Islam or christianity which is true and why do you believe it is


[quote=“TomMartin, post:52, topic:451994, full:true”]
Actually, there is little evidence that the original Qur’an was destroyed.[/quote]

I posted the evidence and it is well attested by historical Muslims.

Lol! That is the lie that Muhammad put forth. But, there is another historical witness who proves that was false. This is a verse from the Quran, where the purported angel is commanding Muhammad to read.

Read! (Iqra) In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists) … Read! (Iqra) And your Lord is the Most Generous, Who has taught (the writing) by the pen [the first person to write was Prophet Idrees (Enoch)], S. 96:1, 3-4 Hilali-Khan

So, you have a choice, you either believe that Muhammad was illiterate and contradict the Quran. Or you believe the Quran.

Here’s what Uthman wrote about that state of affairs.

Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to Uthman, O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before. So Uthman sent amessage to Hafsa, saying, Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa’id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).

Uthman was Muhammad’s contemporary. He did what he thought was necessary. He destroyed all the conflicting versions of the Quran and replaced them with his own.



cont’d with TomMartin

The destruction was meant to hide the fact that there was no agreement in any of the versions of the Quran.

All versions of the New Testament call Jesus Christ the Son of God.

[quote]Not that I am calling the whole Qur’an inspired, I feel that if God exists and inspired some books, then he or she could not have inspired the whole Qur’an or the whole Bible, but maybe parts of both.

I am calling the whole Quran a fabrication by Muhammad and Uthman’s version an attempt to salvage the mess that Muhammad left behind. And I am saying that neither of them were inspired by God.

I am saying that the entire Bible, 73 books, are the inspired Word of God.


What is Islam’s answer to the question of suffering? In other words, what does Islam say about the question, “Why do good people suffer?”

The answer to this question is the one that made me a Catholic.


Hey De_Maria , can you please share with us this awesome answer about suffering among good people that made you a Catholic?


[quote=“TomMartin, post:54, topic:451994, full:true”]

Hi. Thanks for your reply.

I don’t see how Jibreel could mean God’s wind. My Arabic-English dictionary has just one word for ‘wind’, which is rih, which looks cognate to Hebrew ruah. The Concise Encyclopedia or Islam introduces the article about him this way: Gabriel (Ar. Jabra’eel or Jibreel, “God’s Mighty One”).

Good point. But, the Quran says this:

“And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples.”

— Qur’an, sura 21 (Al-Anbiya), ayat 91 [7]

Now, when I was studying Islam, Al Ruah or Our Spirit, was identified as Jibril. It was explained to me that Allah is one and indivisible. Therefore it is a sin to believe that He could send His Spirit into Mary. Thus, Jibril means “God’s breath” or “God’s wind”.

As proof that this is so, here’s a wiki for you:

As interpreted to refer to the Archangel Gabriel[edit]
In the view of Muslims the term Ruh al-Qudus refers to the Archangel Gabriel (referred to as Jibral, Jibrīl, Jibrael, 'Džibril, Jabrilæ, Cebrail[15] or Jibrail (جبريل, جبرائيل, [dʒibræːʔiːl], [dʒibrɛ̈ʔiːl], or [dʒibriːl]) in Islam),[16][17] the archangel who, according to the Qur’an, was assigned by God to reveal the Qur’an to the prophet Muhammad. He is also the angel who delivered the Annunciation to Mary.[16]

So clearly that encyclopedia believes that it is Gabriel…

True. But they also claim to worship the same God.

Is that in the Quran? The reason I ask, is because the Muslims are people of the Book. The Quran is the Book. If that isn’t in the Quran, then no one needs to believe it.

  1. Mary made no claims for herself.
  2. Yet, Jesus Christ is the proof that her gifts from God were all true.

But it didn’t lead him to the conclusion that it should have. Therefore, he is accursed:

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

[quote]Personally I think that if God sent Jesus to do signs and miracles,…

Now you’re just changing the topic. Anytime you want to discuss those anti-Chrisitan ideas, start a thread. If I see it, I’ll provide my explanation.


I asked you first. Or will you admit that Islam has no answer?


So why were the other two Gospels attributed to Mark and Luke, two relatively unknown individuals? Why not James or Andrew or Thomas or some other actual apostle (or Jesus’ mother Mary) if attribution and respect were the reasons for naming Apostles as Gospel writers? Also, why not attribute a Gospel directly to Jesus: the Gospel of Jesus in his own words, so to speak?

And why choose Matthew as an author, then? Matthew was a tax collector, one of the least respected professions (down there with prostitutes and Samaritans.) Not likely to engender much respect.

Sorry, the legs on your thesis seem very wobbly.

Furthermore, some key claims about Jesus in the Gospels come from the mouths of women, whose testimonies were not highly regarded in the first century. That, in itself, undermines your “respect” thesis.


This is not the issue being discussed. Jesus died then was buried and is resurrected or our faith means nothing.


Here are a few more doubts to dispel.

It isn’t very clear that Islam does “fend for itself.”

Please do provide source materials which demonstrate that all of the specific claims in the material presented are incorrect, or my doubts and questions will still remain.


So, Muhammed taught that the promise of God given to Abraham descends to us from Sarah? Not Hagar? That’s the difference I mean. Muhammed is the first in the line to teach that. Isn’t that true?


That’s because you don’t understand the concept of ‘chosen people’ - it’s chosen for a particular task rather than chosen for particular benefits.

Judaism doesn’t regard non-Jews as in some way disadvantaged by being so. There’s no equivalent of ‘believe like us or you’re doomed’. We don’t think we’re ‘saved’ and others aren’t because well, in that sense, nobody needs ‘saving’.


The founder of Christianity of course was Christ who taught love and forgiveness.
The founder of Islam was a terrorist, killer and paedophile.


[quote=“TomMartin, post:65, topic:451994, full:true”]

It can depend on the Catholic. My father considered himself Catholic, but he disagreed with many official Catholic teachings…

Unfortunately, that is true.

So here you can see the answer of the translators of the NAB, a Catholic Bible. Those translators are all Catholic.

[That, however, is not. The NAB is an ecumenical.

. Some fifty scholars collaborated on this project; these were mainly Catholics, but, in accord with the suggestion of Vatican II that “with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers”


Must it be one or the other? Could Shakti not be the one True Goddess who nurtures the world and all life in it?

Why not Ma’at, the Egyptian Goddess of order who allowed life to thrive by keeping the forces of chaos at bay?

Indeed, perhaps Judaism is the one true faith and both Christianity and Islam are heretical offshoots.

It need not be one or the other, it could well be neither.


Islam followed Christianity like Christianity followed Judaism. The reason why Cathlicism is the single truth to me is just that. It’s the entire Truth in its fullness. Perfected and proclaimed in the flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit in our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

Even if we look at it from a rational perspective. Islam and Judaism reject Jesus is Lord, we Christians do not. If there is only one truth, someone is correct, the other has to be in error. I just personally believe it’s Christianity because I believe Jesus is that truth, and that truth is unique only to Christianity.


Islam began in the mid 15th Century; Catholicism began in year #1

So logically & historically which is GOD’s One True Faith? … Catholicism!

God Bless you,



While this might trump Islam, be very wary of repeating this argument.

If age is the sign of authentic truth, then this chart would suggest the India holds the claim to absolute truth.


Mary was a Virgin who became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. I’d say that was a miracle… Even Mohammad believed in the Virgin birth!


The Jews were chosen to bring forth the Messiah. They brought the Law and the prophets and the Messiah. That’s what God chose them for. And he’s not finished yet… with the Jews or the rest of us. But those who believe in Jesus, the son of the Living God (and one with the living God) will be saved.
Many of the Jews of Jesus’ day refused to believe so Jesus opened up salvation to ALL who would listen and believe. God Bless!


[quote=“TomMartin, post:76, topic:451994, full:true”]
I know all versions of the New Testament the Son of God. But according to Islam, that is due to some bad copyists who changed it. So who knows.

Islam’s sole purpose was to reveal the Quran to the world. And it couldn’t even do that right.

Anyway, ancient versions of the New Testament do not always agree on the wording of individual verses. Just like ancient versions of the Qur’an did not. So then Uthman produced one version, just like Jews produced one version of the Jewish Bible, the Masoretic version. But Christians did not produce one version of the New Testament, they left the ancient Greek copies with their differences in some verses, so we can’t know what the originals contained. Not that we can know what the originals of the Old Testament or the Qur’an contained either. Still, some parts could be inspired.

You’re confused. I understand the confusion. Its a natural tendency to compare books to books.

But Catholicism is not a religion of the book. Catholicism is a religion of the Word of God in Sacred Tradition which is also taught in the Bible and both of which are explained by the Magisterium.

So, we can compare Jesus to the purported and unwitnessed angel.

Jesus was witnessed by thousands and in their midst, produced many miracles.
No one saw Jibril. He appears to have been fabricated by Mohammed.

And we can compare Mohammed to the Church.

The foundation of the Church were the Apostles. Jesus led and guided and taught them all which He wanted taught. Then He commissioned them to Teach all that He commanded. As a result, the Catholic Church has continued to Evangelize the world for the past 2000 years.

Mohammed is the foundation of Islam. He claimed he was taught by Jibril. He claimed that Jibril commissioned him to write the Quran. Yet, he neither wrote it nor assembled the pages that others wrote. He lied and claimed that he was illiterate. Later he had a saying, “the one who writes things down, is the one to blame.” When he died, he left the Quran in shambles.

[quote=“TomMartin, post:76, topic:451994”]
But Christians did not produce one version of the New Testament, they left the ancient Greek copies with their differences in some verses, so we can’t know what the originals contained. Not that we can know what the originals of the Old Testament or the Qur’an contained either.

That’s a strength. Not a weakness. Christians can compare from one version to the other to determine what meaning was originally intended.

Unlike the versions of the Quran, where the versions were so disparate in wording that no one could make heads or tails of them and they had to be burned.

Still, some parts could be inspired.

Only an organization led by God can determine the inspiration of any object. It is God who leads the Catholic Church. That is why the Catholic Church gathered the thousands of books of the OT and a similar number from the NT and from those selected the 73 books which you find in the Bible today.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit