3 Strong Arguments Against Islam
I've often found myself locked in discussion with Muslims about the differences between Christianity and Islam. They question why I don't follow Mohamed and the Koran. Over years of consistent discussion I've realized there are three convincing reasons we shouldn't believe Islam is from God.
NO MIRACLES
Where were Mohamed's signs? Muslims claim Mohamed's religious innovations were a new covenant built on the Bible's Old and New Testaments. However, both of the previous revelations, Judaism and Christianity, were ratified with signs, but neither Mohamed nor his followers performed miracles to prove God stood behind them. Both Moses and Christ proved their divine revelations by performing incredible miraculous feats. Moses oversaw the ten plagues on Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea. Jesus was born of a virgin, healed people, and rose from the dead. Mohamed, however, never proved God was working through him. He claimed God's divine mandate without ever backing it up.
I've read the Koran. It's excruciatingly boring, but I forced myself to finish. The Koran repeatedly addresses the issue of Mohamed being unable to perform miracles. Mohamed rebutted those who asked for a sign by claiming the Koran itself was a miracle proving his inspiration. Most educated Muslims recognize that Mohamed did no miracles. Sunni scholar Muhammad Asad wrote:
The internet is filled with fake claims that Mohamed performed miracles, but these claims contradict the Koran and contemporary sources. Some of them are based on obscure Koranic passages. One miracle attributed to Mohamed is the "splitting of the moon" which he allegedly performed for the people of Mecca. The miracle is based on verses 54:1-2 of the Koran: "The hour of judgment is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder. But if they see a sign, they turn away, and say, 'This is transient magic.'" The verse is too obscure to be fully understood, and Islamic scholars present different interpretations of it. Many think this sign will only appear at the end of time, but others think it happened during Mohamed's lifetime based on a source quoting an alleged contemporary who claimed to have seen the miracle. However, if the Koran clearly indicates that Mohamed did not perform miracles then why should we believe he did perform them based on a few obscure secondary sources? In contrast, the Bible clearly and repeatedly states that Jesus performed miracles on an almost daily basis.
THE KORAN CLAIMS THE BIBLE IS INSPIRED BUT THEN CONTRADICTS IT
The Koran repeatedly states that the Old Testament and Gospels are inspired, but then it recounts stories and facts from those documents that directly contradict them.
Proving a contradiction is often very difficult. There are numerous biblical passages that appear contradictory, but if we analyze the possibilities we realize there are too many historical and hermeneutical factors to prove the contradictions don't have alternative explanations. Even seemingly obvious contradictions like "I went to the grocery store" versus "I did not go to the grocery store" are difficult to prove after realizing a person could have walked through the grocery store's property but never entered the store's building interior. Common English usage allows for both statements to be correct given the context.
However, the contradictions between the Bible and the Koran are simply too extreme to have any explanation. Among the more striking examples is when the Koran attributes stories from the life of Gideon and David to King Saul ("Talut"). The iconic stories are impossible to confuse and include figures like Goliath. Mohamed took multiple stories spread out over centuries of biblical history and smashed them together into a single narrative. He seems to have forgotten the details, and he even told his listeners they could read the stories out of the Bible for themselves. Mohamed not only contradicted the Bible after claiming it was inspired but actually believed his version of the story was an accurate summery of the Biblical texts. Variations of these contradictions are repeated over forty times throughout the Koran.
After doing some research, I learned that Mohamed had read many Jewish and Christian texts at some point in his earlier life. It seems that by the time he was "revealing" the Koran he'd simply forgotten the story details. Mohamed's versions of the stories aren't even variations that existed prior to his telling. It's not like he was quoting alternative versions of the Bible, he was simply inventing new versions while assuming he was citing old versions. It's difficult to understand the contradictions as anything more than a memory lapse.
Islam's allegedly inspired book refutes itself by claiming the Bible was inspired and then contradicting it in the most banal obvious ways. How can we accept the rest of Mohamed's religion if he was incapable of remembering basic historical details?
Some Muslims claim the Bible was corrupted and therefore Mohamed's words represent the accurate original Old and New Testaments. However, by assuming his readers could confirm his words by reading the Bible for themselves Mohamed endorsed the Bible as it existed in the eighth century Anno Domini. He wasn't citing distant lost manuscripts but the generally accepted Christian texts seven centuries after Christ. We've recovered and saved numerous manuscripts from this era, and none of them represent the Bible stories in the way Mohamed delivered them. If the Bible had been corrupted why did Mohamed, in his divine wisdom, not inform people of this massively important truth? This Muslim claim appears to be little more than a last ditch effort to save Mohamed's credibility.
PART OF THE KORAN WAS INSPIRED BY SATAN
Mohamed was having a hard time converting his fellow Arabs to Islam as he preached a monotheism that would destroy their polytheism. In an attempt to convert them, he uttered a "revelation" claiming three of their pagan deities were acceptable spiritual beings.
The earliest records of Mohamed's life are regarded as holy, the Hadith, and ascribe this seemingly blasphemous utterance to Satan. Apparently, Satan inspired Mohamed to reveal demonic words as if they were God's, and the event was reinterpreted as a test for those who wanted to go astray and follow polytheism based on Mohamed's revelation.
Many modern Islamic scholars claim this event never happened and Satan never inspired Mohamed, but the "satanic verses" incident is a part of both the Koran and the Hadith which are regarded as the most sacred books in Islam. Furthermore, why would the Hadith writers have included such a nasty incident in the life of their prophet if there wasn't some justification for it? They essentially had to fabricate some kind of excuse to explain why their prophet had affirmed blasphemous polytheism in the Koran. Either God allowed Satan to inspire some of the Koran or Mohamed endorsed polytheism after repeatedly condemning it everywhere else. Neither of those options inspires confidence in Islam's prophet.
CONCLUSION
Islam has no miraculous signs to support its claim to be God's final revelation, it's prophet contradicted the Bible after claiming it was inspired because he couldn't remember basic Bible stories, and its two holiest texts claim Mohamed was inspired by Satan to corrupt the Koran on at least one occasion. These are the top three arguments I would use to refute Islam, and I think almost any Christian could use them to convert a Muslim friend.
NO MIRACLES
Where were Mohamed's signs? Muslims claim Mohamed's religious innovations were a new covenant built on the Bible's Old and New Testaments. However, both of the previous revelations, Judaism and Christianity, were ratified with signs, but neither Mohamed nor his followers performed miracles to prove God stood behind them. Both Moses and Christ proved their divine revelations by performing incredible miraculous feats. Moses oversaw the ten plagues on Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea. Jesus was born of a virgin, healed people, and rose from the dead. Mohamed, however, never proved God was working through him. He claimed God's divine mandate without ever backing it up.
I've read the Koran. It's excruciatingly boring, but I forced myself to finish. The Koran repeatedly addresses the issue of Mohamed being unable to perform miracles. Mohamed rebutted those who asked for a sign by claiming the Koran itself was a miracle proving his inspiration. Most educated Muslims recognize that Mohamed did no miracles. Sunni scholar Muhammad Asad wrote:
"In many places the Qur'an stresses the fact that the Prophet Muhammad, despite his being the last and greatest of God's apostles, was not empowered to perform miracles similar to those with which the earlier prophets are said to have reinforced their verbal messages. His only miracle was and is the Qur'an itself - a message perfect in its lucidity and ethical comprehensiveness, destined for all times and all stages of human development..."How could God expect humans to dump Christianity and convert to Islam after sending a prophet who couldn't work miracles? We'd have to be religiously irresponsible to make such a change, especially considering the historical precedent of God instituting new covenant relationships with incredible miraculous signs. The Boreans were more noble because they did their research before accepting Christianity. Would we be noble if we accepted Mohamed without proof God sent him?
The internet is filled with fake claims that Mohamed performed miracles, but these claims contradict the Koran and contemporary sources. Some of them are based on obscure Koranic passages. One miracle attributed to Mohamed is the "splitting of the moon" which he allegedly performed for the people of Mecca. The miracle is based on verses 54:1-2 of the Koran: "The hour of judgment is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder. But if they see a sign, they turn away, and say, 'This is transient magic.'" The verse is too obscure to be fully understood, and Islamic scholars present different interpretations of it. Many think this sign will only appear at the end of time, but others think it happened during Mohamed's lifetime based on a source quoting an alleged contemporary who claimed to have seen the miracle. However, if the Koran clearly indicates that Mohamed did not perform miracles then why should we believe he did perform them based on a few obscure secondary sources? In contrast, the Bible clearly and repeatedly states that Jesus performed miracles on an almost daily basis.
THE KORAN CLAIMS THE BIBLE IS INSPIRED BUT THEN CONTRADICTS IT
The Koran repeatedly states that the Old Testament and Gospels are inspired, but then it recounts stories and facts from those documents that directly contradict them.
Proving a contradiction is often very difficult. There are numerous biblical passages that appear contradictory, but if we analyze the possibilities we realize there are too many historical and hermeneutical factors to prove the contradictions don't have alternative explanations. Even seemingly obvious contradictions like "I went to the grocery store" versus "I did not go to the grocery store" are difficult to prove after realizing a person could have walked through the grocery store's property but never entered the store's building interior. Common English usage allows for both statements to be correct given the context.
However, the contradictions between the Bible and the Koran are simply too extreme to have any explanation. Among the more striking examples is when the Koran attributes stories from the life of Gideon and David to King Saul ("Talut"). The iconic stories are impossible to confuse and include figures like Goliath. Mohamed took multiple stories spread out over centuries of biblical history and smashed them together into a single narrative. He seems to have forgotten the details, and he even told his listeners they could read the stories out of the Bible for themselves. Mohamed not only contradicted the Bible after claiming it was inspired but actually believed his version of the story was an accurate summery of the Biblical texts. Variations of these contradictions are repeated over forty times throughout the Koran.
After doing some research, I learned that Mohamed had read many Jewish and Christian texts at some point in his earlier life. It seems that by the time he was "revealing" the Koran he'd simply forgotten the story details. Mohamed's versions of the stories aren't even variations that existed prior to his telling. It's not like he was quoting alternative versions of the Bible, he was simply inventing new versions while assuming he was citing old versions. It's difficult to understand the contradictions as anything more than a memory lapse.
Islam's allegedly inspired book refutes itself by claiming the Bible was inspired and then contradicting it in the most banal obvious ways. How can we accept the rest of Mohamed's religion if he was incapable of remembering basic historical details?
Some Muslims claim the Bible was corrupted and therefore Mohamed's words represent the accurate original Old and New Testaments. However, by assuming his readers could confirm his words by reading the Bible for themselves Mohamed endorsed the Bible as it existed in the eighth century Anno Domini. He wasn't citing distant lost manuscripts but the generally accepted Christian texts seven centuries after Christ. We've recovered and saved numerous manuscripts from this era, and none of them represent the Bible stories in the way Mohamed delivered them. If the Bible had been corrupted why did Mohamed, in his divine wisdom, not inform people of this massively important truth? This Muslim claim appears to be little more than a last ditch effort to save Mohamed's credibility.
PART OF THE KORAN WAS INSPIRED BY SATAN
Mohamed was having a hard time converting his fellow Arabs to Islam as he preached a monotheism that would destroy their polytheism. In an attempt to convert them, he uttered a "revelation" claiming three of their pagan deities were acceptable spiritual beings.
"For truly did he see, the signs of his Lord, the greatest! Have ye seen Lat, and Uzza, and another, the third goddess Manat? What! For you the male sex, and for him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval." -Koran 53:18-22Many of the Arabs stopped persecuting him after hearing this, and they became more susceptible to Islam. However, Mohamed later retracted the last sentence with its obvious polytheistic implications.
The earliest records of Mohamed's life are regarded as holy, the Hadith, and ascribe this seemingly blasphemous utterance to Satan. Apparently, Satan inspired Mohamed to reveal demonic words as if they were God's, and the event was reinterpreted as a test for those who wanted to go astray and follow polytheism based on Mohamed's revelation.
Many modern Islamic scholars claim this event never happened and Satan never inspired Mohamed, but the "satanic verses" incident is a part of both the Koran and the Hadith which are regarded as the most sacred books in Islam. Furthermore, why would the Hadith writers have included such a nasty incident in the life of their prophet if there wasn't some justification for it? They essentially had to fabricate some kind of excuse to explain why their prophet had affirmed blasphemous polytheism in the Koran. Either God allowed Satan to inspire some of the Koran or Mohamed endorsed polytheism after repeatedly condemning it everywhere else. Neither of those options inspires confidence in Islam's prophet.
CONCLUSION
Islam has no miraculous signs to support its claim to be God's final revelation, it's prophet contradicted the Bible after claiming it was inspired because he couldn't remember basic Bible stories, and its two holiest texts claim Mohamed was inspired by Satan to corrupt the Koran on at least one occasion. These are the top three arguments I would use to refute Islam, and I think almost any Christian could use them to convert a Muslim friend.