muslim claims

[CompSciGuy]

It’s used that way as a slur by people who are not academics.

Among academics, it simply means a theory that revises what we thought we knew. It’s a neutral term–sometimes it turns out to be correct and sometimes not.

For instance, the view of the English Reformation popular among Catholics on this forum, which sees those events as a top-down governmental imposition rather than a popular movement, is a revisionist view. The “classic” view is the Whig theory in which the Reformation was part of a movement toward democracy and greater freedom.

Edwin

But it’s quite a different matter in this case. Muhammad was not saying that Christians and Jews had a wrong perspective of the scriptures, but rather they had somehow changed what the scriptures said. And he is claiming this without evidence.

 

[Contarini]

Hello Edwin

Don’t you think this is strange??

That a Prophet would come and invite all to “submit” themselves before God, urges everyone to do so, and then turns around and supposedly denies the very foundation of belief in Christianity thereby alienating an entire population from “submitting themselves before God”…bit of a silly move huh?

Hardly. Eastern Christianity was divided into several factions over the details of the Incarnation. Suggesting that Jesus was simply a prophet and that people should return to a simple faith in one God who sends messengers to reveal His will was brilliant. I am not suggesting thereby that Muhammad was insincere.

And all this after saying also that Jesus WAS born in a virgin birth…

I see no “eek” here. It all makes sense in cultural context. The virgin birth was established as a form of reverence to Jesus and His Mother. Muhammad found this easy to believe, because he believed in an omnipotent God who works miracles.

I know what you will probably think…He was deceived by a demon and He similarly deceived an ill-educated population.

Please don’t assume you know what I think.

I don’t know if Muhammad was deceived by a demon or not. I certainly would not assume any such thing. I assume his sincerity and I am agnostic about what if any supernatural agency he encountered. I do not find anything about Islam particularly hard to explain in purely human terms. Perhaps that is because I don’t know Arabic:shrug:

Let me humbly offer this perspective dear friend.

Muhammad says two critical things in the Quran:

1. “They said, “We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God.” They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him…"

…and…

1. “And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: ‘They are dead.’ Nay, they are living…” (2:154)
   “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live…” (3:169)

Now compare both these quotes with Quran 3:102
" Fear Allah as He should be Feared, and die not except in a state of Islam…"

Muslims can think what they want from these verses, they may all be interpreting it wrong, (as they have with some extremist groups and their interpretations) but what do you understand from these two verses, (in the context of the comparative verse I quoted last) from the mouth of Muhammad?
.

I gather that you are suggesting that the first passage isn’t denying that Jesus was killed, but is saying that Jesus is alive with God and thus “they didn’t kill him.” I’ve heard this before, and perhaps it’s the right interpretation of what Muhammad originally meant. However, I’m inclined to think not because of the follow-up “neither did they crucify him.” That sounds like something other than an affirmation that Jesus is in paradise, or even an affirmation of the Christian doctrine of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

However, I made a point of saying “Muslims typically deny” precisely because I knew the Qur’an can be interpreted in several ways here and that not all Muslims hold this view.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But it’s quite a different matter in this case. Muhammad was not saying that Christians and Jews had a wrong perspective of the scriptures, but rather they had somehow changed what the scriptures said. And he is claiming this without evidence.

I was objecting to using the term “historical revisionism” to describe this.

It is, of course, a kind of revisionism, but as you say it’s not evidence-based. It’s faith-based.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Those are issues of Jewish ritual not of Jewish morality. Read this article it’s more in depth.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law

I don’t think the distinction would make sense either to traditional Jews or to traditional Muslims. It’s a Christian distinction, developed precisely to explain why we “picked and chose” certain aspects of the Mosaic Law.

Edwin

 

[dronald]

I didn’t know scholarship was a seriously taken facet of knowledge by the Christian community, especially since scholarship puts doubt into the historical reliability of some events in the Gospels…

When we know a Gospel came out of the 16th century then it ought to be taken seriously.

Might I ask two questions please?

1. Do you think the true teachings of Christ were practiced by many in the times of Muhammad in Arabia? If so, what is your source please?

There was much trade going on in Arabia and many would have run into Christians. See Muhammad’s sex slave: Maria al-Qibtiyya.

1. If the situation presented itself, what would Jesus have done if He saw widows with their recently orphaned children, about to be killed by savage men? If the only option was to marry the woman/women, would He have refused and condemned them to innocent slaughter?

Please rephrase because I don’t understand. Are you saying Jesus would teach a woman she must be forced to marry a man who will otherwise kill her if not?

Jesus came to a civilized people who followed Moses for generations. Muhammad came to wild tribes of idol worshipers who even killed their own baby daughters.

Matthew 2:16

No, He was speaking of divorce, not polygyny.

Oh yeah? How’s that teaching going for Muslims these days?

Muhammad was protecting and providing support for widows in a society where they faced rape and death.

Assuming you don’t disagree with him perhaps.

 

[powerofk]

Honestly, much of Islam’s teachings on Jesus sound very close to teachings found in the several early Christian heresies (Jesus only appeared to be crucified, but instead used a stand-in; Jesus wasn’t God, but a lesser, created being - possibly on par with angels, the need to be a strict adherent to every detail of the Mosaic law to be saved - though halal is not exactly the same as kosher).

It’s quite possible that Mohammed’s first contact with people who talked about God were preachers of such a heresy, and that he was a follower of such a heresy for a time before he received his “visions”. Whether he received the visions or not (could have possibly been dreams that came from reflecting over the teachings he was given, as our mind does that), it’s important to understand that he believed that he saw visions, and believed that he was called to usher in an age where everyone worshipped God correctly. And his experiences from before may have been why he first told everyone to listen to the Jews and Christians, but then later (upon contact with Jews and Christians) claimed that we distorted God’s truth - because it was completely different from what he had been taught. And, of course, as any prideful person would do, he claimed that he was right and the people he was encountering were wrong. This is especially true because he believed that he had been personally visited by the angel Gabriel.

 

[Servant19]

Hi Servant. Hope your day is going well. I disagree, my response was exactly on point to the inquiry to which I was responding. The response you offer is not one that was in discussion. I am aware that Mohammad proclaimed himself to be a prophet of God. This claim is substantiated only by himself. Firstly, were he a prophet, there would have been little reason to verse himself about the religions of the day, including Judaism and Arianism, prior to the formation of his own religion. but in the rejection of these ‘corrupt’ scriptures in lieu of the Koran, he does chose to follow some of the precepts contained within. So while he rejects the writings, he selects some actions of the people about whom the writings apply. All of this means that until 600 AD, God was either inept as a Teacher of right worship, or the sins of His creation were of sufficient power to overshadow His abilities to espouse His people. If all ‘Godly’ religion were corrupt until the time of Muhammad, this would cast more a messianic light to Muhammad’s claims rather than simply prophet.

But in neither the faith of the Jews nor the faith of the Christians was there an expectation that another prophet was to be necessary. The Jews were looking for the advent of their Messiah and the Christians were anticipating Jesus’s return. So there is no continuity of religious practice were Mohammed’s claim of prophet would ever be thought necessary among God’s people. So either God had no people making Mohammed the primary messianic character OR there is a continuity of faith in God throughout the ages of human history and Mohammed is outside that very continuum.

As for me, I say God is not inept and Mohammed is not a prophet, regardless of his own claims.

Hey, if Ignatian, jj, tony or one of you guys would check my logic for holes I’d appreciate it.

Hi sousely, thankyou for your thoughtful response

May I ask, would you say that up until the coming of Jesus that … “God was either inept as a Teacher of right worship, or the sins of His creation were of sufficient power to overshadow His abilities to espouse His people” ?



.

 

[Servant19]

Can you show me where Jesus calls us to deny the truth? The truth being Jesus himself? You also ignored my question. You called Muhammad good and said he defended people. How do you know this?

Dear friend, when an individual goes around calling other peoples sincere devotion to God through the Prophet Muhammad, or Baha’u’llah, as “false” and “disgusting” and says that his words are the “TRUTH”, then one has to question whether they are placing “Truth” above “love”

The onus is on you to advise where Jesus commanded the asserting of “truth” over “love” which is what I see on several instances in CAF.

I’m not asking you to deny the truth. I’m asking why the biggest commandment of Christ is not being followed.

In regards to Muhammad and His defending of the helpless, there are several historical accounts of this. Try this:

d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_the_life_of_the_prophet_muhammad.pdf

and this:

goodreads.com/book/show/1828214.Muhammad_and_the_Course_of_Islam



.

 

[Servant19]

Hardly. Eastern Christianity was divided into several factions over the details of the Incarnation. Suggesting that Jesus was simply a prophet and that people should return to a simple faith in one God who sends messengers to reveal His will was brilliant. I am not suggesting thereby that Muhammad was insincere.

I see no “eek” here. It all makes sense in cultural context. The virgin birth was established as a form of reverence to Jesus and His Mother. Muhammad found this easy to believe, because he believed in an omnipotent God who works miracles.

Please don’t assume you know what I think.

I don’t know if Muhammad was deceived by a demon or not. I certainly would not assume any such thing. I assume his sincerity and I am agnostic about what if any supernatural agency he encountered. I do not find anything about Islam particularly hard to explain in purely human terms. Perhaps that is because I don’t know Arabic:shrug:

I gather that you are suggesting that the first passage isn’t denying that Jesus was killed, but is saying that Jesus is alive with God and thus “they didn’t kill him.” I’ve heard this before, and perhaps it’s the right interpretation of what Muhammad originally meant. However, I’m inclined to think not because of the follow-up “neither did they crucify him.” That sounds like something other than an affirmation that Jesus is in paradise, or even an affirmation of the Christian doctrine of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

However, I made a point of saying “Muslims typically deny” precisely because I knew the Qur’an can be interpreted in several ways here and that not all Muslims hold this view.

Edwin

Hello Edwin, thankyou for your thoughts. Firstly my sincere apologies for making assumptions. My human frailties of generalizing the mindset of Christians about Islam sometimes rears its ugly head and I must (and will) pray harder for this frailty to be removed

I value your position in relation to the phrase “they crucified Him not”. Is it possible that this phrase may be directed to the Jews and their reference to the Deuteronomy verse cursing those who are crucified?



.

 

[tonyfish58]

the followers of Christ wrote the New Testament.

if mohammed really claimed that they distorted the New Testament, he really lacked in scholarship it would appear. the NT would not exist except for the followers of Christ. how does a person distort what they have written.

Eddie Too - You have misunderstood Matthews response dear friend!

The Books as Written and Recorded in History are not Distorted. Baha’is and I would suggest most Muslims would see the Bible as;

“THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the Noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God”.

It is the Interpretation of this written word that Muhummad has recorded as incorrect and warned Christianity of. The Koran sets straight what the Bible meaning truly is.

Here are some interesting references from this link - This is worth a read it is from a Christain Point of View answering-islam.org/Campbell/s2c1.html

B1. The Table (Al-Ma’ida) 5:113-114, 10 AH. "Then will God say, `O Jesus son of Mary! Recount my favor to you… Behold! I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel…

B4. Iron (Al-Hadid) 57:26-27, from 8 AH. "And We sent Noah and Abraham, and established in their descendants prophecy and the Book: and some of them are rightly guided, but many are rebellious.

"Then We sent after them our apostles and We sent Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy; and monasticism, they invented it. We did not command it...yet We bestowed on those among them who believed, their due reward, but many of them are rebellious." cp. 5:85.

In 4:156-159 “…But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his death…”

Those who hold that Jesus did not die say that Jesus is still living in the body and that he will appear just before the Final Day, when the world will be purified of sin and unbelief. There will be a final death before the final Resurrection, but all will have believed before that final death.

In 4:156-159 “…He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them.”

Jesus will be the witness of his people and his contemporaries for those who accept Allah, and against those who reject Him.

The Qur’an says in the Sura of the Cattle (Al-An`am) 6:34, “There is no changing to the Words of God”; and again in Jonah (Yunus) 10:64, “There is no change to the Words of God.”

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

If that were the case, there would have been no reason to write a new one; he would have simply clarified what already existed. Jesus didn’t write a new version of the Hebrew scriptures.

sousley - Have you thought about your comment?

As you said “Jesus didn’t write a new version of the Hebrew scriptures”. Yes the Gospels were Written - It was A New Revelation and New Book from God - A fuller explanation of the Hebrew scriptures

This is the Same as Muhummad - Muhammad didn’t write a new version of the Gospels - It was a new Revelation and a New Book from God - A fuller explanation of the Gospels

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

But it’s quite a different matter in this case. Muhammad was not saying that Christians and Jews had a wrong perspective of the scriptures, but rather they had somehow changed what the scriptures said. And he is claiming this without evidence.

When one has Recognized the Station of Muhummad, one then recognizes the evidence is From God. That is a mighty source dear friend!

IMHO Muhummad is saying “that Christians and Jews had a wrong perspective of the scriptures” which in turn, though not actually altering the Written Word, it does indeed “change what the scriptures say”.

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

In regards to Muhammad and His defending of the helpless, there are several historical accounts of this. Try this:

d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_the_life_of_the_prophet_muhammad.pdf

and this:

goodreads.com/book/show/1828214.Muhammad_and_the_Course_of_Islam

.

Thanks Servant

Looks good - I have downloaded for a read - A big Thank you

Regards Tony

 

[Tomdstone]

Wouldn’t it just have been a lot easier for Muhammad to profess Christs Divinity,…
.

My guess is that Islam has been influenced by Arianism, which denies the divinity of Christ. There are several verses in the New Testament that they use to support their opinion, for example: Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 and John 14:28.

 

[Servant19]

Thanks Servant

Looks good - I have downloaded for a read - A big Thank you

Regards Tony

Love you Tony

.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Dear friend, when an individual goes around calling other peoples sincere devotion to God through the Prophet Muhammad, or Baha’u’llah, as “false” and “disgusting” and says that his words are the “TRUTH”, then one has to question whether they are placing “Truth” above “love”

The onus is on you to advise where Jesus commanded the asserting of “truth” over “love” which is what I see on several instances in CAF.

I’m not asking you to deny the truth. I’m asking why the biggest commandment of Christ is not being followed.

In regards to Muhammad and His defending of the helpless, there are several historical accounts of this. Try this:

d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_the_life_of_the_prophet_muhammad.pdf

and this:

goodreads.com/book/show/1828214.Muhammad_and_the_Course_of_Islam



.

I believe in both Truth and love. I believe both are equally important. I believe that Jesus is the way the truth and the light and that no one comes to the father except through him (something bahai deny, believing instead any other prophet is fine).

Now your first link is not a primary source but rather a book about the life of Muhammad. It is not scholarly and does not provide the references used to justify the inclusion of these events. Why should i just trust this book? Who wrote it? When was it written?

In regards tot he second book, I do not have access to this book. But since you referred to it you can give the quote which lists the resource used to say Muhammad defended the innocent against oppression.

You know where I’m going with this but you still need to provide a better and more primary source.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

tonyfish58;12191142]

The Books as Written and Recorded in History are not Distorted. Baha’is and I would suggest most Muslims would see the Bible as;

“THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the Noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God”.

Your view of the bible is new. Jews view the Torah and Christians view the canonized books of the bible as the Word of God.

Your view is complimentary but it rejects God’s own living Word. Your view of the bible does not give a welcome but insults both the Jewish and Christian faith for what it is.

**It is the Interpretation of this written word **that Muhummad has recorded as incorrect and warned Christianity of. The Koran sets straight what the Bible meaning truly is.

What is written in the gospels is clear and does not require an interpretation but faith in the birth, ministry, passion, death by crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven. It is Muhammad who interprets falsely from what history has clearly recorded from first century Christians, Jews and Pagan Rome.

The “Koran” must not be of God, if God needs to correct himself and re-teach a new by way of “Koran” according to your logic. Or you reject the bible as being the Word of God, in order for the “Koran” to correct God’s Word?

Here are some interesting references from this link - This is worth a read it is from a Christain Point of View answering-islam.org/Campbell/s2c1.html

B1. The Table (Al-Ma’ida) 5:113-114, 10 AH. "Then will God say, `O Jesus son of Mary! Recount my favor to you… Behold! I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel…

NO Christian believes God taught the Word of God wisdom or the Torah and the Gospel, when the Word of God is God incarnate. Jesus the Son of Mary is the fulfillment of the Torah and the Gospels are a revelation and witness of God to our humanity. The latter suffices all of your quotes. Islam has a long way to catch up in these mysteries.

Those who hold that Jesus did not die say that Jesus is still living in the body and that he will appear just before the Final Day, when the world will be purified of sin and unbelief. There will be a final death before the final Resurrection, but all will have believed before that final death.

The New Testament teaches that those who do not believe in Jesus Christ crucified are anti-Christ.

Jesus will be the witness of his people and his contemporaries for those who accept Allah, and against those who reject Him.

The Qur’an says in the Sura of the Cattle (Al-An`am) 6:34, “There is no changing to the Words of God”; and again in Jonah (Yunus) 10:64, “There is no change to the Words of God.”

Your late “Quran” quotes, only repeat what Jesus already taught centuries before Muhammad was born. “No one may add or subtract from His Word”. Muhammad and the Quran has done both of these.

I appreciate your posts, and I only offer a Christian perspective to them.

Peace be with you

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

How do the Bahai dare to defend the quran when the quran doesn’t even understand the Christianity it criticises? Will Bahail also defend Muhammad in this quranic statement?

They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.5:72

Do bahai agree that the Christians have denied God?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

tonyfish58;12191152]
As you said “Jesus didn’t write a new version of the Hebrew scriptures”. Yes the Gospels were Written - It was A New Revelation and New Book from God - A fuller explanation of the Hebrew scriptures

Jesus never writes. Jesus does not give a new revelation via a new book? Jesus the Son of God, sent by God to bring into fulfillment the law and the prophets. Jesus does not come to give a “fuller explanation of the Hebrew scriptures”, Jesus fulfilled them in Himself.

This is the Same as Muhummad - Muhammad didn’t write a new version of the Gospels - It was a new Revelation and a New Book from God - A fuller explanation of the Gospels

Jesus and Muhammd are never the same. Muhammad died and remain’s dead. Jesus resurrected from the dead and Lives eternally.

Muhammads Koran contradicts the New Testament, Muhammads Koran’s explanation of the Gospels is heretical according to Church councils.

Peace be with you

 

[Servant19]

I believe in both Truth and love. I believe both are equally important.

Hi Ignatian. This is what I am trying to understand. By what basis are you applying truth to be equal to love? Is there Scripture to back this assertion. Jesus asserted a COMMANDMENT to us, that we must love all as we do ourselves. I cannot fathom a more important instruction from God to man…a Commandment. Paul asserted the importance of unity to the Corinthians over truth. Love and unity over-ride truth. Do you have any scripture that asserts the opposite?

You can use a passage that identifies Jesus with the Truth, but this has no bearing on how we are to be when in correct relationship with God.

Now your first link is not a primary source but rather a book about the life of Muhammad. It is not scholarly and does not provide the references used to justify the inclusion of these events. Why should i just trust this book? Who wrote it? When was it written?

In regards tot he second book, I do not have access to this book. But since you referred to it you can give the quote which lists the resource used to say Muhammad defended the innocent against oppression.

You know where I’m going with this but you still need to provide a better and more primary source.

Thankyou friend. I will look for other sources. What do you consider a primary source?

Is this of any use?

rasoulallah.net/index.php/en/articles/article/240

.