Mingling with Muslims
There is much to be known about the history and extraordinary details of Islam,1 but as the scope of this particular treatise is to focus on how to deal with their religious errors, a short historical summary is useful for us. We would like to provide you with a sort of "quick-reference-sheet."
Islam is one of the fastest growing religions. Would you know how to defend the Faith if a conversation was struck with a Muslim? We must first know what they believe before studying how to refute their errors. In preparing this "quick reference guide," I have tried to imagine myself actually engaged in a conversation with a Muslim. It would seem one could anticipate a certain progressive flow in our conversation starting with the authenticity of the Sacred Scriptures and the Koran. This is where I have begun.
FACT: The Koran itself says the Sacred Scriptures are intact.
This is the place to start with a Muslim. Muslims maintain that we have corrupted the original Scriptures. They claim that what we now call the Bible is but a trace of the original Scriptures and is to be rejected. They say this because Muslims are bound to accept both the Old and New Testaments of the Sacred Scriptures (Koran 5:48,50). If he is won to accept that the Scriptures are not corrupted, then he will have to reject his error that Jesus did not die on the Cross nor resurrect. Muhammed himself has provided us with the "Magic Ayat" [i.e., "Verse"] in the Koran, Ch. 10, vss. 94-95, where he says that if the Muslims have any doubt as to the original Scriptures to go to those who have preserved them intact, that is, the "People of the Book"–the Jews and Christians. (Surely Muhammed wouldn't refer his followers to a lie?) If Muhammed accepted the 7th-century Bible as incorrupt and true during his lifetime, then Muslims must likewise accept the Bible as we have it today because it is substantially the same. After all, the Douay-Rheims is practically a literal translation from St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, and St. Jerome lived in the 4th century. In response to this dilemma, the Muslim will say:
"I cannot accept your citation of the Magic Ayat from the Koran."
He will say this and justify it by explaining that any translation of the Koran from the original Arabic is only to be considered a commentary and must be disregarded as not completely true. It is a subterfuge used to escape his predicament, a ruse by which he can accuse you of misunderstanding the Koran. Your reply can be, "You are right. Something is lost as with any translation; but the meaning is substantially the same, isn't it?"
FACT: There is no legitimate reason to accept the Koran as authentic.
It is generally accepted that Muhammed is the author of the Koran.4 But no one really knows. How can we know if he really wrote the words of Allah or if he created passages himself? Who has the authority to vouch that no errors have crept into the Koran over time? Who tells men to believe in the Koran? To what authority can those men appeal? Islam has no priests, no supreme Pontiff or head Muslim, no official institution to guarantee the authenticity and integrity of the Koran and its teachings, no authority to say that the Koran is inspired. They have their teacher-leaders (imams) and their recorded traditions, but who is to say they are not engineered? Muhammed cannot guarantee to men that he is telling the truth about the Koran. He founded no lasting institution, and he himself did not even name a successor.
Catholics, on the other hand, believe the Bible because they believe the authority of the Catholic Church which with good reasons has declared it substantially infallible and presented it to its faithful to be believed. Along with its own interior proofs of authenticity, something outside the Holy Bible has guaranteed what's inside it.
FACT: Muslims have no original Bible.
A Muslim believes he has the only true understanding of the original Scriptures. In the Koran, Christians and Jews are accused of concealing God's word (Sura 2:39,72; 3:72), verbally distorting their Scriptures (3:72; 9:30), and not understanding their own Scriptures (2:83-85). A Muslim insists the Koran alone preserves the knowledge and spirit of the originals, and that only Muslims know what they "really said." There are two points to address here 1) the "bible" which the Muslims possess, and 2) the position of that "bible's" author.
Consider that the Muslims themselves have no "original copy" of the Scriptures. The Koran does contain some parts of the Bible which can be easily discerned when the texts are compared. An analysis will discover, however, that the similarity results from someone copying the Bible and not from someone copying the Koran. Thus, the truth of anything contained in the Koran that is not contained in the Bible rests solely on the authority of a camel driver from the Arabian desert: Muhammed.
Muslim belief in the Scriptures and its corruption by non-Muslims is based only on Muhammed's word. Why should any belief in the Bible be based on the authority of Muhammed? He doesn't come along until 600 years after Christ. In spite of this, a Muslim will maintain:
"The Jews and Christians have corrupted their books."
It is not realistic to believe that Jews and Christians conspired together to corrupt the Old Testament. They are both quite intent on preserving the integrity of their Scriptures. In addition, both the Jews and Christians have the same Old Testament, quite independently of each other. Moreover, when could the Scriptures have been collectively altered while both groups were spread all over the world and before the advent of the printing press? They would have had to locate and change every copy in existence. There is absolutely no historical record (not even a false one) where any Jew or Christian mentions that any changes were made at all.
FACT: On the contrary, the Scripture manuscripts give evidence of authenticity.
To prove how our Sacred Scriptures are authentic and have persisted through time free from error, it suffices to say a few words about the manuscripts. Here we refer to originals or the earliest known copies of those originals. It is a fact that all the Gospels are preserved in the text called the Chester Beatty Papyri, dated c. 250. The New Testament as a whole is contained in the Vaticanus MS (B) that dates c. 325-350. There are over 53,000 other manuscripts of the New Testament dating from the 2nd to the 15th centuries, many of them antedating Muhammed, and all containing the same substantial text. In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, those 2,000-year-old copies of parts of the Old Testament and the same substantial text which we have today in our Holy Bible. When we consider the Bible as we have it today we see that it is none other than the original. There are no grounds for the Muslim claim that the Bible has been corrupted.
"Well, then," says the Muslim:
"Christians misunderstand the Scriptures."
This is a claim a Muslim makes so he can dismantle our theology. Since he believes our Scriptures are lacking, it is easy for him to think that we don't understand the real Gospel. He will argue one thesis after another on individual points of doctrine without at the same time considering it all as a unified whole: in effect, using our own Bible against us. In order to overcome his barrage (especially against the divinity of Christ), he must be made to understand that the Scriptures are not corrupted. Once he accepts our Bible as authentic, you then have a basis on which to build up Catholic truth. But beware the greatest stumbling block for a Muslim, that is,...
"Jesus Christ is not God."
A Muslim believes Catholic dogmas over-exalt Christ and make of Him a mythical figure. There are only about 90 verses in all 114 chapters of the Koran pertaining to Jesus Christ. Of these, 64 verses repetitiously pertain to His Nativity. This leaves only 26 verses from which to draw belief of Jesus Christ as God, so it is quite easy for any Muslim to have a poor notion of Jesus as He is. The Muslim will claim to revere Him, and whenever they mention His name, (if they are pious) they attach to His name in oriental fashion, "upon him be peace." He regards Jesus as the greatest prophet short of Muhammed, but vehemently maintains that He is no God whatsoever (Sura 4:169; 5:76-77). This is rooted partially in their rejection of the Scriptures, and partly in the Islamic theology of the nature of man. To remedy this problem, it is necessary to prove the three following points: 1) Jesus died, was crucified, and was buried; 2) man is depraved (i.e., suffers from the effects of Original Sin), needs redeeming, and Jesus is that Redeemer; and 3) the Holy Trinity means unity and not diversity.
There are many proofs for the Divinity of Christ. Let us provide you with a few here: 1) Jesus Himself claimed to be God and the Son of God with all God's powers and prerogatives (Jn. 5:18,23; 17:1-5; Mt. 25:31-33, 25:31-33; Apoc. 1:17,18). This was so clear that even the Jews were going to kill Him for saying so (Jn. 10:31-33; Mk. 14:62; Jn. 18:5-6). He spoke with the Person of God (Mt. 5;21-22, 28:18-19; Jn. 13:34; Mt. 5:18, 24:35; Jn. 12:48) and He asked men to pray in His own Name (Jn. 14:13-14, 15:7, 14:6; I Cor. 5:4; Acts 7:58). 2) Jesus proved His claim by miracles, and 3) He was recognized by others as God and adored (Jn. 1:1; 20:20, 28; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; Phil. 2:5-7; Mt. 14:33; 15:25; Mk. 5:6). Mind you, there are other difficulties still to be surmounted; most Muslims believe that...
"Jesus was never crucified."
Although it is not strictly of doctrine for all Muslims to accept, it is prevalent and is the basis of his misunderstanding about Jesus Christ. The Koran admits that Jesus was to die (Sura 3:48; 19:34), but a Muslim will say Jesus has been assumed into heaven without undergoing death; His death will occur when He returns at the end of the world. He says that when the resurrection of Jesus Christ is referred to in the Bible it means the general resurrection at the end of the world. Sura 4:156 sums it up:
...Verily we have slain Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of GOD; yet they slew him not, neither crucified him, but he was represented by one in his likeness; and verily they who disagreed concerning him were in a doubt as to this matter, and had no sure knowledge thereof, but followed only an uncertain opinion. They did not really kill him; but GOD took him up unto himself: and GOD is mighty and wise. And there shall not be one of those who have received the Scriptures, who shall not believe in him, before his death; and on the day of resurrection he shall be a witness against them.
On the contrary, a Catholic may debate from the Scriptures the following facts: 1) The Old Testament predicted His death on the Cross (Is. 53:5-10; Ps. 21:16; Dan. 9:26; Zach. 12:10); 2) Jesus fulfilled the prophecies in the Old Testament concerning His death (Mt. 4:14, 5:17-18, 8:17; Jn. 4:25-26, 5:39); and 3) the Evangelists witnessed His crucifixion (Mt. 28:31-38; Mk. 15:12-30; Lk. 23:20-46; Jn. 19:16-32) and the early Christian Fathers recorded it: Polycarp (Epistle to the Philippians), Ignatius of Antioch (d.107; Epistle to the Tarsians), Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho). Most Muslims will insist that...
"Jesus did not die."
Not only was Jesus not crucified, says a Muslim, but even if He was, it wasn't on the cross that He died. Some say He never died at all, but was assumed body and soul into heaven until the end of the world. Some say someone else died in His place. You counter this by additional proofs: 1) The prophecies came true concerning His resurrection and death. Jesus Himself prophesied that He was going to die (Jn. 2:19-21; Jn. 10:10-11,15; Mt. 12:40; Mk. 8:31), most clearly in the Gospel of Matthew: "And when they abode together in Galilee, Jesus said to them: The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall rise again" (Mt. 17:21,22). 2) Crucifixion was designed to induce death, and the Romans were experts at crucifixion. 3) Non-Christian historians record Jesus' death and even crucifixion: Josephus (Antiquities 18:3), Cornelius Tacitus (c.55-117; Annals 15.44), Julius Africanus (c.221), Lucian (2nd century, On the Death of Peregrine). What do you reply when a Moslem tells you:
"Someone else was crucified in His place."
A Muslim will have a slew of "theories" claiming that Jesus was actually replaced by someone else on the Cross. Here is the debunking: 1) These theories are not historical facts. There is no historical proof in any extant writings. They are contrary to the Gospel eyewitness accounts. Sometimes they quote the apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas, which is unreliable. 2) The theories are contrary to the ancient contemporary writings of the Fathers such as Tacitus, Josephus, Justin Martyr, and others. 3) There is no first-century testimony against the event at all; the Gnostic myths were not developed until the second century.
Concerning the Resurrection and Ascension:
Since a Muslim believes Christ was never crucified nor ever died, and since He was such a great prophet, he believes that Allah took Him body and soul into heaven without His dying. At the Second Coming, however, He is supposed to return to earth, and it is then that He will die. Then He will resurrect to life with everybody else in the General Resurrection at the end of time.
Simply explain that as Jesus really died on the Cross and was buried, He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, according to the Scriptures. If you have proved the validity of our Bible, you can use it to show Jesus' Ascension (Jn. 20:17; Acts 1:3-11, 7:55; Mk. 16:19) and Resurrection (Acts 1:22, 4:33; Mt. 27:53, 28:6; Mk. 16:6; Lk. 24:6-7; I Cor. 15:12-14). Generally, a Muslim will have great reverence and honor for God, so he holds that:
"God would not allow Jesus' ignominious death."
It is inconceivable to a Muslim that God in His royal omnipotence would allow one of His prophets to be so maligned. They think it an unthinkable injustice that God would not prevent His delegate from suffering abuse. To escape the Biblical account, Muhammed supplied the Koran with Sura 3:48, which reads, "When GOD said, O Jesus, verily I will cause thee to die, and I will take thee up unto me, and I will deliver thee from the unbelievers...." Thus it is Allah who will indeed receive Jesus in death, but take Him before He is assaulted by infidels. This is a very human way of judging God. But how can finite man fully comprehend the ways of the infinite God? How are we to know He wouldn't want His prophet to suffer? Look at Isaias 55:8: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord." Besides, Isaias himself preached and predicted that God did indeed wish Jesus' suffering (Is. 53:2-5; Zach. 12:10; Ps. 21:16). St. Paul said, "...the foolishness of God is wiser than men..." (I Cor. 1:25). At this point it is fitting to remind a Muslim of the humiliations suffered by Muhammed himself: how the Meccans scorned him and he had to run away like a criminal to Medina. And concerning Jesus, did not God often save Him from His enemies and, finally, rebuke death itself by the Resurrection (Acts 2:24,31; I Cor. 15:54,55)? Argue how it is most admirable for a person to give his life up in place of an innocent soul. So do soldiers die for their country and parents would die for their children: thus Jesus died for us (Rom. 5:7,8). A Muslim cherishes his conviction that warriors who die in battle receive heaven as reward (Suras 3:151-152; 9:112). Why could Allah call Muslims to die for him, but God cannot call Jesus to die for Him? The irony is very deep, for a Muslim is taught that...
"Man is not so depraved as to need redeeming."
This is a major issue. Islam rejects the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. A Muslim believes that man has no sins from which he must be saved. Although he is naturally inclined towards beauty, knowledge, and virtue, nevertheless, only through education in Islam teaches a man to choose the good. Since there is no Original Sin, then man has no need of Redemption; there is no need for Jesus Christ to be the Savior, so He is no Savior. A Muslim must be convinced that he is not sinless and, on the contrary, the sinfulness of man necessitates a Redeemer's Redemption. Here is what we can say: 1) How can a man be guilty of sin unless he knew it was wrong? Guilt necessitates the recognition of having committed an evil. But if it takes education for a man to recognize right from wrong, it follows that only an educated man can sin. It also follows that an uneducated man may do whatever he wants in good conscience. What sense is it that Allah would send prophets to admonish men who were not guilty? It makes little sense to counsel guiltless men on guiltlessness. 2) Why does Allah need to be merciful if man is not guilty? Mercy is a relaxation of punishment due to an offense. What is sin except an offense, and what is an offense except a debt that remains to be paid? How can Allah have the mercy to relax His punishments to men if they have no offenses for which to pay? Allah has no grounds to be merciful if men have no debt. 3) God cannot forgive someone without cause. A Muslim believes God can forgive sin without having to exact punishment. But the same Muslim believes God is all-just. Therefore, God cannot forgive sin without justly condemning it. Reparation must be made to appease God's justice, whether it be paid by ourselves (in hell) or by a Redeemer. Perhaps you have proven the need for Redeemer, but the Muslim will interrupt,
"Jesus Christ was not the Redeemer."
Prove to the Muslim that Jesus was the Redeemer: 1) Jesus was our substitute. In the case of Abraham ready to sacrifice Isaac, a substitute was provided; the ram was the price in place of Isaac–a ransom (Genesis ch. 22; Sura 37:101-107). Jesus Christ was a Victim in our place just as the ram was a victim in place of Isaac. "For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto: but to minister and to give his life a redemption for many" (Mt. 20:28). 2) Jesus is the willing Redeemer. A Muslim has great difficulty understanding how God could condemn an innocent and devoted man such as Jesus. This is because they don't understand that Jesus chose to pay the debt for us (Jn. 15:13; Mt. 20:28). He was a willing sacrifice. It can be proposed that God could have offered us Redemption in a way other than requiring Jesus Christ's death (though this is most fitting), but reparation for sin would still have to be made somehow; 3) His Death and Resurrection manifests God's mercy. It is by Christ's offering of Himself that He saved men (Rom. 5:10; Titus 3:5; Jn. 15:13). It is only through God's mercy that Jesus was sent to save us (Rom. 5:7,8). By the Resurrection Christ returns Life to us, commanding His Apostles to preach this Life and lead all souls to it. Had He left us to ourselves, we would have carried our sins with us into death and remained in death paying forever in hell. Through God's mercy Jesus Christ frees us of sins and leads us back to God. But of this Jesus, a Muslim has the curious belief that...
"Jesus was a prophet sent only to the Jews."
Islam teaches that Allah sent prophets to many peoples to lead them to the truth and to prepare them for Islam. Muhammed is the "Seal of the Prophets," that is, he is the last and greatest of the prophets whose teachings supersede and abrogate all those before him. Thus Jesus was a prophet only unto the Jews whereas Muhammed was a prophet to the whole of mankind. Here's your response: 1) There cannot be two truths: God is one, so His Truth is singular. Compare catechisms; Muhammed teaches something very different from what Jesus taught before him–even opposing teachings. It is not possible for Jesus to be the Son of God unto the Jews and cease to be so after the preaching of Muhammed. Clearly, no one has become a Muslim based on the teachings of Jesus. 2) A Muslim will admit Jesus was a great prophet, yet reject what He taught! Jesus plainly taught that He was the Son of God. He also taught the love of one's enemies for the love of God (Mt. 5:44). Jesus sent the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Mt. 28:18,19), yet a Muslim must deny the Trinity. 3) Jesus prophesied to all of mankind. He did, however, preach to the Jews first because they were chosen for this reception from the beginning. After all, didn't Jesus say, "I was not sent but to the sheep, that are lost of the house of Israel"? And to the poor Canaanite woman He said, "It is not good to take the bread of the children, and to cast it to the dogs." The mission of Jesus was firstly to the Jews for it was promised to them; but Jesus came for all men, for that same woman "came and adored him, saying: Lord, help me....Yea, Lord; for the whelps also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters. Then Jesus answering, said to her: O woman, great is thy faith: be it done to thee as thou wilt" (Mt. 15:24-28).
FACT: The Trinity is not many gods.
Muslim teaching holds vehemently that God is one. It abhors any similitude to idolatry to the point of despising any imagery or symbols depicting God. The most it utilizes is some extremely handsome calligraphy and geometric design. (The crescent, by the way, is not a symbol of Islam, but rather of the Ottoman Empire.) Islam says the Catholic dogma of the Trinity is idolatry because the Church has made the unique God into a group of gods. A Muslim doesn't understand that Catholics believe in three Persons in only one God (Deut. 6:4).
We have three questions to deal with here: 1) whether the Trinity is pluralism in God (Sura 30:32,34; 4:169; 5:76-77); 2) whether the Paraclete was Muhammed or the Holy Ghost; and 3) whether Christ is part of the Trinity. You may not lead the Muslim to believe in the Trinity, but at least you can help him to understand that Catholics believe in only one God, which is a step in the right direction. But don't allow yourself or the Muslim to forget that the Trinity is a Divine Mystery. We cannot fully understand it; we can only grasp it "by the tail." It may help to explain also that we only know it because God Himself told us; we could never have known it otherwise.
1) Explain how "Trinity" means "unity of nature and diversity of person." Explain how a "nature" is what something is, and a "person" is who someone is. Use the Triangle Illustration: consider a triangle and its three corners. The first corner is not the same as the second corner. The second corner is not the same as the third corner, and the third corner is not the same as the first corner. But all three corners are of the same triangle, each corner being just as much a part of the triangle as the other two corners. No corner is any less a part of the triangle than another. Illustrating the Trinity, each corner is like a person and the triangle itself is like the nature. God has one nature; there is one triangle. God has three persons; there are three corners. Each person in God is God–each corner in the triangle is triangle. Yet there is only one God and only one triangle. If you remove one of the corners, you no longer have a triangle. If you remove one of the persons from God, you no longer have God.
Next, consider a triangle which is colored red. "Red" is an attribute of the triangle. Now, each corner has the same attribute. Just as each corner of a red triangle is also red, so each Person of the Trinity has the same attributes as possessed by the nature of God. So we may understand that if God is eternal, all three Persons of the Trinity are eternal, and so on with His omnipotence, omniscience, justice, mercifulness, etc. Obviously, however, the illustration limps because the triangle is finite and God is infinite. 2) Genesis mentions God using the plural tense (Gen. 1:26). Once the illustration of the Trinity is explained, you can speak of the Holy Spirit being spoken of in Scripture as distinct from the other Persons of the Trinity (Mt. 17:5; Jn. 14:26; Jn. 16:13-15). 3) The Holy Ghost is indeed a Person (as opposed to a non-sentient force) who acts like a person (I Cor. 2:10,11; I Cor. 12:11; Eph. 4:30). He is called "God" (Jn. 14:26; Jn. 16:13; Acts 5:3-4), has a role in the Redemption (Jn. 3:5-8; Rom. 8:9,10; Titus 3:5-7), and has the attributes of God (I Cor. 2:10,11).
4) There are three separate titles for the Persons of the Trinity–"Father," "Son," and "Holy Ghost" (Mt. 28:18,19; II Cor. 13:13). 5) The three Persons are included under the single name of God (I Cor. 2:10-12); 6) Each of the three Persons is mentioned as having a different role to play in the Redemption, that is, the Father is attributed to have conceived Salvation (Jn. 3:16-17; Eph. 1:4), the Son to have accomplished Salvation (Jn. 17:4; Jn. 9:30; Heb. 1:1-3; Rom. 4:25; I Cor. 15:1-6), and the Holy Spirit to apply Salvation (Jn. 3:5; Titus 3:5-7).
FACT: The "Paraclete" is not Muhammed.
A Muslim will insist that the Holy Ghost (or Paraclete) is really Muhammed (Sura 61:6, which Muslims will connect to our Jn. 14:16,17). This erroneous premise is due to the Muslim rejection of the Triune Godhead. If you successfully illustrate the Trinity, you can prove nobody was talking about Muhammed: 1) Muhammed is not mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures. In fact, nobody ever heard of Muhammed until 600 years after Christ. For those 600 years, Christians always believed the Paraclete was the Holy Ghost. Up to this time, no one ever dreamed that Jesus was speaking of Muhammed. 2) Before the Ascension, Jesus told the Apostles to wait in Jerusalem until the Paraclete came (Acts 1:4-5). But Muhammed didn't come until six centuries later, long after the Apostles died, and he came to Mecca, not Jerusalem. 3) Considering chronology in a different way, the Scriptures say the Paraclete already came (Acts 2:1-4), so the Paraclete couldn't be Muhammed because he didn't arrive on the scene for another 600 years. 4) The Paraclete is supposed to abide with us forever (Jn. 14:26), but Muhammed died. The Holy Ghost the Paraclete presently resides with us in the Catholic Church (Jn. 14:16,17; Jn. 16:13) as the Spirit of Truth. 5) Jesus said the world could not see or know the Paraclete (Jn. 14:16,17), yet the world saw and knew Muhammed. (The Catholic Church knows God the Holy Ghost, but the "world," as spoken of here by Our Lord, does not know Him.)
OBJECTION: "The New Catechism says Muslims can be saved."
It does and it doesn’t. The new Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day (CCC 841).
To a Muslim who poses this objection, you can answer that there are certain things Islam has in common with Catholicism. Muslims certainly fall into the plan of salvation insofar as they are expected to conform themselves to the truth–which isn’t Islam–like all other men in the world. The new Catechism, however, is poor in its defense of the Catholic Faith as such, and if you are forced to defend your position from a post-Vatican II catechism, refer to Lumen Gentium (§§13-16) from where the context is drawn for the quotation above. This passage refers to the way different groups of people are "related" to the Catholic Church, and not how they have separate valid paths to heaven.6 (Vatican II has a vague position with regards to pagans and heretics.) If necessary, in order to avoid confusion, concede simply that a misguided ecumenism has infected the Catholic Church and that the traditional teaching of the Church regarding Islam is not found in the new Catechism.
OBJECTION: "But Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran."
A Muslim can be expected to say Islam must be good and right if the Pope kissed the Koran (which Pope John Paul II certainly did7). He will probably be aware that Pope Benedict XVI has prayed in a mosque. These imprudent actions may lead him to conclude that you have no grounds for addressing him with any misgivings about his eternal welfare. It is a problem for us to explain why our Holy Fathers have done such misleading things. They have pushed the limits of ecumenism, which is condemned by the Popes. Try to keep strictly to doctrine and deflect the issue of the problems in the conciliar Church.
OBJECTION: "Muslims are descendants of Abraham."
Technically speaking, it is Arabs, not Muslims, who are descended from Abraham. Not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs. A Muslim will try to convince you how much of Islam is inherited from their fathers, going all the way back to Abraham. This is their banner and their seeming justification, but their religion is a poor version of the religion of Abraham. It is true that Abraham's son Ishmael is the "father of Arabs," but the "promise" of a Redeemer was made to Abraham through his other son, Isaac (Rom. 9:7ff). Nevertheless, Abraham blessed Ishmael (Gen. 17:19-21; Gen. 21:13,18). There were Arabs long before there was Muhammed or were Muslims.
OBJECTION: "Islam is a religion of peace."
If some modernist Muslim tries to convince you that there are peaceful Muslims, tell him that those are poor excuses for Muslims. You would say this for the effect, because modernist Muslims tend to be compromisers. By doing this, you would force him to betray his compromise in one direction or the other, allowing you to talk doctrine with him. He will try to say that Islam has nothing to do with the actions of extremist Muslim groups and that those groups are fanatic exceptions. But the Muslim who says so has objectively abandoned the teachings of Muhammed for the conveniences of liberal and modernist society. Just because a Muslim tries to reconcile Islam with living peacefully in a non-Muslim society does not mean Islam itself is peaceful; it only means such a modernist Muslim has a fanciful and false idea of Islam.
A modernist Muslim will often pass off any extreme expression of faith as being only a custom in a certain region. He will attempt to "spiritualize" Islam, claiming that jihad means only the conquering of the passions. Muslims like this are usually pacifists and Muslims because it is popular–they are usually Americans. Most Muslims take the words of the Koran literally and seriously.8 To illustrate the violent nature of Islam, compare Muhammed, a warlord9 who conquered Arabia, and Jesus Christ, who never wielded a sword. Jesus was meek and humble of heart (Mt. 11:29), but Muhammed subverted people through violence.
OBJECTION: "But 'Islam' means 'peace.'"
A Muslim will tell you that "Islam" means "peace" (salaam). It is true that Islam is based on the Arabic root s-l-m, but its usual translation means "submission," referring to the submission of one party to another. He will maintain that peace is the submission of men to Allah via Islam, meaning all men must become Muslims for true peace to be established. Tell him Islam that cannot mean peace if God has use for the violent teachings of Muhammed. Quote some passages of the Koran to illustrate this point:
When ye encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them; and bind them in bonds; and either give them a free dismission afterwards, or exact a ransom; until the war shall have laid down its arms. This shall ye do. Verily if GOD pleased he could take vengeance on them, without your assistance; but he commandeth you to fight his battles, that he may prove the one of you by the other. (Sura 4:4-6)
O true believers, take not the Jews or Christians for your friends; they are friends the one to the other; but whoso among you taketh them for his friends, he is surely one of them: verily GOD directeth not unjust people. (Sura 5:56)
O true believers...[u]nless ye go forth when ye are summoned to war, God will punish you with a grievous punishment; and he will place another people in your stead, go and ye shall not hurt him at all; for GOD is almighty....Go forth to battle, both light and heavy, and employ your substance and your persons for the advancement of GOD's religion.... (Sura 9:39,41)
O true believers, wage war against such of the infidels as are near you; and let them find severity in you: and know that GOD is with those who fear him. (Sura 9:124)
When ye encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them; and bind them in bonds; and either give them a free dismission afterwards, or exact a ransom; until the war shall have laid down its arms. This shall ye do. Verily if GOD pleased he could take vengeance on them, without your assistance; but he commandeth you to fight his battles, that he may prove the one of you by the other. (Sura 47:2-8)
Brother Gabriel-Marie is a Brother of the Society of Saint Pius X and is stationed at the US District Office in Platte City, Missouri. Edited and abridged by Fr. Kenneth Novak.
1 The Koran used for this article was first translated by George Sale c. 1734 and printed as a Chandos Classics edition in England in 1877. A copy of this Koran is obtainable free from Project Gutenberg (free download at http://gutenberg.net). There is an invaluable commentary attached to this Koran, which, although written by an Anglican, is most informative as to the history of Arabs and Moslems. Note, however, that the verse numbering may vary slightly in different versions of the Koran. For a summary of what Muslims believe, see "A Quick Catechism on Islam" in The Angelus (Dec. 2006).
2 Hilaire Belloc, The Great Heresies, Chapter 4: "The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed," first published in 1938. Electronic version published by Trinity Communications (Manassas, VA, 1994).
3 Ibid. This is an excellent treatise on the reasons for the spread and acceptance of Islam, and how it is rooted in an over-simplification of Catholicism.
4 This has been challenged by some! See "Islam: Is It Genuine?" The Angelus, December 1998.
5 "The Catechism on Islam," This Rock (July-August 2002); "Brass Tacks: The Catechism on Islam" by Jimmy Akin, This Rock, Vol.13, No.6.
6 Dr. Heinz-Lothar Barth, "The Pope and Islam," The Angelus, (Oct. 2001). This article is about Pope John Paul II.
7 Endless Jihad–The Truth about Islam and Violence (Catholic Answers, 1979-2005), Special Report.
8 Jimmy Akin, "Islam, Peace, Violence," This Rock, Vol.13, No.8.
9 Endless Jihad–The Truth about Islam and Violence.
Bibliography
al-Sunnah.com (The Sunnah Islamic Page. P. O. Box 28774, Safat, State of Kuwait, 2002). This is a Muslim's apologetics page; one can look here to see some of the prevailing Islamic apologetical attacks.
Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Geisler, Norman L. and Abdul Saleeb. Answering Islam. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
Gilchrist, John. Origins and Sources of the Gospel of Barnabas.
Sale, George. "Preliminary Discourse," attached to the Koran, tr. by George Sale.
Current Issue
