ISLAM is False, Mulhammad is false

[cthulhubryan]

If you were to receive a message from god, you would i think be only too happy to receive it as Our lady did. Not be terrified like mohhamed was, apparently he had to be convinced by his then wife the messages he was receiving was from god.

If a message comes from god, i think you will know it’s him.

Or at least not be afraid and later have it confirmed for you that it is God (ex: Samuel who thought that his master called him, when it was really his Master who called him)

 

[cthulhubryan]

It is a sin to make a man into a God. Otherwise Jesus could be a divine person i.e. beloved of God. If the Jews admit that Jesus was divine and he was God then we Muslims could be guilty of ignorance. Otherwise the Catholics are the odds one out in this matter. So Islam is not false but it is the present day beliefs of the christians which are false.

You are right. It is a sin to make a man into a God. But we are not discussing Mormonism here.

God became a man in order to fulfill His covenants and because he so loved His world.

 

[Bill_Pick]

It is a sin to make a man into a God. Otherwise Jesus could be a divine person i.e. beloved of God. If the Jews admit that Jesus was divine and he was God then we Muslims could be guilty of ignorance. Otherwise the Catholics are the odds one out in this matter. So Islam is not false but it is the present day beliefs of the christians which are false.

planten, Lets both thank God that this is only your opinion,and is not the truth and it makes no sense to any Christians.

 

[Departed_Light]

The Catholic view of Islam is very confusing to me. I’ve seen lots of posts here about Islam and tons of back and forth on why it is good / bad or in-between.

I have seen posts that have presented Catholic Church documents that say to the effect that followers of Islam adore the same one God that Christians do and as such are due our respect or some such thing close to that.

But here, as well as in other threads on Islam, I see lots of people that have “Catholic” as their religious preference speaking very much against Islam. Why is that? If your Church has put forth teaching that Islam is not evil, why do some Catholics speak against what their Church has said?

Unity without consensus.

 

[sedonaman]

The Catholic view of Islam is very confusing to me. I’ve seen lots of posts here about Islam and tons of back and forth on why it is good / bad or in-between.

I have seen posts that have presented Catholic Church documents that say to the effect that followers of Islam adore the same one God that Christians do and as such are due our respect or some such thing close to that.

But here, as well as in other threads on Islam, I see lots of people that have “Catholic” as their religious preference speaking very much against Islam. Why is that? If your Church has put forth teaching that Islam is not evil, why do some Catholics speak against what their Church has said?

Unity without consensus.

I have read what the Church has said on a number of issues, Islam included. The thing that struck me in each case was you have to read church statements very carefully. For example, the pope said that, “Muslims profess belief in the God of Abraham”. Yes, that’s a true statement. The key word here is “profess”. They might “profess” it, but do they actually believe it? I could “profess” that I’m 10 feet tall, but that wouldn’t mean I believed it nor would it make it true.

The Church has to be very careful what it says about Islam because when the pope speaks, people get killed [remember Regensberg?].

 

[Reuben_J]

Some additional thoughts.

One notable trait of the New Testament is that it continually quotes the Old Testament. For example, in Acts 2 alone you find Joel 2:28-32, Psalm 16:8-11, and Psalm 110:1 quoted. Move on to Acts 3 and you’ll find Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19 quoted along with Genesis 22:18 and 26:4. Moving away from Acts, Romans 9 has twelve Old Testament citations from five different books. It goes on and on from here. Find a copy of the UBS Greek New Testament, which has Old Testament citations in bold print, and you’ll find every other page lit up.

The point is, the early apostles, right or wrong, knew their Old Testament scripture. Furthermore, they used that scripture to confirm the teachings of Christ. They did not argue that the Jews had corrupted their scripture, hid scripture, or tarnished it in any way. Rather, they argued with the scripture and kept it intact. The Old Testament confirmed the New Testament, rather than the New Testament confirming the Old Testament.

Now I recognize that it is common for Muslims on this forum and in Islamic apologetics in general to immediately jump to the argument that the Bible was tarnished. Nevertheless, the Koran itself states that the Torat and Injil were the books sent down to God’s people.

It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). [S. 3:3]

And yet we find something very different in the Koran than we do in the New Testament: no direct citations or quotes. Instead, what we have are name-dropping of prophets and vague references to certain events like the flood. Nowhere in the Koran is the Old Testament or the New Testament directly cited. The question is…if Allah did indeed send down the Torat and Injil, why couldn’t He quote it at least once? If Mohammad really is foretold in the Old and New Testaments as the Koran claims (S. 7:157), why couldn’t the Koran cite relevant passages like the apostles did in the New Testament to confirm the coming of Christ?

**What we have here, then, is not only a revelation that contradicts what came before it, but seems to completely ignore it. It cites the Jewish and Christian scripture as books sent from God, but refuses to quote it. It cites that the Jewish and Christian scriptures confirm Islam and Mohammad, but can’t even quote one passage to prove their point. **The question that Christians therefore have is: why did God change His method of revelation? Why must we suddenly abandon what we knew and believed in simply because a man 600 years later claims prophethood without engaging in meaningful exegesis?

It is very ironic that the devil, when tempting Christ, quoted scripture more often than the Koran did.

Excellent post.

 

[Bill_Pick]

The main intent of this article is to warn Christians who may be “fooled” into Islam, because they did not have all the facts. It is a matter of grave concern. If you reject Jesus and the salvation He made possible – and follow Islam, your entire salvation (where you will spend eternity) is at stake.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

It is a sin to make a man into a God. Otherwise Jesus could be a divine person i.e. beloved of God. If the Jews admit that Jesus was divine and he was God then we Muslims could be guilty of ignorance. Otherwise the Catholics are the odds one out in this matter. So Islam is not false but it is the present day beliefs of the christians which are false.

As others have stated before, you have it reversed: man did not make God man, God took flesh and dwelt among us. I already quoted the relevant passage in this thread, but I will quote it again for you:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. [John 1:1-3, 14]

This destroys one common Muslim belief that Jesus was merely granted the Word but was just a man (which is an early heresy known as Nestorianism). In fact, the apostle John - Christ’s most beloved disciple - clearly writes here that the Word is God, and that it was the Word that took flesh and dwelt among us.

Furthermore, it is strange logic you use in demanding that Jews have to believe in Jesus to prove Christianity right - one could say this is the logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. For one thing, if you read all of Acts you’ll see nothing but Jews converting to Christianity under the guidance of the apostles - who, you will remember, were Jews. Jews didn’t believe Jesus was the Son of God? Christianity was founded by Jews. After things settled down, those who continued to reject Christ were called Jews, but this is irrelevant to whether or not Christianity is right or wrong.

You seem to be ignoring the real arguments presented against Islam, which have been posted in this thread and others.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Catholic view of Islam is very confusing to me. I’ve seen lots of posts here about Islam and tons of back and forth on why it is good / bad or in-between.

I have seen posts that have presented Catholic Church documents that say to the effect that followers of Islam adore the same one God that Christians do and as such are due our respect or some such thing close to that.

But here, as well as in other threads on Islam, I see lots of people that have “Catholic” as their religious preference speaking very much against Islam. Why is that? If your Church has put forth teaching that Islam is not evil, why do some Catholics speak against what their Church has said?

Unity without consensus.

We don’t agree with Islam. Some of its doctrines are anti-thesis of Christianity and many of us just speak of it as it is. This is a discussion board. If by being disagreeing and not believing in Islam makes us against Islam, then what do you suggest we should say? I take it for a certainty that we do not agree with Islam; in fact there is certain aspect of its belief that is blasphemous to us. So what should we do as we discuss and put forth our ideas on this very board?

Inter-religious discussion is quite a delicate process. At what point in one’s disagreement when one starts to be ‘against’ the other religion? If you are new to this type of discussion very often you can take the offensive track when being challenged or disagreed with. In the process it can take out the worst in you.

I suppose we can always disagree, state our stand accordingly but must always be respectful to the person we argue with. Do not misrepresent their belief but if you must, try to rebut their actual belief and support your own.

Most Catholics who don’t discuss this issue would most probably be respectful and friendly to most Muslims they encounter in the many walks of their life. But when it come to discussion, when a person speaks his heart out, some of the words spoken may be quite hard to swallow. Depending on your background some Catholics may view Islam differently. Some of them may have experienced atrocity committed by Muslims on their families and their people and these may approach the discussion in a more belligerent way compared to those who have good Muslims as their neighbors.

So, no, we are not contravening our church when we speak against Islam in the discussion. We contravene our own selves and the church if we disrespect Muslims as human persons. We just heard in an extreme case (in the other thread) where some Muslims in a country called Malysia, masquerade as Catholics, attending mass and took Holy Communion and then spat the host out. They took photograph and published it in an Islamic newspaper. Unless you are a Catholic you do not understand the desecration that had been committed but you see this is some of the thing Muslims do. Catholics who experienced this kind of stupidity may not be very complimentary in their opinion about Islam, even though it may not be its (Islam) fault entirely.

 

[ZAKI]

why did God become man?

wasalam

 

[srslycumonm]

NO this is TOTAL ********

GOD IM SO SICK OF YOU GUYS

RELIGION IS THE DEVIL

 

[cthulhubryan]

why did God become man?

wasalam

In order to save man.

 

[elwill]

In order to save man.

save him from whom ?

 

[sedonaman]

why did God become man?

wasalam

God wills what he wills.

 

[Departed_Light]

We don’t agree with Islam. Some of its doctrines are anti-thesis of Christianity and many of us just speak of it as it is. This is a discussion board. If by being disagreeing and not believing in Islam makes us against Islam, then what do you suggest we should say? I take it for a certainty that we do not agree with Islam; in fact there is certain aspect of its belief that is blasphemous to us. So what should we do as we discuss and put forth our ideas on this very board?

Inter-religious discussion is quite a delicate process. At what point in one’s disagreement when one starts to be ‘against’ the other religion? If you are new to this type of discussion very often you can take the offensive track when being challenged or disagreed with. In the process it can take out the worst in you.

I suppose we can always disagree, state our stand accordingly but must always be respectful to the person we argue with. Do not misrepresent their belief but if you must, try to rebut their actual belief and support your own.

Most Catholics who don’t discuss this issue would most probably be respectful and friendly to most Muslims they encounter in the many walks of their life. But when it come to discussion, when a person speaks his heart out, some of the words spoken may be quite hard to swallow. Depending on your background some Catholics may view Islam differently. Some of them may have experienced atrocity committed by Muslims on their families and their people and these may approach the discussion in a more belligerent way compared to those who have good Muslims as their neighbors.

So, no, we are not contravening our church when we speak against Islam in the discussion. We contravene our own selves and the church if we disrespect Muslims as human persons. We just heard in an extreme case (in the other thread) where some Muslims in a country called Malysia, masquerade as Catholics, attending mass and took Holy Communion and then spat the host out. They took photograph and published it in an Islamic newspaper. Unless you are a Catholic you do not understand the desecration that had been committed but you see this is some of the thing Muslims do. Catholics who experienced this kind of stupidity may not be very complimentary in their opinion about Islam, even though it may not be its (Islam) fault entirely.

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. - Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church], November 21, 1964 No. 16

I have seen the remarks before about the term “profess” in the document. But I haven’t seen anyone address the term “adore” that is in the same sentence. From what I understand from reading on here the term “adore” has a very specific meaning in Catholic circles. Catholics are quick to point out that they venerate Mary but adoration is reserved for God and He alone. When the Catholic Church puts forward a document from a council that says that followers of Islam adore the same God together with Christians it makes remarks from Catholics against Islam based on Allah not being the One God speaking against what their Church teaches. Or at least that’s the way I see it, and I am admittedly a simple guy and my ideas may very well be wrong.

I do not think Islam is compatible with Christianity at all. But I also think there are places in the world where people of good will have no choice in the matter and they don’t get to hear about who Jesus really is and so they follow the path of Islam and seek God’s mercy. By yelling at them, “You follow a false God!” isn’t going to do anything positive in the way of planting any sort of seeds. And if a Catholic says to a Muslim, You follow a false god, how do you explain that they adore the same God you do, unless you admit that you too follow a false god?

I have no problem with saying very pointedly that Islam teaches first and foremost that there is no God but Allah and he is neither begotten nor begets. This is a false god, for the One True God has reveled that He is The Father who begets The Son and who has The Holy Spirit that proceeds from Him. This basic tenant of the Christian faith can be in no way reconciled to the basic tenant of Islam. One is true and the other is false or they are both false. They both cannot be true. As such it is impossible for the Muslim “together with us [Christians] they adore the one, merciful God.”

So I continue to be confused by the Catholic response to Islam, both by the official documents and the adherents of Catholicism. If a Catholic reasons that Islam follows a false god, then how can he in good conscience continue to be Catholic when his church teaches the opposite?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

why did God become man?

wasalam

I think I answered this before elsewhere, but I’ll repeat it here.

Ask yourself, what caused the Fall of Man, and what happened after it? Adam and Eve sinned and refused to repent, and were cast out of Paradise with the snake. The snake represented their sin, or that which separated them from God - hence, mankind was cast into a fallen world with their sin. That sinful nature separated them from God, even unto death, for before the Resurrection all the dead went into the what the Psalmist called “the pit,” and which Jewish tradition called Sheol.

Now, remember that mankind was made in God’s image, and when mankind sinned that image of God was tarnished (Christ referred to this in His parable of the lost coin, Luke 15:8-10). When they died, that image remained tarnished, and they were dead in their sins.

This is why the Incarnation happened. At the Incarnation, the Eternal Word took on our tarnished image from the Virgin Mary but maintained His deity with the Holy Spirit - it’s known as the hypostatic union, which states that Christ had a Divine and Human nature as well as a Divine and Human will. He was both fully God and fully Man.

Christ lived a sinless life, and at the Crucifixion presented Himself as the final sacrifice for the people before God - only this time, it was different. There would be no Temple sacrifices, and this time it would be for all who believe, not merely the Jews. When Christ went down to Sheol as many did before Him, something took place that had never happened before - the Gates of Hades could not comprehend His divine nature, and they broke down. All who had died before and who believed in their Lord ascended to Paradise with Christ.

The most important part, however, took place at the Resurrection. Christ rose again in a spiritually glorified body, and conquered death for all who believe in Him. In the Orthodox Church we have a chant at Pascha that perfectly describes this moment:

*Christos anesti ek nekron, thanaton thanatos…

Christ is risen from the dead, by death conquering death…*

When Christ ascended into Paradise, He ascended with that glorified flesh, and in this manner reunited mankind with God once again. No longer are we disconnected with God because of what we are, for now we are able, through Christ, to rise again and be connected with God, for through the Incarnation God united us to Him. As Saint Athanasius said, God became man so that man may become God - not by nature but by imitation.

That is it in a nutshell.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think I answered this before elsewhere, but I’ll repeat it here.

Ask yourself, what caused the Fall of Man, and what happened after it? Adam and Eve sinned and refused to repent, and were cast out of Paradise with the snake. The snake represented their sin, or that which separated them from God - hence, mankind was cast into a fallen world with their sin. That sinful nature separated them from God, even unto death, for before the Resurrection all the dead went into the what the Psalmist called “the pit,” and which Jewish tradition called Sheol.

Now, remember that mankind was made in God’s image, and when mankind sinned that image of God was tarnished (Christ referred to this in His parable of the lost coin, Luke 15:8-10). When they died, that image remained tarnished, and they were dead in their sins.

This is why the Incarnation happened. At the Incarnation, the Eternal Word took on our tarnished image from the Virgin Mary but maintained His deity with the Holy Spirit - it’s known as the hypostatic union, which states that Christ had a Divine and Human nature as well as a Divine and Human will. He was both fully God and fully Man.

Christ lived a sinless life, and at the Crucifixion presented Himself as the final sacrifice for the people before God - only this time, it was different. There would be no Temple sacrifices, and this time it would be for all who believe, not merely the Jews. When Christ went down to Sheol as many did before Him, something took place that had never happened before - the Gates of Hades could not comprehend His divine nature, and they broke down. All who had died before and who believed in their Lord ascended to Paradise with Christ.

The most important part, however, took place at the Resurrection. Christ rose again in a spiritually glorified body, and conquered death for all who believe in Him. In the Orthodox Church we have a chant at Pascha that perfectly describes this moment:

*Christos anesti ek nekron, thanaton thanatos…

Christ is risen from the dead, by death conquering death…*

When Christ ascended into Paradise, He ascended with that glorified flesh, and in this manner reunited mankind with God once again. No longer are we disconnected with God because of what we are, for now we are able, through Christ, to rise again and be connected with God, for through the Incarnation God united us to Him. As Saint Athanasius said, God became man so that man may become God - not by nature but by imitation.

That is it in a nutshell.

That’s an excellent nutshell and nicely sums up the history of our salvation. Blessings, Wolf. Praise our Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[Reuben_J]

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. - Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church], November 21, 1964 No. 16

I have seen the remarks before about the term “profess” in the document. But I haven’t seen anyone address the term “adore” that is in the same sentence. From what I understand from reading on here the term “adore” has a very specific meaning in Catholic circles. Catholics are quick to point out that they venerate Mary but adoration is reserved for God and He alone. When the Catholic Church puts forward a document from a council that says that followers of Islam adore the same God together with Christians it makes remarks from Catholics against Islam based on Allah not being the One God speaking against what their Church teaches. Or at least that’s the way I see it, and I am admittedly a simple guy and my ideas may very well be wrong.

But Catholics can disagree with Muslims on what that God looks like. That was my point.

I do not think Islam is compatible with Christianity at all. But I also think there are places in the world where people of good will have no choice in the matter and they don’t get to hear about who Jesus really is and so they follow the path of Islam and seek God’s mercy. By yelling at them, “You follow a false God!” isn’t going to do anything positive in the way of planting any sort of seeds. And if a Catholic says to a Muslim, You follow a false god, how do you explain that they adore the same God you do, unless you admit that you too follow a false god?

Alright, I am sure this is not directed to me, right? In so much the definition of that God is different, a Christian is right in saying that Muslims follow false God. What it actually means is Muslim follow the same God because there is only one God. This is basic Christian belief. Muslims deny some attributes of that God which Christians believe, i.e. the Trinity God.
In the context of discussion, this difference has become a contention. That’s why I ask you what should we say then to the Muslims who deny the divinity of Jesus?

I have no problem with saying very pointedly that Islam teaches first and foremost that there is no God but Allah and he is neither begotten nor begets. This is a false god, for the One True God has reveled that He is The Father who begets The Son and who has The Holy Spirit that proceeds from Him. This basic tenant of the Christian faith can be in no way reconciled to the basic tenant of Islam. One is true and the other is false or they are both false. They both cannot be true. As such it is impossible for the Muslim “together with us [Christians] they adore the one, merciful God.”

I see. Perhaps that’s where you’re getting at. You have problem with Catholic’s position on Islam.

So I continue to be confused by the Catholic response to Islam, both by the official documents and the adherents of Catholicism. If a Catholic reasons that Islam follows a false god, then how can he in good conscience continue to be Catholic when his church teaches the opposite?

Finally, Muslims follow the same God because there is only one God. We respect that if that’s what their faith says it is.

The definition and the understanding of that God differ but it does not mean that they are not reaching to the one and true God.

About the differences, in fact there are many and some are outright anti-thesis to Christianity, so much so that cannot come from the one and true God.

I understand your question and this matter is not easy either for Catholics to understand.

I just can see that this post is not very helpful and I admit that.

God bless.

 

[imjustme]

Islam says that Jesus did not die. So, again --Islam has proven to be false; because Muhammad claimed the Gospel is true, and all 4 Gospels testify that Jesus died and rose from the dead. God does have a begotten Son (not made, but one with the Father), which Islam denies. The Jewish Torah / Taurat (Tawrat) clearly indicated this over 1000 years before Muhammad and Islam. In addition their are collateral 1st century sources that testify that Jesus was put to death. In the “Annals” written by Roman historian Tacitus, in Book XV, Chapter 44 we read “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.” Roman historian Josephus also wrote about the death and Resurrection of Jesus. Even Satan says that Jesus died on the cross. Also, the Roman Historian Seutonius wrote in his work “Life of the Emperor Claudius” the following about Christians: “and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.” The Roman historian Pliny wrote about Jesus’ death in Book X of his Epistles. Julius Africanus, quoting Thallus another Roman historian, who wrote in about 52 A.D. about the miraculas happenings the day the Son of God was killed. He wrote: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down”. Like Muhammad, Satan also cringes in fear at the sight of the cross.

Please cite your sources. How do you think it reflects on Christians that you continue to plagiarize (steal) other people’s work?

bibleprobe.com/blackmuslims.htm

 

[Departed_Light]

You have problem with Catholic’s position on Islam.

Finally, Muslims follow the same God because there is only one God. We respect that if that’s what their faith says it is.

The definition and the understanding of that God differ but it does not mean that they are not reaching to the one and true God.

About the differences, in fact there are many and some are outright anti-thesis to Christianity, so much so that cannot come from the one and true God.

I understand your question and this matter is not easy either for Catholics to understand.

I just can see that this post is not very helpful and I admit that.

God bless.

I don’t think I have a problem with the Catholic possition on Islam, I am just confused by it. I don’t understand it right now. Maybe I will over time. All post are helpful! We all gotta figure it out some how, right?

Peace to you and on your house, Reuben (Jacob’s first born - good name sake )