Rebuttal to James Arlandson's article Does Islam improve on Christianity?

Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately!  See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.

Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

Rebuttal to James Arlandson's article


Does Islam improve on Christianity?

 

By Sami Zaatari

 

 

 

 

 

He Wrote

 

Does Muhammad fulfill and complete the mission and ministry of Jesus? Muslims answer with an emphatic yes.

 

Basic Islamic theology teaches that since Allah sent Gabriel down with the Quran to Muhammad the messenger of Allah, Muhammad and the Quran fulfill and complete the mission of Christ and the New Testament. Muhammad seems to recognize the value of the Bible (Suras 4:47; 4:136; 4:163; 5:44-48; 5:82-83; 6:92, 154), but ultimately Christianity and the New Testament must yield to Islam and the Quran, the new and superior revelation.

 

My Response

 

Yes, Islam does improve on Christianity. Islam corrects Christianity on several issues, such as Jesus, such as who was sacrificed and the issue of salvation. The Quran establishes Jesus' true message, which is to worship one God, not to worship him as a God. The prophet Muhammad did recognize the value of the Bible, all us Muslims do, we do believe there is truth in the Bible.

 

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltomattslick1.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_not_error_free.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/que3.htm

http://www.mostmerciful.com/quran-does-not-state-bible-is-true.htm

 

He Wrote

 

Sura 5:15-16 illustrates this theology. In the context of Muhammad’s distortion of the Christian doctrine of the Sonship of Christ (5:17), and in the context of his asserting that Jews have been cursed (5:13), this passage in the Quran (representing others) says that Christians (and Jews) have been walking in darkness until Muhammad came:

 

5:15 People of the Book [Jews and Christians] ... a light has now come to you from God, and a Scripture [the Quran] making things clear, 16 with which God guides them who follow what pleases Him to ways of peace, bringing them from darkness out into light, by His will, and guiding them to a straight path. (Haleem) (cf. 4:157)

 

A Bible-educated Christian today immediately recognizes the imagery of light. Jesus says that he was sent down from heaven as the light of the world, and Christians have passed from darkness into the light (John 1:4-5, 8:12, 9:5, 12:46; 1 Peter 2:9). Now, however, Muhammad claims that Christians had been living in darkness, and he has come to clarify matters for them, as if things had been muddied. The Quran offers guidance along a "straight path," a theme often repeated in the Muslim Scriptures (e.g. Sura or Chapter 1) and makes "things clear." Verse 16 is likely one of the verses a Muslim has in mind when he points out that Islam is a religion of peace. But is it?

 

My Response

 

Yes, Muhammad is a light for Christians and Jews; he has come down with a new revelation that clears out the falsehood in your religions. Yes, the Bible does state that Jesus was a light for man, however so what James forgets is that basically all prophets are a light for men since prophets come down to save us all from sin. So both the prophet Muhammad and Jesus were lights of men in their respective times. The prophet Muhammad is the final prophet sent to mankind with the final revelation which is the Quran.

 

He Wrote

 

A devout, Bible-educated Christian in no way believes that Islam is superior, so how do we break this deadlock? Ignore it? Given recent events like 9/11, this is no longer feasible. Do we pretend that all religions are the same? But this forces us to deny some basic, diametrically opposed and irreconcilable doctrines that all religions have. So do we argue over these abstract doctrines?

 

Debating abstract ideas like the Unity or the Trinity of God has a place in the Christian-Muslim dialogue, but neither claim can be proven by simple observation. The Quran everywhere affirms the strict Unity of God, whereas the New Testament everywhere affirms the divinity of Christ and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. So we have merely pitted one sacred text against another, and to break this deadlock we must go down still other paths. (For more information on the reliability of the New Testament, visit this page <../../Bible/Text/index.html>; for the problems inhering in the Quran, go here <../../Quran/Contra/index.html>.)

 

My Response

 

As for September 11 please visit these links:

 

www.infowars.com

www.prisonplanet.com  

 

For the reliability of the Quran please visit these links:

 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/

http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html

http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltoarthurjeffery.htm

 

for the problems inhering the Bible please visit these links:

 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Sources/

http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/exhibitDarius.htm

http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/canons.htm

http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/exhibitC.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/problem_of_paul.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_embarrassing_2.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/criticism.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible-speak.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/christianity_contradicts_the_bible.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/christianity_contradicts_the_bible_part_2.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/jesus_contradicts_himself.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/rebuttal_to_shamoun_1.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/rebuttal_to_shamoun_2.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/a_t/christian_proof_texts.htm

 

 

He Wrote

 

Since Muhammad lays down a serious challenge to Christ and Christianity, we Christians must answer him. What would Christ say? As it turns out, he has given us a clear teaching on how to evaluate a prophet who comes after him in history, especially if the later prophet asserts his superiority over Christ: fruit inspection.

 

In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, Christ spoke to the multitudes, few of whom or none of whom were theologians, but simple agrarians. In Matt. 7:15-20, Christ uses unambiguous language about discerning the truthfulness of prophets:

 

7:15 Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you shall know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you shall know them.

 

My Response

 

Yes, the false prophet was Paul not Muhammad. It was Paul he came with a completely different doctrine than the one Jesus preached. The prophet Muhammad is not the false prophet.

 

Yes, by their fruit you shall know them. Thank you for bringing that up, since you are a well documented liar, just visit my previous rebuttal to you, so I guess the verse can be applied to you when it says:

 

 Thus, by their fruit you shall know them.

 

So I guess that applies to you.

 

He Wrote

 

In today’s western world in which millions would prefer to not rock the boat with Islam and rather try to accommodate it, this passage may stand out as intolerant. But in these verses Christ understands the stakes. Religious truth-claims come into the world by the dozens, seemingly every second, and these claims are not merely abstract theories; the lives of people are at risk. So the price of accommodation, since 9/11, is too high. Besides, it is Muhammad who says that he is superior to Christ and that his new religion improves on Christianity. He is the one who issued the challenge in the first place. Therefore, 600+ years before Muhammad came on the world stage, Christ answers him (and other self-proclaimed prophets) with a fruit inspection.

 

To illustrate, let us suppose that I claim that my way is better than yours. Then I should be able to back up my verbal assertion with my actions in obvious ways. My behavior should actually be better than yours, for my actions speak louder than my words. Specifically, if I as the founder of a religion say that husbands in my community are allowed to beat their wives (Sura 4:34), but you as the founder of a religion say that husbands in your community are not allowed to beat their wives, then how can my alleged superiority stand up in real life? I am promoting an empirically bad practice, but you are not.

 

I simply do not pass fruit inspection. That is, my fruit or behavior or down-to-earth practices are rotten. Therefore, Christ is absolutely correct to use this simple test for his followers to examine the claims of later prophets. "By their fruit you shall know them" (Matt. 7:16 and 20).

 

We can boil down Muhammad’s challenge and Christ’s fruit inspection in a simple if-then logical argument. This one is known as modus tollens or denying the consequent (the "then" clause).

 

(1)

If A, then B. If Islam improves on Christianity, then these improvements should show up in observable, down-to-earth ways.

(2)

Not-B. But these improvements do not show up in observable, down-to-earth ways.

(3)

Therefore, not-A. Therefore, Islam does not improve on Christianity.

We now easily defend each premise.

 

My Response

 

Once again James proves he is a liar, note what he said:

 

 

, it is Muhammad who says that he is superior to Christ

 

I challenge you to bring me where the prophet said he is greater than Jesus, this proves what a liar you are. It seems you have to lie in every single article you write. I will let the Quran refute your claim and lie:

 

002.136
YUSUFALI: Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

002.285
YUSUFALI: The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His messengers." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."

003.084
YUSUFALI: Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)."

So all prophets and messengers are equal, God makes no distinction between any of them.

 

Let us quote some of the hadiths:

 

 Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 608:

 

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet said, "One should not say that I am better than Jonah (i.e. Yunus) bin Matta." So, he mentioned his father Matta. The Prophet mentioned the night of his Ascension and said, "The prophet Moses was brown, a tall person as if from the people of the tribe of Shanu'a. Jesus was a curly-haired man of moderate height." He also mentioned Malik, the gate-keeper of the (Hell) Fire, and Ad-Dajjal.

 

So the prophet Muhammad is telling the Muslims that they shouldnt say he is better than Jonah, meaning dont say he is greater than Jonah etc. This also shows that the prophet Muhammad believed himself to be on the same level as all other prophets, equal with them.

 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654:

 

Narrated 'Umar:

I heard the Prophet saying, "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle."

 

So if the prophet Muhammad believed he was greater than Jesus he would tell his people to praise him more than the Christians did with Jesus! Instead the prophet Muhammad tells his people to not over praise him like Christians did with Jesus, hence it is obvious that the prophet Muhammad did not believe that he was greater than Jesus or else he would say praise me more than Jesus.

 

 

He Wrote

 

(1) If Islam improves on Christianity, then these improvements should show up in observable, down-to-earth ways.

 

We have already defended this premise in our lead-up to it. Examining the life and practices of the Founder of Christianity and the Founder of Islam is the first and best way to break the deadlock between the two competing religions, because we can observe their behavior and actions down here on earth. By their fruits we shall know them.

 

My Response

 

Yes, let us see the actions of both men, to begin with let us see the actions of Jesus, now since you believe Jesus is God then this means that Jesus commanded this:

 

Judges 21: 10- 24 :

 

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

 

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

 

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and

Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

 

So note, the men hide behind bushes like stalkers, and they wait for the women and once they see the women they rush the women and kidnap them and then basically marry them! This is clear rape; this is what you call ‘legalized rape’.

 

Numbers 31: 7-18 :

 

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

 

Zephaniah 2:12-15

 

"You Ethiopians will also be slaughtered by my sword," says the LORD. And the LORD will strike the lands of the north with his fist. He will destroy Assyria and make its great capital, Nineveh, a desolate wasteland, parched like a desert. The city that once was so proud will become a pasture for sheep and cattle. All sorts of wild animals will settle there. Owls of many kinds will live among the ruins of its palaces, hooting from the gaping windows. Rubble will block all the doorways, and the cedar paneling will lie open to the wind and weather. This is the fate of that boisterous city, once so secure. "In all the world there is no city as great as I," it boasted. But now, look how it has become an utter ruin, a place where animals live! Everyone passing that way will laugh in derision or shake a defiant fist

 

Isaiah 13:15-18

 

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.

 

So as you can see, the God of the OT commanded his followers to kill women and children, Christians say Jesus is God so hence it was Jesus who commanded these brutal acts. Let us see what the Quran says:

 

004.075
YUSUFALI: And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"

 

The Quran tells the Muslims to fight for the oppressed, man women and children. The prophet Muhammad is obligated to follow the Quran, so hence the prophet Muhammad is commanded to fight for the oppressed women and children, the Bible under the command of Jesus says kill women and children. So it is pretty simple, Jesus killed women and children, Muhammad fought for women and children.

 

 Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 257:

 

Narrated 'Abdullah:

During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

 

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 258:

 

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

 

 

So the prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children, the Christian God who is Jesus said god kill women and children. As James said, by their fruits you shall know them, indeed.

 

 

He Wrote

 

(2) But these improvements do not show up in observable, down-to-earth ways.

 

Defending this premise with hard evidence answers most clearly the challenge that Muhammad levels against Christ and demonstrates beyond any doubt that Muhammad’s fruit is bad, whereas Christ’s fruit is indeed healthy and ripe.

 

My Response

 

Correction, the prophet Muhammad's fruits are very good and healthy, he tells us to fight for the opressed women and children, he also tells us to not kill women and children. Jesus in the Bible tells you to kill women and children, so I think we all know who has the good fruit.

 

He Wrote

 

The following list has already been developed in this article <ten_reasons.htm>, which is actually the basis for the current article. If the reader believes that these actual practices in Muhammad’s life and the following verses in the Quran are taken out of context or out of thin air, then he or she should go to the link, and then, once there, he or she should go to the further links provided under each point. These dubious practices actually happened in Muhammad’s community, and Muhammad in his Quran actually orders these atrocities. Also, to see the Quranic verses in multiple translations, the reader should go here and type in the references, like so: 24:2 (24 is the sura or chapter, and 2 is the verse).

 

My Response

 

Yes, here is the response to the first link you posted:

 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltojamesarlandson1.htm

 

He Wrote

 

Muhammad nicknames his weapons.

Christ never owned weapons because he never waged war on people.

 

My Response

 

Just because the prophet Muhammad nicknamed his weapons doesnt make him an evil person, I just clearly showed the prophet Muhammad commanding the Muslims to NOT kill women and children. Here it is again incase you need to refresh your memory:

 

 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 257:

 

Narrated 'Abdullah:

During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

 

Sahih BukhariVolume 4, Book 52, Number 258:

 

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

 

James also lies again, he claims that Jesus NEVER waged war on people, let me correct this sad lie of James using his own Bible:

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2

 

32-37

And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. 36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us

 

Who is the lord according to James? It is Jesus, so James lied.

Secondly, the fact that Jesus didn’t take part on battles during his lifetime on earth was because he never had his own city for himself, he never was attacked by large numbers of pagans like the prophet Muhammad was. Jesus had to experience angry mobs and that’s all, something the prophet Muhammad had to experience, but the prophet Muhammad didn’t go to war for that. The fact is Jesus was never attacked by an army to have gone into battle, so it is sad that Christians have to use logical fallacies to make an argument. It is like comparing someone who lived in Europe during WW2 with a person who lived in Europe during the 80's and then telling the person in WW2 that he was violent for fighting! Jesus never had to fight a battle, the prophet Muhammad was forced to defend himself and go into battle. So please do not use logical fallacies when you want to argue, in this case your logical fallacy is comparing two completely different situations when the circumstances are very different!

 

He Wrote

 

Muhammad in his Quran commands that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes (Sura 24:2). Reliable hadiths (Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran) command stoning them.

 

Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery. The men who had gathered around to stone her dropped their rocks and left. She stayed, weeping, until Christ told her to go and sin no more (John 8:1-11).

 

My Response

 

Yes, the prophet Muhammad follows the Quran, so thank you for admitting that you believe this is a bad thing; the reason that you believe this is a bad thing is because you can’t even follow the rules of your own Bible. Unlike you Christians, we Muslims do not compromise our book like you do yours, this is not a game, if God commands you to do something you go and do it. So this is a pathetic argument on the part of James, so basically James wants the prophet Muhammad to rebel against the system and make his own laws up and comprise the law of God! Hilarious!!! That is good fruits according to James.

 

The prophet Muhammad obeys God, so in fact James shows the prophet Muhammad had good fruits since he would follow God's orders and not compromise them. James apparently wants to comprise his Bible for his own man made desires, how sad; this is exactly why you have Gay bishops in the Church.

 

Also if James is basing his argument on mercy, then the prophet Muhammad is very merciful, he said do not kill women and children!

 

He Wrote

 

Muhammad in his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives (Sura 4:34).

Neither Christ nor the New Testament authors permit this or practiced this.

 

My Response

 

The same old argument. To begin with the Quran permits husbands to beat their wives as A LAST RESORT. They have around 3 other options.

Secondly, by beat the Quran does not mean to go and punch her up and so on. I will quote what the concept of beating your wife really means:

 

Muhammad Asad, in his footnote to this passage, #45, wrote:

 

It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim). According to another Tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, "Never beat God's handmaidens" (Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas ibn 'Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum). When the above Qur'an-verse authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said: "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing - and what God has willed must be best" (see Manar V, 74). With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct", and that it should be done "in such a way as not to cause pain (ghayr mubarrih)"; authentic Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars (e.g., Ash-Shafi'i) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with regard to this problem. (Source <http://www.geocities.com/masad02/004>; bold and underline emphasis ours)

 

So as you can see, the prophet claimed that you should do this act in a way that causes no pain.

 

Taken from http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/noble_quran_4_34.htm

 

“Men are the protectors and maintainers (in a proper and fair manner) of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).” (Qu’ran 4:34)

Notes:

       The arabic word used for ‘ill-conduct/rebellion’ = nushooz

       The arabic word used in noble verse 4:34 above is "idribuhunna", which is derived from "daraba" ,The word in Arabic means to "strike" or "hit". It inludes everything from a tap with a tooth-stick to what in English we call beating. If it is stated that so-and-so "hit" so-and-so without further description, it would be assumed to be a single blow and it could be of any magnitude. When the Prophet (sas) took a tiny stick and tapped one of the Muslims on the stomach to straighten the ranks in preparation for war, he "hit" him with this meaning. Contrast this to the English phrase: "beat them". The meaning is totally different. If you took a shoe lace and hit someone on the hand with it, you could properly say dharabtahu in Arabic but in English you could never say that you had "beaten" that person.



1 Does the Arabic word 'daraba' necessarily mean "violent or intense or repeated striking?


No, jurists routinely use the expression "daraba al-ma' `ala wajhihi" - lit. strike water upon the face, for someone accomplishing the first rukn of wudu' (washing the face).

Also in Arabic daraba al-ard "to strike the earth" - as in verse 4:94 {When you strike the earth in the cause of Allah} - means to travel, i.e. walking with a staff.

The Prophet (pbuh) also expressed astonishment at the cruelty of certain men when he said: "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening ?" (Bukhari and Muslim).


The crafty little anti-Islam page on domini.org states:

"The Qur'an states:

"Righteous women are therefore obedient, And those you fear may be rebellious (nushuz) admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them."

 

"Some translators add the word lightly after 'beat them' in Q 4:34. Others like Mohammed Pickthall and Rodwell translate the word 'edrebouhon - beat them' as 'scourge them'. [...] But "a beating without causing injury" (agreed upon)

 

"So the man has the right to beat his rebellious wife as long as that beating is not like the whipping of the slave and will not result in injury."


Of course the above is false and tendentious but couched in the syrupy style typical of missionaries.

 

The hadith in Muslim states that the Prophet (pbuh) in his Farewell Pilgrimage said: "Lo! My last recommendation to you is that you should TREAT WOMEN WELL. Truly they are your helpmates, and you have no right over them beyond that - EXCEPT IF THEY COMMIT A MANIFEST INDECENCY. If they do, then refuse to share their beds and hit them WITHOUT INDECENT VIOLENCE . Then, if they obey you, do not show them hostility any longer. Lo! you have a right over your women and they have a right over you. Your right over your women is that they not allow whom you hate to enter your bed nor your house. While their right over them is that you treat them excellently in their garb and provision."


Note:


EXCEPT IF THEY COMMIT A MANIFEST INDECENCY = fahisha mubina (which means) : immorality that may lead to adultery

 

WITHOUT INDECENT VIOLENCE = fadribu hunna darban ghayra mubarrih

Mubarrih = defined in al-Mawrid as "violent, intense, severe, acute, sharp, excruciating, tormenting, agonizing."

 

Qatada said as narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (5:68): "Ghayr mubarrih means ghayr sha'in = not disgraceful/ outrageous/ obscene/ indecent [beating]."

∑ Muhammad Asad translates it over-figuratively as “not causing pain


After this, whatever Muslim man derogates to the recommendation of the Prophet (pbuh) has violated his covenant with the Prophet and shall be called to account for it; and whoever of the non-Muslim men or women claims - even the Archbishop of Canterbury and his wife - that beating women is allowed in Islam, has belied the Divine witness invoked by the Prophet and shall be called to account for it in the Divine Court.


2 What is the evidence for saying that this 'striking' is in fact only supposed to be carried out with something small, like a miswak?

 

`Ata' said: "I asked Ibn `Abbas: 'What is the hitting that is ghayr al-mubarrih?' He replied: '[With] the siwak and the like'." Narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir (Dar al-Fikr reprint 5:68).

 

Al-Razi (3:222) mentions that as a rule (a) it must be a light beating and (b) the face must be avoided. He added that certain of the Shafi`i jurists said "a coiled scarf (mindil malfuf) or his hand may be used but not a whip nor a stick."

 

Answering false claim nr.1:

 

‘An answer to the false claim made by anti islamic people that the prophet (peace be upon him) commented on the complaining women and not the husbands in the hadith below’

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2141:

 

Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab:

Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

The christian missionary Silas claimed: Note here that Muhammad commented on the women who were complaining to his wives: "they are not the best among you". Muhammad was not commenting on the husbands who beat their wives.


Answer:


The above statement is such a big and cheap lie, the prophet was clearly condemning those husbands and not the women !

 

( see for the proof: Riyad as Saliheen chapter 34, nr 279 at <http://www.sunnipath.com/Resources/PrintMedia/Hadith/H0004P0034.aspx> ) .


The prophet (peace be upon him) told the believers that ‘those husbands are not the best among you’ , the prophet (peace be upon him) also revoked the dispensation. Further this hadith proves that wife beating wat not permitted at all, since Umar came to ask permission for the prophet (peace be upon him), if hitting ones wife was normal and allowed in any case or in many cases, then umar wouldn’t asked the prophet (peace be upon him) permission for it, therefore:

 

       The man has no right to beat his wife as per the explicit prohibition of the Prophet (peace be upon him)

 

       The basic rule (asl) is strict prohibition, followed by dispensation (rukhsa) as explicited by the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the hadith where the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Do not hit the maidservants of Allah ! " ( la tadribu ima' Allah ). Then Umar came to the Prophet and said ( by way of exaggeration , cf. ‘Awn al-Ma `bud ) : “The wome are rebelling ( dha'irna ) against their husbands ! “ So the prophet gave a dispensation ( rakhkhasa ) to beat them. Whereupon women started pouring to see the family of the messenger of Allah and complain about their husbands. Seeing this, the prophet said: “Many women have poured in to see the family of Muhammad, complaining of their husbands, and the latter are certainly not the best of you

 

(Narrated from Iyas ibn `Abd Allah ibn Abi Dhubab by al-Shafi`i in his Musnad, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, al-Tabarani in al-Kabir, and al-Hakim. Al-Nawawi and al-Suyuti graded it a sound (sahih) narration in Riyad al-Salihin and al-Jami` al-Saghir respectively).


Another authentic version in Sahih Ibn Hibban (9:491) adds that the Prophet then revoked the dispensation. His statement that “the best of you are the best in their behavior towards their wives, and I am the best of you in my behavior towards my wives” shows that


(1) wife-beaters are the worst men and
(2) no Muslim wife-beater can possibly claim to imitate the Prophet , although Allah Most High said to imitate him : {Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the last Day, and remembereth Allah much} (33:21).

(fatwa by sheikh G.F. Haddad, see also sheikh G.F. haddad’s answer given to question 1 in this article, where the prophet’s clearly explained in which conditions/situation hitting’s ones wife lighty and not in the face was allowed )

Answering false claim nr.2:


‘An answer to the false claim made by anti islamic people that the prophet one time beat aicha

 

(misunderstood hadith) Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 2127:

 

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.

 

Answer to the mistranslation:

The term used in the hadith is:



Imam Nawawi in his Sharh states that:



The word "lahada" according to the lexicographers means, "to push" (dafa'a).

The usage of the word "struck" is not a correct translation. Rather, the phrase should be translated as (as sheikh Gf haddad said):


- He pushed my chest with a push that made me sore

 

Secondly, this calls to an important matter that is related to the Hand imposition of the Prophet - Allah bless him - because it is a gesture associated with driving away evil influence (wasw‚s) and conferring blessing as the following reports show:

1. Ubay ibn Ka`b said:

"There occurred in my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance. When the Messenger of Allah - Allah bless and greet him - saw how I was affected, he slapped me on the chest. I broke into a sweat and felt as if I were looking at All‚h in fear." (Sahih Muslim)

2. Jarir ibn Abdullah Al BajalÓ was sent by the Prophet - Allah bless him - on a mission to destroy Dhu Al Kahalasa, the idol-house of Khatham, nicknamed the Yemenite Kaba. Jarr narrates:

 

"I went along with a hundred and fifty horsemen but I could not sit steadily on horse. I mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah - Allah bless and greet him - who then struck his hand on my chest so hard that I could see the trace of his fingers on it, saying: 'O Allah! Grant him steadfastness and make him a guide of righteousness and a rightly-guided one!' (Bukhari and Muslim)

More proof that the correct translation is ‘He pushed my chest with a push that made me sore’


Aaishah (Radhiallahu 'Anha) said: "Allaah's Messenger (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) never hit anything with his hand ever, except when fighting in the path of Allaah. Nor did he ever hit a servant or a woman." [Recorded by Ibn Maajah. Al-Albaanee graded it Saheeh.]

 

Wife-beating can’t be considered "in the Cause of Allaah" - the reference in the Hadeeth is a reference to Jihaad on the battlefield. "When the prohibitions of Allaah were violated" is a reference to someone committing a crime, and their being tried and then punished by flogging. This is not a reference to the way a husband should treat his wife. So here we clearly see in a sahih (authentic) hadith that Aisha clearly told that the prophet ‘never hit a servent or a women’.

So this is also a clear proof that the usage of the word "struck" is not a correct translation. Rather, the phrase should be translated as (as Gf haddad said):

- He pushed my chest with a push that made me sore

 

For more just go to the link http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/noble_quran_4_34.htm

 

In fact also go to this link which has other great articles by brother Karim on the status of women in Islam:

 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/index.html

 

 

Well Christ may not have beaten any women or commanded it, Christ did something much worse:

 

 

Exodus 21:20-21

 

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property

 

So if you have a slave you can beat the slave as hard and as much as you want, just make sure the slave doesn’t die!!

 

So as we saw, the Quran permitting husbands to beat their wives basically means to not hit them to cause pain as Christian like to assume. However so, their Bible allows you to beat your slave as much as you want and cause as much pain to them, just make sure they don’t die.

 

He Wrote

 

Muhammad in his Quran commands that the hands of male or female thieves should be cut off (Sura 5:38).

 

Christ never said to do this. In fact, the Apostle Paul said that thieves should work with their hands—not get them cut off—in order to share with those in need (Ephesians 4:28). In this matter (and in many others) Paul excels Muhammad.

 

My Response

 

Yes, the prophet Muhammad does not compromise God's law so that is something good not something but, there is no mercy for the criminals.

 

Yes, Paul made his own law up, thank you for admitting it James. Good job.

 

Let me just quote some Biblical laws for all to see:

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 21

 

18-22

 

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. 22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 23

 

1-4

 

1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. 2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. 3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever: 4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 25

 

1-3

 

1 If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. 2 And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. 3 Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee

 

So what is James complaining about when there are some harsh punishments in his own book! This is clear double standards on the part of James but I have come to expect that from him.

 

He Wrote

 

Muhammad assassinates poets and poetesses and political enemies.

Christ never assassinates any of his enemies—and certainly not poets (even bad ones).

 

My Response

 

Notice how James posts no references or any sources to back his claim up. How sad indeed.

 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/forgeries_about_killing.htm

 

He Wrote

 

Muhammad in his Quran commands death or the cutting off of hands and feet for fighting and corrupting the land (Sura 5:33).

 

Christ the Prince of Peace dies for the sins of the world, so that "corruption" and the "fighting" would stop.

 

My Response

 

This is another pathetic argument, the prophet Muhammad is merely keeping the law and punishing criminals. It is obvious that James has a problem with justice and punishment of Criminals. It is safe to say that even Christians would agree with me that punishing criminals is not something bad or something that can be used as an argument.

 

If Christ died for you, then he cannot be God because God does not die. So make your mind up, is Jesus God or not?

 

He Wrote

 

Muhammad marries a prepubescent girl, Aisha, and consummates his marriage with her while she is still only a girl. For more evidence on this most outlandish of Muhammad’s domestic acts even for seventh-century Arabia, readers should refer to this article <../../Shamoun/prepubescent.htm>. The Quran itself allows such unjust marriages for other Muslims, as well (Sura 65:4). Here <women_fields.htm> is a shorter article on this unpleasant but true topic.

 

Christ never did this or said to do this.

 

My Response

 

Same old argument, here are the links which respond to this argument:

 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/is_muhammad_true_prophet_1.htm#muhammad_and_aisha

http://www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/lie.html

 

I would like to ask James to bring me any source at the time which attacked the prophet Muhammad for marrying Aisha.

 

He Wrote

 

Muhammad in his Quran promises sensuous, "virgin-rich" Gardens for martyrs dying in a military holy war (Suras 44:51-56, 52:17-29, 55:46-78, 61:10, 4:74, 9:111).

Christ’s "Martyrdom" on the cross means that Christians do not have to die in a holy war to be guaranteed heaven. They need only trust in him.

 

My Response

 

What is exactly wrong with getting virgin girls in heaven? I am not trying to be mean hear but are you a homosexual Mr. James?

 

Also if you are not a homosexual and are married then why are you married? Since it seems you have something against having beutiful women in paradise.

 

So why did you marry your wife then and have a lady for yourself on earth?

 

If it is bad to have the pleasure of women in paradise then why do you enjoy the pleasure of your wife if it is something evil?

 

If having beautiful women in heaven is something bad then why did your God create beautiful women on earth?

 

If to have sex in heaven is something bad then why do you have sex in the first place?

 

If sex in heaven is something bad then why did your God invent sex?

 

Using your logic you’re a pervert, and so is your God. :)

 

Now just in case you and every Christian attacks a straw man, let me clarrify what I said, I do not believe the God of the Bible is a pervert, I am using your own argumentation against you, I am using your own logic against you so if I did apply your reasoning this would lead us to the conclusion that your God is a perv. It is actually you who in-directly calls your own God a perv, not me, I am just using your pathetic argument and logic against you to show how it badly backfires.

 

He Wrote

 

Muhammad unjustly executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children. This atrocity is celebrated in his Quran (Sura 33:25-27)

 

Christ was a Jew and loves his own people. Moreover, he loves the whole world—even the polytheists whom Muhammad slaughters—and redeems it by his death, burial, and Resurrection. He was not sent to slaughter people.

 

My Response

 

The Jews broke the treaty and were rightly punished for doing so:

 

As for Bani Qurayza here is a link regarding them and why they were attacked by the prophet Muhammad:

 

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza>

 

Some other links:

 

http://www.sunnipath.com/Resources/Questions/QA00003873.aspx

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/?p=242

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/index.php/articles/the-expulsion-of-banu-al-qurayzah

 

Yes, Christ loved the whole world that he killed so many women and children:

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 7

 

1-6

 

1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth

 

Joshua
Chapter 6

 

17-27

 

17 And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent. 18 And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it. 19 But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD. 20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. 21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. 22 But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her. 23 And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel. 24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. 25 And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. 26 And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it. 27 So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.

 

He Wrote

 

Muhammad launches his own military Crusade in AD 630 with 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantines (who never showed up) (Sura 9:29).

 

Christ never did this. What Medieval Europeans did in his name is not foundational to Christianity. Only Christ and the New Testament are, and they do not endorse a military holy war. Muhammad, on the other hand, is foundational to Islam, and he did launch his Crusades against Byzantines Christians, and he does endorse and go out on many military holy wars.

 

My Response

 

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

 

He Wrote

 

Sura 5:16, quoted in the introduction to this article, asserts that Islam is the religion of peace. This list, however, flatly contradicts this mere verbal assertion. Actions speak louder than words. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace <ten_reasons.htm>. To repeat, if the reader believes that these points are taken out of context or thin air, he or she may click on that link and then on the links provided under each point.

 

Christians shall know prophets by their fruit. Bluntly stated, Muhammad, the self-described human messenger and prophet (Sura 3:144), clearly fails the down-to-earth fruit inspection. On the other hand, Christ the Son of God (Matt. 3:16-17) passes it with a perfect score.

 

My Response

 

Yes, it is only your desires that the prophet Muhammad fails and Christ doesnt, I clearly showed the good fruits of the prophet Muhammad and how peaceful he was by commanding his believers to not kill women and children. I also showed the bad fruits of your own faith, your own book commanding to kill women and children etc. So any non biased reader will clearly see that you have been refuted and that the fruits of Muhammad are fresh and healty!

 

So I hope those werent the best points you had.

 

He Wrote

 

3) Therefore, Islam does not improve on Christianity.

 

This conclusion follows naturally and logically.

For fair-minded and reasonable people, practical matters like wife-beating and whipping adulterers and marrying prepubescent children are decisive. Actions and down-to-earth policies cannot be explained away, unless some people are willfully blind and refuse to see how obviously wrong it is to do these things, or unless a prophet has a large army behind him to force his practices on the "inferior" followers of an "incomplete" earlier religion.

 

And this brings us back to abstract doctrines, again using myself and the reader as examples. Before we discuss non-empirical doctrines like the nature of God, as the founder of a new religion I must pass fruit inspection. Let us suppose that it is my practice to kill polytheists in bloody battles, instead of converting them only by preaching or instead of letting them live if they refuse to convert (Sura 9:4-5). On the other hand, it is your practice not to kill polytheists, but to convert them by preaching only and to let them live if they refuse to convert. Under these conditions, I fail a down-to-earth, observable fruit inspection, but you pass it. I lose my right to be taken seriously in my claims about the nature of God. It is clear that I serve either myself, or worse—a lesser god. You, on the other hand, have sound practical policies, so you deserve a fair hearing in your abstract ideas

 

My Response

 

Well I am not willfully blind, it is you are the blind one who is not sincere enough to look for the explanations to your weak rubbish arguments. I find it very surprising that you are against such harsh punishments and rulings when they can be found in your own book! This my friend makes you a hypocrite.

 

It is you who is willfully blind to actually try and defend such filth like this:

 

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

 

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

 

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

 

Here is the laws on rape in the Bible, which basically makes it okay to rape a virgin, the only punishment is that you have marry her.

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 22

 

25-29

 

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days

 

He Wrote

 

In the same way, Muhammad’s failure in his challenge to Christ can be stated in another if-then argument, this time in modus ponens or affirming the antecedent (the "if" clause).

(4)

If A, then B. If Islam does not improve on Christianity in observable, down-to-earth ways, then it likely does not improve on Christianity in abstract, theoretical matters.

(5)

A is affirmed. Islam does not improve on Christianity in observable, down to earth ways.

(6)

Therefore, B is affirmed. Therefore, Islam likely does not improve on Christianity in abstract, theoretical matters.

The first two premises are also easily defended.

 

My Response

 

Well as we all saw, the prophet Muhammad did not fail.

 

He Wrote

 

(4) If Islam does not improve on Christianity in down-to-earth, observable ways, then it likely does not improve on Christianity in abstract, theoretical matters.

 

Muhammad embodies Islam, for he was the conduit through which Allah reveals the superior religion, so we again use him to test Islam. Fruit inspection says that if a prophet fails it, then his more abstract claims are suspect. In a secular context, this test is too high, for all humans are flawed. A physicist is allowed to discuss abstract matters about space and time, even though his personal life may be confused and even sinful. But in a religious context, especially when one religious leader (Muhammad) asserts that he is better than another leader (Christ), this test is essential and indispensable.

 

Furthermore, factual data confirm Muhammad’s failure in abstract ideas. For example, it is a verifiable fact that the New Testament is reliable, whereas the Quran has its share of problems. (For more information on this topic, refer to these pages:

 

[<../../Bible/Text/index.html>], [<../../Quran/Contra/index.html>].) It is also a verifiable fact that Muhammad was not trained in high-minded matters. He simply picked up a hodge-podge of ideas that circulated over the trade routes and inserted them into his Quran (like the absurd non-death of Christ on the cross in Sura 4:157 <odd_claims.htm>), claiming divine revelation from Allah. Hence, in clear and obvious ways he is not a reformer of Christianity (and Judaism), but a deformer of the two earlier religions. Therefore, historical facts confirm that he is likely wrong in theoretical doctrines—he does not know what he is talking about.

 

My Response

 

Actually, it is the Bible with the errors, and it is the Quran with no errors. The prophet Muhammad was not a reformer of Christianity, Christianity is an invention of Paul not Jesus, Muhammad did not come to reform a corrupt man's religion. The prophet Muhammad cleared the lies attributed to Jesus.

 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Sources/

http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/exhibitDarius.htm

http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/canons.htm

http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/exhibitC.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/problem_of_paul.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_embarrassing_2.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/criticism.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible-speak.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/christianity_contradicts_the_bible.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/christianity_contradicts_the_bible_part_2.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/jesus_contradicts_himself.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/rebuttal_to_shamoun_1.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/rebuttal_to_shamoun_2.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/a_t/christian_proof_texts.htm

 

The Bible is filled with errors that you have to be willfully blind to say that the Bible has no errors!

 

He Wrote

 

(5) Islam does not improve on Christianity in observable, down-to-earth ways.

 

After reading the list under premise two, any rational and intellectually honest seeker whose mind has not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam must reach the conclusion that Muhammad fails fruit inspection in practical, observable, and down-to-earth ways.

 

My Response

 

Actually, Muhammad does not fail at all. It is you who has the clouded mind, it is you who try to justify the massacres of women and children, talk about clouded minds!

 

He Wrote

 

6) Therefore, Islam likely does not improve on Christianity in abstract, theoretical matters.

 

This conclusion also follows naturally and logically.

 

Based on the list of wide differences between Christ and Muhammad under premise two, why would fair-minded and reasonable persons listen to Muhammad’s high-minded and merely verbal doctrines that deny the Trinity or the divinity of Christ (Suras 2:116, 6:101, and 4:171, 5:73) or that conveniently support the inerrancy of the Quran (unless he has a large army behind him)? Reasonable and fair-minded fruit inspectors may rightfully conclude that his inspired Book is suspect because of his dubious life and because it is filled with unjust practices. In fact, open-minded people have the right to prefer Christ’s factually kinder but allegedly "erroneous" Book, any day and every day, over and above Muhammad’s allegedly "inerrant" but factually extremist Scripture. Muhammad must first show us his exemplary life before he is allowed to preach about high-minded theology—or before we take seriously his revelations about abstractions.

 

For average Christians, then, especially the original followers whom Jesus was addressing in the Sermon on the Mount in first-century agrarian Israel, Christ says that by a prophet’s fruit Christ’s followers shall know the prophet. Once a prophet’s fruit goes bad, or it starts off growing on a bad tree, then they do not need to inspect his abstract claims. He becomes a false prophet—strong language to be sure, but those words are Christ’s (Matt. 7:15).

Three Questions

 

My Response

 

Why would reasonable people follow such a silly doctrine of trinity?

 

1+1+1= 1. Hilarious! Why would any one want to worship 3 Gods? Why would anyone want to worship a God who dies? Why would anyone want to believe in a liar named Paul who obviously changed the original message of Jesus? Why would anyone want to follow a book that says kill women and children?

 

The prophet Muhammad has an extreme scripture? It is obvious James has some issues if he believes the prophet Muhammad is extreme when the prophet said do not kill women and kids. It is the Bible that says kill women and kids, talk about extreme!!!!

 

The Quran has unjust practices? You mean the punishment for criminals? Well the same laws are found in your Bible!!!!

 

If this is what Christians have to offer in dialogs and compartive religion then Christianity is in big trouble I must say!!! What has the world of Christian apologetics come to!!! These are some of the WORST arguments I have ever read.

 

I mean common, is my faith really supposed to be challenged with such rubbish? You’re joking right?

 

 

He Wrote

 

Three Questions

 

Is the connection between practical matters and theoretical matters iron-clad? Christ in Matt. 7:15-20 implies that the connection is indeed real and iron-clad. To repeat, if Muhammad was wrong about practical matters like beating wives, whipping adulterers, launching military Crusades, assassinating poets and enemies, and promising his jihadists virgin-rich Gardens if they die in a military holy war, then why would Christians listen to Muhammad on theoretical matters, especially since the New Testament everywhere affirms, for example, the divinity of Christ and the personhood of the Holy Spirit? Even more important, why would Christians wish to convert to Islam, given Muhammad’s track record?

 

Does Muhammad’s failure to pass Christ’s fruit inspection shut down all dialogue? If Christian and Muslim theologians in a conference room want to debate the Trinity, then they are free to do so—though how far they get is doubtful. However, they should not expect millions upon millions of Bible-educated Christians worldwide to feel compelled to debate such ideas. But even if they want to discuss abstract theology, then they are also free to do so. Muslims must not be surprised, though, if these Christians do not take Muhammad and his revelations seriously in the final analysis because Christ already told his followers what to look for—good fruit (Matt. 7:15-20). Muhammad lived a questionable life, which gets enshrined into his not-so-eternal and not-so-inerrant Quran, so Christians are allowed to doubt the Quran on theoretical matters.

 

Are there no positive qualities (fruit) about Muhammad? Even the worst failure of a fruit inspection may have at least a few good qualities, for a self-proclaimed prophet (and there were many in the greater Mediterranean world during Christ’s life and afterwards, cf. this book <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1563382733/>) must maintain his followers, so sometimes he was kind to them. But his good qualities do not lash out and harm people. The bad traits do, however. The overall picture of Muhammad’s life in Medina (622-632) shows him waging war on polytheists (he conquers Mecca), on Jews (he banishes and kills them), and on Christians (he launches a Crusade). In the ten years that he lived there, he goes out on, sends out, or launches seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars, ranging from negotiations that do not lead to war, to assassination hit squads, to the conquest of Mecca with 10,000 jihadists, to a Crusade with 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantines (who never showed up). No one can whitewash this dark picture, which darkens his positive qualities.

 

Therefore, Muhammad does not complete and fulfill the mission and ministry of Christ—far from it—for Christ came into the world expressing the love of God. Factually, Muhammad and Islam are bad versions of Christ and Christianity, and the Quran is empirically worse than the New Testament.

 

Does Islam improve on Christianity? Given the hard evidence, the answer is an emphatic no.

 

Muhammad clearly fails to pass a simple fruit inspection.


[ Note: This article has a companion piece: Top ten reasons why Islam is not a religion of peace <ten_reasons.htm>. ]


Further reading:

       The Fruit of Islam's Royal Family <../../Silas/index.htm>

       Islam as the ‘End’ of Christianity: Assessing the Arguments for Abrogation <../../Intro/replacing.html>

 

Copyright by James Malcolm Arlandson. Originally published at americanthinker.com <http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4380>, this article was slightly edited for Answering Islam.

 

My Response

 

Yes, well I hope you are not the one in the conference room debating because from what I have seen, your arguments are terrible!

 

Most of what James said has already been refuted in the rebuttal. So that’s about it, another terrible article by James.

 

Also it seems James is fond of calling the prophet Muhammad a self-acclaimed prophet. Paul was a self-acclaimed apostle!

 

The prophet Muhammad was a true prophet; each argument James brought up has been refuted and done with. So hopefully James can get better arguments next time.

 

Praise Allah the one and true God!

 

 

 

 

Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

Rebuttals to James Arlandson's Articles section.

Sami Zaatari's Rebuttals section.


Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.