List of Arguments Against Islam

[jakasaki]

Hello Jakasaki,
muslims woud need to believe what John the Baptist said to recognise him as a prophet. They don’t believe what he said. What did John the Baptist say about Jesus?

Hi Steve:

Welcome to CAF!

All I did was to correct the statement made which said that muslims don’t believe that John the Baptist was a prophet.

I did not go further than that. The Islamic scripture for John the Baptist does not match up to our Bible. I am aware of that.

Just like the Islamic Isa/Jesus according to Islam, is not our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Razanir]

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. While no religion other than Catholicism holds the entire Truth, few religions are completely devoid of it. I hate it when people use the word “false” in reference to other religions because to me, that implies the religion’s sole goal is to lead people away from the Truth. Remember, Islam follows the same God of Abraham, although they worship Him imperfectly. Nothing would ever lead me away from Catholicism, but I still feel the need to defend them slightly because of some flawed logic here.

• It is important to bring up the abuse of women. Islam allows fathers to give their daughters in marriage at the age of nine, because that is the age of one of the girls Mohammed consummated his marital vows with. In the parts of Europe that allow Shariah law to be implemented, that is the age Muslim judges allow men to marry little girls at. This is one way of proving Islam immoral.

Even into Shakespearean England, marriage was still common at 13 or 14. Take Romeo and Juliet for example. “She hath not seen the change of fourteen years” Juliet was only 13, and she was marrying Romeo who was probably into his 20s. By your logic, that time period was also immoral.

• The Quran says slavery is okay. This proves the immorality of the religion. Surah 16:71.

1. That verse has nothing to do with slavery. I looked it up.
2. What definition of slavery? The version the Bible condones is more exactly indentured servitude

• The Quran allows Muslims to lie to infidels in certain circumstances, and this practice is called taqiyya. This proves the immorality of the religion.

IIRC, Catholicism also recognizes that you can lie sometimes. We don’t require, for instance, that people must tell the truth even when kidnapped by hostile powers and being forced to reveal national secrets

 

[dmar198]

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. While no religion other than Catholicism holds the entire Truth, few religions are completely devoid of it. I hate it when people use the word “false” in reference to other religions because to me, that implies the religion’s sole goal is to lead people away from the Truth.

Well that’s not my intention when I say “false.” I’m talking about false doctrines and misinformation that is pushed by their apologists and evangelists to convert Catholics to their faith. (And by saying that I’m also not saying that all their apologists are doing this with intent to deceive. Obviously there is a lot of sincerity in their efforts.) By demonstrating the falsehoods of their religion, we can help keep Catholics in the fold who might otherwise be persuaded to leave. On the other hand, we also need to reach out to Muslims based on the things we have in common and based on the truth. Obviously the presentation of some of this stuff needs to be ordered toward that as well, so it depends on the context – i.e. what you are going to use in this list depends on the context.

Remember, Islam follows the same God of Abraham, although they worship Him imperfectly. Nothing would ever lead me away from Catholicism, but I still feel the need to defend them slightly because of some flawed logic here.

Well I appreciate the constructive criticism.

Even into Shakespearean England, marriage was still common at 13 or 14. Take Romeo and Juliet for example. “She hath not seen the change of fourteen years” Juliet was only 13, and she was marrying Romeo who was probably into his 20s. By your logic, that time period was also immoral.

1. There is quite a bit of difference between 9 years old and 13 years old.
2. Pedophilia is a moral crime no matter what culture you’re in. That ought to be a settled issue. We could debate whether a thirteen year old girl would be pedophilia or not – it probably depends on the girl – but in Islam’s case we’re talking about something that is, strictly speaking, authorized pedophilia. When you combine it with the fact that a lot of these marriages are arranged, and not consented to, you’re talking about marital rape and parental child abuse as well (because they set it up).

1. That verse has nothing to do with slavery. I looked it up.

Actually it does. Here is the verse: And Allah has favored some of you over others in provision. But those who were favored would not hand over their provision to those whom their right hands possess so they would be equal to them therein. Then is it the favor of Allah they reject? It’s not only talking about slavery (“those whom their right hands possess”) but it’s also justifying it based on Allah favoring some people and not others, and then it says that slaveowners should not hand over their provisions to their slaves so as to make them equal – because that is “rejecting the favor of Allah.” It’s a heinous attempt to justify slavery by appealing to God.

1. What definition of slavery? The version the Bible condones is more exactly indentured servitude

That is a good point, and part of our answer to this has to come from taking a look at the way this teaching has been put in practice historically. A friend of mine has been to the Middle East several years ago, and while he was there he witnessed the way they put slavery into practice. He saw chains on the trees and, at night, slaves shackled to those chains so they couldn’t run away. He saw true chattel slavery like what was practiced in the American South during the pre-Civil War period. So we do have to be prepared to show that the kind of slavery we’re talking about isn’t indentured servitude or the slavery of consent like Jacob submitted himself to for seven years as a dowry for Rachel.

IIRC, Catholicism also recognizes that you can lie sometimes. We don’t require, for instance, that people must tell the truth even when kidnapped by hostile powers and being forced to reveal national secrets

1. Taqiyya goes beyond that. It permits lying to your wife and friends when that’s used to preserve order and peace (i.e. “white lies”) and it permits lying to your enemies when that’s used to protect yourself or for purposes of warfare.
2. In the Catholic Church we don’t require that you reveal the people you’re hiding if you’re questioned by the Gestapo (for example) but we don’t allow you to lie in order that good might come. That’s called consequentialism (the ends justify the means, you can do evil that good may come) and it’s incompatible with the Church’s morality. It’s also condemned by St. Paul in Romans 3:8. (And if you check the context, he’s talking about lying specifically when he condemns the idea that we can do it so that good may come.) What Catholicism allows for is concealing the truth without lying, if the person you’re talking to doesn’t have a right to know the thing he’s asking about. There’s a big difference between “telling part of the truth” and “telling a lie.” In our Church, the one can only be used when the person you’re talking to doesn’t have a right to know and when you’re careful not to lie; in Islam, the other can be used to justify white lies (to friends) and major falsehoods (to enemies). There’s a big moral difference here, and so this is an important thing to be aware of.

 

[Steve_Jay]

Hi Steve. If you phrase it that way, you are right. But it is Islamic belief that John the Baptist is a prophet. Then again Muslims do not believe everything in the Bible or some of the Bible narratives are being omitted in their Quran. For the sake of evenhandedness, it is no harm in acknowledging this belief in them then argue at the difference in how the respective religion views the prophet.

Hello Reuben.
Muslims will say they believe John the baptist was a prophet but they deny his prophesies. They will say his prophesies are inventions or are corrupt parts of the bible. To believe John was a prophet means they would need to recognise his prophesies.

 

[Steve_Jay]

Hi Steve:
Welcome to CAF!
All I did was to correct the statement made which said that muslims don’t believe that John the Baptist was a prophet.
I did not go further than that. The Islamic scripture for John the Baptist does not match up to our Bible. I am aware of that.
Just like the Islamic Isa/Jesus according to Islam, is not our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hello jakasaki.
thank you for your kind welcome.
What made John a prophet was his prophesies regarding Jesus. Islam rejects what made John a prophet.
I’ve often heard it said that the Jesus of Christendom is an invention that has been made up from various religions. Jesus’ place in the Holy Trinity for example. A supposed Babylonic idea. I used to wonder where these myths originated. The answer is in the Jesus of Islam.
The Jesus of Islam was born under a palm tree. That was Apollo in mythology. So straight away the Jesus of Islam is an invention. Muhammad made the mistake of thinking that Mary is a person of the Holy Trinity. That mistake provides another clue that Muhammad had been looking at world’s religions in forming his antichrist. He had no idea what Christians were saying when it came to the Holy Trinity. His was an Isis Horus and Seb notion. I still don’t know where he got the idea of incorporating the story of a babe breathing life in to clay birds. The Jesus in the Quran can be blown away because it borrowed ideas some of which come from the true Jesus. It has a fake gospel and a fake account of the Old Testament. The Quran is fragile because its foundations are in lies. On top of that it is a preserved record of Muhammad’s blasphemies. When muslims say they follow Jesus, it’s the invention in the Quran that followed and the true Jesus is blasphemed.

It is a very sad thing really that Muslims in some counties don’t get to hear about the true Jesus at all. They believe they hold the truth and follow that quite faithfully. We can be sure that if they had the truth they would follow that as faithfully.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hello Reuben.
Muslims will say they believe John the baptist was a prophet but they deny his prophesies. They will say his prophesies are inventions or are corrupt parts of the bible. To believe John was a prophet means they would need to recognise his prophesies.

Steve, dude, no problem there. As a Christian, I would say as much.

If you happen to discuss this with a Muslim, he would ask, what prophecy? Then both of us (we and them) will have to justify our statement respectively. I have no problem with that too.

It’s a matter of hearing what they believe, like when they say that John the Baptist is a prophet. Then from that we can explain why they are wrong in saying that he is a prophet and then give our reason.

As an example, there are people of other religions who say that Catholics worship Mary rather than admitting that Catholics say they do not worship Mary. They may have their reason for saying that Catholics worship Mary, but it does not change the fact that Catholics do not worship Mary in its doctrine.

 

[Reuben_J]

1. There is quite a bit of difference between 9 years old and 13 years old.
2. Pedophilia is a moral crime no matter what culture you’re in. That ought to be a settled issue. We could debate whether a thirteen year old girl would be pedophilia or not – it probably depends on the girl – but in Islam’s case we’re talking about something that is, strictly speaking, authorized pedophilia. When you combine it with the fact that a lot of these marriages are arranged, and not consented to, you’re talking about marital rape and parental child abuse as well (because they set it up).
   …
   It’s not only talking about slavery (“those whom their right hands possess”) but it’s also justifying it based on Allah favoring some people and not others, and then it says that slaveowners should not hand over their provisions to their slaves so as to make them equal – because that is “rejecting the favor of Allah.” It’s a heinous attempt to justify slavery by appealing to God.
   …
3. Taqiyya goes beyond that. It permits lying to your wife and friends when that’s used to preserve order and peace (i.e. “white lies”) and it permits lying to your enemies when that’s used to protect yourself or for purposes of warfare.
4. In the Catholic Church we don’t require that you reveal the people you’re hiding if you’re questioned by the Gestapo (for example) but we don’t allow you to lie in order that good might come. That’s called consequentialism (the ends justify the means, you can do evil that good may come) and it’s incompatible with the Church’s morality.

Good post there. Very often these are generalized by proponents of Islamic theology that marriage at an early age, slavery and even lying exist in Christianity which is quite true.

Marriage at a young age is universal a long time ago. Mary was betrothed to be at about 13 to 14 years of age. In many parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia especially in the sub-continent, arranged child marriage are very common. Thus we can say that adult marriage is probably a modern day phenomenon. What non-Muslims can rightly comment is the fact that Mohammad did not make any attempt to correct the practice of child marriage but in fact seemed to condone it. This is a huge point for me. Being a prophet he should be brave enough to stop this practice, but he didn’t. Would Jesus do the same if faced with the dilemma? Certainly not. He would have no qualm to reject it even if it was at the expense of him being rejected and persecuted.

As for slavery, Christianity perhaps tacitly recognized its practice. St. Paul in his letter to Philemon apparently says so except that the master must treat his slave fairly as if part of his family; and if he has been slave for a long enough perhaps he should be set free with no more obligation to the master.

Lying? There is nothing in Christianity that approve of lying. But then again the same can be said of killing. Yet we see killing and lying must have happened among the people of God in the Old Testament and even today. Christians go to war and yes, they do kill there, and perhaps lie if it is necessary for their intelligent to obtain result in covert action.

So on the surface, child marriage, slavery and lying are also to be found in Christianity too even if inadvertently. Perhaps the real difference between Christianity and Islam on these issues is that the latter came up with ‘official’ teaching on how to execute them.

If I were to argue with Muslims, I would point to the fact that Islam officially condone these practices which I don’t seem to have the expertise in handling it along this line, the line I would prefer.

 

[Razanir]

But then again the same can be said of killing. Yet we see killing and lying must have happened among the people of God in the Old Testament and even today. Christians go to war and yes, they do kill there, and perhaps lie if it is necessary for their intelligent to obtain result in covert action.

Actually, as I remember, the commandment is “Thou shalt not murder” (emphasis mine). Just killing (just as in morally right, not as in only) is fine. It’s like the church being fine with just war.

 

[Reuben_J]

Actually, as I remember, the commandment is “Thou shalt not murder” (emphasis mine). Just killing (just as in morally right, not as in only) is fine. It’s like the church being fine with just war.

Apparently, yes. We have still not changed the wording though. It is still ‘kill’ and not ‘murder’. This is what I meant. A fine line that separates what can and what cannot. Some people can make a contraversy out of it. And oh boy, how we have to explain our stance regardless on which side our take is because it is not just the Commandment that we have to defend. There would be more from Jesus’ saying.

 

[jakasaki]

… snip

I still don’t know where he got the idea of incorporating the story of a babe breathing life in to clay birds.
… snip

He got it from Infancy Gospel of Thomas written on or about 140-170 A.D.

F. F. Bruce writes (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 87):

Then there is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which purports to describe the doings of Jesus in his boyhood.

Jesus proves to be an infant prodigy at school, instructing his teachers in the unsuspected mysteries of the alphabet; he astounds his family and playmates by the miracles which he performs.

**This is the document which tells for the first time the familiar tale of the twelve sparrows which Jesus, at the age of five, fashioned from clay on the sabbath day. **

 

[dolphinlove]

IIRC, Catholicism also recognizes that you can lie sometimes. We don’t require, for instance, that people must tell the truth even when kidnapped by hostile powers and being forced to reveal national secrets

What planet are you from? I want you to show me where it says its ok to lie sometimes

 

[Razanir]

What planet are you from? I want you to show me where it says its ok to lie sometimes

Well what if someone’s mugging you and you say you don’t have money to get them to leave? Or in a more extreme example, if Nazi Stormtroopers come by and you lie saying you aren’t hiding any Jews? Technically, those are both lies.

Or the most common example: Santa and the Easter Bunny

 

[Doxiemom]

Islam has this culture of death about it.

Islam means “submit”.Don’t submit and you have a high risk of being labeled an infidel and you will die. The killer is doing Allah’s will. And shall be rewarded.

There is no quantee of Heaven, no matter how reverent you have been in this life. This is being a martyr is so glorified. You die and you get to heaven if you killed infidels. besides the 70 virgins and such, you can pick a certain number of family members to get into heaven.No wonder the mothers are so happy to let their boys kill themselves.

The female martyrs do it because they caused some kind of shame on the family and so their death somehow wipes it away. It is a kill yourself or you will be beheaded.

They kill hands, and tongues, and torture body parts . A partial death of the body. For Allah who has demanded it.

They shroud their women , yet, take the freedon to mass rape the innocent infidel without fear or guilt.

A false convenant is allowed, lies really, to gain a false peace. Only to gain more money to buy weapons to go and destroy again.

It is written across the Dome of the Rock “God has no son”

female genital mutation.

They hate israel, who is called the Little Satan

But

We are the Big Satan.

yes, there are people who are muslim who worship in peace and love with all thier hearts Allah, who they call as the same god of Abraham, issac, and jacob. may they never suffer under Allah. Nor cause suffering to infidels and jews for Allah.

May God show mercy on these folks and bring them Light.

 

[dmar198]

Good post there.

Thanks.

Marriage at a young age is universal a long time ago. Mary was betrothed to be at about 13 to 14 years of age. In many parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia especially in the sub-continent, arranged child marriage are very common. Thus we can say that adult marriage is probably a modern day phenomenon. What non-Muslims can rightly comment is the fact that Mohammad did not make any attempt to correct the practice of child marriage but in fact seemed to condone it. This is a huge point for me. Being a prophet he should be brave enough to stop this practice, but he didn’t. Would Jesus do the same if faced with the dilemma? Certainly not. He would have no qualm to reject it even if it was at the expense of him being rejected and persecuted.

I also want to point out that a lot of this depends on the ability to consent, and in young girls we have to be very careful about how we determine when that ability is really present. An arranged marriage is a limiting factor here, because that puts pressure on the girl to consent – but arranged marriage obviously doesn’t always destroy consent, it just has to be considered when you’re talking about pressuring a little girl. Maturity is the major factor here. A thirteen year old girl might be able to marry and give real and authentic consent, even if it’s arranged. But a nine year old? The fact that this is a part of their faith really shows a lack of moral compass in the “prophet”.

As for slavery, Christianity perhaps tacitly recognized its practice. St. Paul in his letter to Philemon apparently says so except that the master must treat his slave fairly as if part of his family; and if he has been slave for a long enough perhaps he should be set free with no more obligation to the master.

The Catechism quotes the letter of Philemon as proof that slavery is incompatible with the moral law. Catechism 2414
The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, … both in the flesh and in the Lord.” One has to realize that the definition of “slave” (servus in Latin) has changed over time. In the Roman age it meant treating people like chattel and property, to be bought and sold, and the New Testament prohibited that more than once – 1 Timothy 1:10, Revelation 18:13. In 230 A.D. a document containing rules for pastors asserted that Church money should be used “[to] redeem slaves and captives and prisoners.” (The Didascalia Apostolorum) In 380 A.D. the Apostolic Constitutions asserted that Church money should be collected “[for] the deliverance of slaves.” After the time of Constantine and during the barbarian invasions, the Roman empire was transformed – in large part due to these prohibitions – from an economy based on slavery to an economy based on feudalism. Thus the term “servus” came to mean “serf” rather than “slave,” and the Church tolerated serfdom throughout the Middle Ages, because serfdom doesn’t have as many moral problems inherent in it as slavery. But the Church has repeatedly condemned chattel slavery throughout its history and we have numerous testaments to this fact, such as Canon 27 of the Council of London (1092 A.D.), which reads: “Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals.” These anti-slavery Church laws were in effect throughout the Middle Ages and remained into modern times. They were only replaced when the Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1918. So don’t let anyone tell you that the Church has permitted chattel slavery in the past. It has been against our doctrine from the time of the New Testament up to the present. And so we do have the moral grounds to criticize Islamic doctrine on this issue.

 

[Reuben_J]

The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, … both in the flesh and in the Lord.”[/indent] One has to realize that the definition of “slave” (servus in Latin) has changed over time. In the Roman age it meant treating people like chattel and property, to be bought and sold, and the New Testament prohibited that more than once – 1 Timothy 1:10, Revelation 18:13. In 230 A.D. a document containing rules for pastors asserted that Church money should be used “[to] redeem slaves and captives and prisoners.” (The Didascalia Apostolorum) In 380 A.D. the Apostolic Constitutions asserted that Church money should be collected “[for] the deliverance of slaves.” After the time of Constantine and during the barbarian invasions, the Roman empire was transformed – in large part due to these prohibitions – from an economy based on slavery to an economy based on feudalism. Thus the term “servus” came to mean “serf” rather than “slave,” and the Church tolerated serfdom throughout the Middle Ages, because serfdom doesn’t have as many moral problems inherent in it as slavery. But the Church has repeatedly condemned chattel slavery throughout its history and we have numerous testaments to this fact, such as Canon 27 of the Council of London (1092 A.D.), which reads: “Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals.” These anti-slavery Church laws were in effect throughout the Middle Ages and remained into modern times. They were only replaced when the Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1918. So don’t let anyone tell you that the Church has permitted chattel slavery in the past. It has been against our doctrine from the time of the New Testament up to the present. And so we do have the moral grounds to criticize Islamic doctrine on this issue.

You are right. However, this does not mean that St Paul denied slavery in his days, thus the letter to Philemon. The only thing, he revolutionized it in his teaching which is nearly equivalent to a paid servant in our days. Basically St Paul was advocating that a slave should be set free once he paid his due by his service and while he is in service he must be treated fairly (like a brother) which is in line with the Christian principle of love.

They called it slavery during St Paul’s time because that was how employment works sometimes. People paid their debt by working for the master without pay and this was pretty much slavery then. This is not to say that I disagree with you. In fact you did explain it nicely. I am merely seeing it in view of a reply to a Muslim on this subject. Do we deny slavery? Certainly not. It was in the Bible. Abraham had some. To do so would make us likely to be not credible but we nevertheless can explain to him what such ‘slavery’ entails. In other word the definition of slavery has very much shifted that we do not use it anymore. And so it is today.

 

[Trebor135]

I also want to point out that a lot of this depends on the ability to consent, and in young girls we have to be very careful about how we determine when that ability is really present. An arranged marriage is a limiting factor here, because that puts pressure on the girl to consent – but arranged marriage obviously doesn’t always destroy consent, it just has to be considered when you’re talking about pressuring a little girl. Maturity is the major factor here. A thirteen year old girl might be able to marry and give real and authentic consent, even if it’s arranged. But a nine year old? The fact that this is a part of their faith really shows a lack of moral compass in the “prophet”.

I’d suggest the following approach:

1. As a self-proclaimed prophet ostensibly sent with a message intended for not only the Arabs but all nations, Muhammad is supposed to be the greatest role model for all times and all places in every way.
2. He reportedly wed a six-year-old girl in his early fifties and consumated the marriage when she was nine.
3. Therefore, Islam has set in stone a practice which may theoretically be defensible, but from the perspective of seventh-century Arabia. Now that we have come to see the unacceptable character of the wedding of a young girl to an old man, Muslims have no grounds on which to argue for its abolition because their prophet engaged in and thus sanctified the practice, for all times and all places.

 

[Steve_Jay]

I’d suggest the following approach:

1. As a self-proclaimed prophet ostensibly sent with a message intended for not only the Arabs but all nations, Muhammad is supposed to be the greatest role model for all times and all places in every way.
2. He reportedly wed a six-year-old girl in his early fifties and consumated the marriage when she was nine.
3. Therefore, Islam has set in stone a practice which may theoretically be defensible, but from the perspective of seventh-century Arabia. Now that we have come to see the unacceptable character of the wedding of a young girl to an old man, Muslims have no grounds on which to argue for its abolition because their prophet engaged in and thus sanctified the practice, for all times and all places.

Hello Trebor,
I gave myself a little break from this topic but every now and again the topic has come back to my mind. You have stated there exactly what has been in my mind. By his own bad behaviour Muhammad has trapped his followers.
Aisha stated that she had her dolls with her when Muhammad first took her. It means she was recognised as a child too young. She would have given the dolls up. She might have been as young as six.

 

[Steve_Jay]

He got it from Infancy Gospel of Thomas written on or about 140-170 A.D.
F. F. Bruce writes (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 87):

Hello jakasaki,
thank you for answering that question. The fake gospel of Thomas. He would have burnt it.

 

[Trebor135]

So I was involved in an interfaith discussion with some Muslims yesterday

I’ve done the same recently and am delighted to see that I’m not alone.

Some issues that I’d recommend bringing up in future discussions can be found via this page.

and there are a few points I learned from it.

• The best way to dialog with a person who you radically disagree with is to have some structure to your discussion. I allowed my dialog partner to speak for about one minute without interruption and then I would get to respond for one minute without interruption. Other peoples’ discussions were basically 10 minute monologues where each party would get angry because they were being constantly interrupted whenever someone disagreed with something. Me and my conversation partner had a much more fruitful discussion.

This is a good idea. I’d also suggest keeping the number of topics down to a manageable handful so the conversation doesn’t constantly change direction.

• We need to address their talking points based on the text of the Quran and Islamic social history, past and present. When I brought up the passages of the Quran that encourage violence against infidels, they said these were only about defending oneself against infidels (that’s the talking point they are trained to use). I was able to show that the text of the Quran not only commands this in defense, but commands Muslims to go on the attack, to pursue, and slay us everywhere. This also shows up in the history of the Middle East: not only Mohammed but both of the people who claimed to be his successors went on warring rampages that have changed Middle-Eastern geography for the foreseeable future. It quickly became a Muslim-dominated territory because of a lengthy violent attack. Either Mohammed was doing wrong when he put Islam in the position of aggressor, or the passages that talk about this are not only about defense, but they are about offensive measures as well – which proves their immorality. One way or the other, you prove that Mohammed was not a prophet.

This is also a good idea. You might obtain some useful material on this and other topics from the debate “‘Who Was Muhammad?’ Bakri & Hussain vs. Shamoun & Wood”: part 1 / part 2 / part 3 / part 4.

• It is important to bring up the abuse of women. Islam allows fathers to give their daughters in marriage at the age of nine, because that is the age of one of the girls Mohammed consummated his marital vows with. In the parts of Europe that allow Shariah law to be implemented, that is the age Muslim judges allow men to marry little girls at. This is one way of proving Islam immoral.

There’s another, stronger argument against Islam in this domain: husbands are allowed to hit/strike/beat their wives. Please see “Wife Beating In Islam”, “Domestic violence in Islam: The Quran on wife-beating”, and “A Rebuttal of Jamal Badawi’s ‘Wife Beating’”.

For a discussion of the topic as a whole, see also “Women in Islam”.

• Polygamy is also permissible in Islam. That proves its immorality. Surah 4:3.

This doesn’t seem like the strongest argument, since Old Testament patriarchs engaged in poligamy too.

• It is important to defend the textual reliability of the Bible. According to Muslims, the Bible today is much different than its original form. The issue of textual variances is connected to this. Now this is a claim about history and it can be verified or falsified by examination. Historical research proves that our Biblical texts are true to the originals, and that is important because the Quran commands Muslims to accept the Biblical texts in their original form. Well, by inference from the Bible’s manuscript tradition we can show that the Bible’s original manuscripts included things like God having an eternal Son, and some prophecies of the crucifixion, and other things Muslims deny. [cont’d next post]

On this issue, please see “The Quran Confirms the Bible Has Never Been Corrupted” part 1 / part 2 and “The Quran confirms the veracity of the Holy Bible” part 1 / part 2.

Showing that the Qur’an and Ahadith point to the Old and New Testaments as reliable–with one possible caveat–will lay to rest this notion all too widespread among Muslims that the Jews and Christians have corrupted their Scriptures.

 

[Steve_Jay]

Steve, dude, no problem there. As a Christian, I would say as much.

If you happen to discuss this with a Muslim, he would ask, what prophecy? Then both of us (we and them) will have to justify our statement respectively. I have no problem with that too.

It’s a matter of hearing what they believe, like when they say that John the Baptist is a prophet. Then from that we can explain why they are wrong in saying that he is a prophet and then give our reason.

As an example, there are people of other religions who say that Catholics worship Mary rather than admitting that Catholics say they do not worship Mary. They may have their reason for saying that Catholics worship Mary, but it does not change the fact that Catholics do not worship Mary in its doctrine.

Hello Reuben,
you mention Mary.

Muhammad was the final messenger according to himself. Jesus the failed prophet that had to be rescued.

Jesus was born of a Virgin.
Muhammad wasn’t born of a virgin.
Jesus’ birth was announced by an angel.
Muhammad’s birth wasn’t announced.
Wise men and shepherds came from afar to give gifts to Jesus.
Muhammad had no one bearing gifts.
Jesus was announced by John
Muhammad was announced by no one.
Jesus did great miracles of love.
Muhammad did no miracles at all. He didn’t split the moon. It would have been reported far and wide if he had.
Jesus shall return.
Muhammad isn’t going to return.

Jesus gave his own life.
Muhammad took life.

God’s “final messenger” according to himself didn’t get a mention. No introduction. no gifts. Not born of a virgin. No great miracles. And it isn’t him that shall return.

Jesus gave love and Muhammad gave fear.

1 John 4:8
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.