Why shouldn't i be a muslim?

Why shouldn’t I be a Muslim?

Interesting thread concept, unfortunetly given the amount of information you’ve provided the quick easy response simply is

Why should you be muslim? What’s the attraction? Please don’t give me some political idiology.

Here’s another question, why should you be Christian. Answer:

Because Christ is Risen. We have the testamony of a harden Pharasy at the time of Christ to prove that indeed Christ is Risen (St. Paul). Christ being Risen is all I need to know that he is the real deal, a fundamental and earth shattering reality that demands he be placed at the center of your life.

Testimony seems to be the core of your argument. But this requires trust on my part; and if that is the case then why shouldn’t I trust in the testimonies of Mohammed? Mohammed is also said to have a supernatural vision. You have given me nothing in the way of reason to tilt the scales in Jesus’ favour. Without some well defined reason, it would seem that desire mixed with blind faith is the only driving force behind anyone’s choice of religion.

Is this the sum of your apologetic skill? You might have just lost a follower.

On what basis do you doubt the hardened enemy of Christ? What’s the gain for St. Paul? He had everything, power, position, prominance, money. Do you know what he got in return for his coversion and preaching? Poverty, destitution, desolation, torture and execution in Rome by beheading.

Does that sound at all rational to you? Why trade one for the other. So what about Mohammad makes him so convincing?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. People don’t deliver themselves up to death because of some reasonable argument.

The real question is where does one find Divine Revelation.

I am already assuming you believe in God, and that God has somehow tried to communicate with man.

Next you have to sort through all of the World religions that claim to have Divine Revelation (which is nearly all of them.) You have to judge, based on your own inner conscience, as to what has the ring of truth of a Divine Revelation and what doesn’t.

That decision will be largely influenced by your conception of God. What religion offers the most sublime description of God that can be believed in conscience. Does that religion’s Divine Revelation bear out the truth of that description.

Because it’s incorrect. Even the internal testimony of Islam points to the Church. The Quran teaches that the Bible was originally God’s word, but that it was corrupted. We now have the archaeological evidence to show that extremely early codices are in substantial agreement with the modern Bible. Bibles in the modern age are based upon old codices than any in centuries.

In other words, the Quran’s one falsifiable claim (that the Bible had been corrupted, and that it didn’t teach Christ as Son of God in the original) turns out to be false. Now, think about it. Mohammed says that the initial Scriptures were true, and from God. We now know that the Scriptures we have are almost identical to those initial Scriptures. So if the Quran is correct on this point, Christianity is true, so Islam is false. If the Quran is wrong on this point, it’s not trustworthy, so Islam is false.

For support of this, you can see the Quran praising the Bible in 3:84, while Muslims usually cite to 2:79 for “proof” that the Scriptures were later corrupted

Why the general question with no info?
Why are you posting this on a Catholic site when you could do the same on a Islamic site?
Why pick a religion at all?
Why not compare the Koran, Tora and Bible?
Why not talk to a religious expert such as a Imam or a Priest?
Why not tell us a little about where you are spiritually first so we know how “mature” you are spiritually?

So many questions to make you think for yourself. See based on your first post and first response I believe you are like so many people who post online now a days. You make a board statement or question, people help you and then you attack their beliefs like they should change your mind with logic, emotion or spirituallity on a computer.

Maybe you should look at religion, in general, in a very broad view and slowly work your way into a narrower and narrower view until you find whats right for you. Even if it is atheitism. Be honest and open. I have no problem with Musilms (or anyone else for that matter) so stay with it, if that is your honest conviction.

FF

This is more the kind of response I was looking for. But you say “almost”. What do you mean? Are you saying that there is a difference between the scriptures of today and the original? If so, how does that effect the authenticity of today’s bible?

Great argument! If I were really searching for assurance of St. Paul’s sincerity, this would convince me. God bless.

I didn’t think the question required more info.

This is a catholic apologetic site, and I don’t see my question as being out of bounds in that respect. How do you know I haven’t gone to an Islamic site?

Without religion I have no defined meaning to my existence, and that is for me unacceptable. I must either seek out the true religion or commit suicide.

Good idea. Do you know the main differences?

I could do, but then why should that stop me from also debating the question on Catholic answers?

What does that mean?

I can do that. But I want to debate it on Catholic Answers. If you don’t like it, switch of the computer and read a book.

If we have no rational reason to believe one religion over another, then all we have is a wish; our hopes and dreams.

I never attacked anybody. I simply pointed out what I believe to be a flaw in somebodies argument.

So basically, you are saying choose what’s right for me, be honest. This seems to imply that we can never really know that we are in the right religion, and that its just about feelings or desire. Is that the epistemological state that God has left us in? If so, then why?

Amen! :thumbsup:

Knowing God exists is like knowing my wife exists. It’s a good start. However, it was only after I got to know my wife that I began to fall more and more in love with her. Its the same with God. You need to get to know Him.

I studied Islam and found that it didn’t bring me closer to God than either Judaism or Christianity. In fact, I didn’t find the life of Mohammed to inspire me to live a life of virtue. I wasn’t moved to be more like Mohammed. This was not true about Jesus Christ.

By all means study Islam for yourself, but more importantaly, get to know God. We do this through prayer. God will speak to you in your conscience. Listen to Him. As you fall more and more in love with Him, you’ll know you are on the right path.

Jeremiah 6:16 - “This is what the LORD says: "Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.”

Because it has many rules which don’t bring you to salvation- such as washing before praying and only eating meat which has been killed in a certain way.

God’s laws only concern His love for us and our love for each other. We are to “pray without ceasing”- not pray at designated times. (If my Muslim friend misses a prayer, he has to wait for the next slot). Religion should lead to salvation and should not limit our relationship with God.

I don’t like writing like this. It makes me sound like I’m against Muslims.

Many people have had what they believe to be supernatural visions that has in some cases inspired them to take on what could be considered dangerous tasks. You assume that St.Paul could not have been deceived.

It’s far more likely that he was not than he was. I would first beleive this testamony, than even the testamony of the Quoran, which as has been noted upholds the testamony of the Gospel.

St. Paul and all the fathers were in agreement, St. Paul in particular was the enemy of Christ until Christ came to him. I can not refute St. Paul, I can not refute the fathers. Christ is risen. There for…

Edit
Incidently, yet another argument against Islam. The “fathers” of Islam were not quite so united from the get go. In fact upon the death of mohammad the very first thing that happened was, civil war.

I believe Muhammed’s behavior detracts from Islam as a religion. For instance, according to even Muslim scholars, he had a 120-yr old Jewish poet assassinated just because wrote satirical things of him. Really? Rather odd thing for a man of God to do.

Just because some rather unholy person from Arabia says he got this revelation from God does not mean that I should consider his testimony as trustworthy. I have to prayerfully consider his claims in the light of many other contrary claims, and discern for myself whose claim to be the holy one of God is most compelling. I have to test it by comparing the proposed teachings and actions of Mohammed to what I believe is true based upon my experience, my reason, and the most trustworthy testimony of those I know have only my best interests at heart. I have to consider the fruit which has come forth from each of those proposed teachings. Given this more comprehensive test, Islam fails to be convincing.

Muslim apologists, when faced with the immoral behavior of Mohammed, are quick to point out the immoral behavior of many other men in our Bible. They fail to realize, I think, that I’m a disciple of Jesus Christ, not a disciple of the other men in the Bible. When I compare and contrast the teachings and actions of Christ to the teachings and actions of Mohammed, it becomes crystal clear who really is the Holy One of God.

Who you believe to be deceived depends on who you believe God is.

Bible: “Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.”

Qu 'ran: “You shall** fight them until they surrender and submit. If you obey, Allah will grant you a reward**, but if you turn back, as you did before, He will punish you with a grievous torture.”

I mean that there may be slight textual errors in the English translations we have. To wit:
[LIST]
*]There are a handful of “disputed verses,” as well as disputed words. For example, Matthew 18:11 is omitted from the NIV, but included in the KJV. The reason is that there’s some question whether Matthew 18:11 are Matthew’s own words, or just Luke 19:10 in the wrong place.
*]There’s debate on the authenticity of the end of Mark’s Gospel, since some of the earliest versions we have of the Gospel don’t include Mark 16:9-20. Some have suggested that this was an epilogue included by another writer, as was done with Deuteronomy 34.
*]Some words in Greek/Hebrew are hard to translate into English. For example, Christ is called the *Logos *of God, which means both the Word of God, and the Logic of God. Other times, a word has a much broader meaning than it does in English. English has many more words, so our words are much more precise, and prone to fewer meanings (a mixed blessing). A single word in Hebrew or Greek might mean numerous things (and might even, by the Will of God, be intended to mean more than one thing).
*]Finally, remember that there was no punctuation at the time. That makes determining whether sentences begin and end tricky. (Try reading this bullet point without punctuation, and you’ll see what I mean).
[/LIST]
These problems are well established. There is a reason that there are multiple Bible translations. None of these have a substantial impact on any issues of faith and morals. You can use the NIV, KJV, or NAB versions of the New Testament, and the same facts are conveyed, just in slightly different language.

haha thanks for proving my point, bud. Hope you find what you are looking for. :thumbsup:

The Muslim faith is based on the testimony of their prophet Mohammad. On who’s authority did Mohammad make his claims? Muslim would say God’s authority. But how do we really know it was God?

No disrespect intended, but if a self proclaimed prophet says they have a message from God, why should anyone believe them without external verifiable evidence?

To borrow an argument from Archbishop Sheen, Jesus is the ONLY founder of any religion that was pre-announced. Prophets are recorded in the Old Testament that foretold of a coming savior. These prophets did NOT proclaim a new faith tradition, present their own writings, list their own doctrines, etc.

Jesus is the only founder of any religion who claimed to be God. With anyone who makes that claim, there are two possible responses. They are correct or they are wrong.

If Jesus was wrong, then He would be called crazy in today’s societies. He was claiming to be God and performing some of the best magic the world had known.

If Jesus was right, then He was and is God. As such, He is entitled and worthy of our worship, praise, and discipleship.

Those closest to Jesus - those who walked with Him, listened to Him, witnessed His works - they are the ones who’s faith we should study. If Jesus was not God, then all of his works, teachings, even His resurrection was a ruse. To be a ruse would necessarily require cooperation from His followers, especially to remove His tortured and crucified body from the tomb.

Yet almost all of these same followers DIED for their beliefs. The gave up their lives for Jesus. They willingly held fast to their belief that Jesus was God at the point of the sword, the claw of the beast, the torture of the flames. The important part of this is that they WILLINGLY gave up their lives. They did not do so in an attempt to kill unbelievers. They did so in order to make more believers!

Furthermore, if Jesus was and is indeed God, with what authority was He here on earth? With all authority in heaven and earth. How did Jesus send His apostles? With the same authority (Jn 20:12). What did those apostles do? They founded His church. That same church exists today in the Catholic church. Just to follow this to it’s logical conclusion, the Catholic church received it’s authority from the apostles who received their authority from Jesus who received His authority from the Father.

Based on this, to follow God one would necessarily have to follow Jesus, who was and is God.

MindOverMatter2,

Everything you are writing regarding the holes in other people’s apologetics can and should be applied to the uncritical treatment of Muhammad that facilitates any non-Muslim’s conversion to Islam. Every single criticism you brought up should first applied to your own reasoning. That’s how you build a coherent and strong argument.

“Why shouldn’t I trust in the testimonies of Muhammad?”

Indeed, why not those then those of Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, Timothy, etc.? Muhammad’s testimony is LONE testimony, in so far as no one else ever saw the visions that he claimed to see in the cave. His wife is the one who convinced him that they were visions in the first place, but she did so without ever seeing them. His other wife, the child bride Aisha, also very honestly said “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311) That’s another type of “testimony” to be kept in mind – the testimony of his own wife who openly questioned the motivation of some of his “revelations” that allowed him things that were just downright suspicious.

You assume that St.Paul could not have been deceived.

As do Islamic apologetics regarding Muhammad. Sure, they’ll testify that he was just a man, but also to his inherent trustworthiness (the high opinion others apparently had of him in his pre-prophetic career), to the supposed incorruptibility of the message he received (which, thanks to Muslim sophistry which is blindly accepted by the inclusophiles who have shaped the scholarly research on Islam for the past century or so, is not falsifiable, so as an article of faith should not be taken as any more “proof” of the Qur’ans miraculous nature than a Christian’s belief in the Bible should make it incorruptible), the revolutionary nature of his social dealings vis-a-vis the structure of his immediate surroundings (as though moral teachings should be thought of as relative, again ONLY with regard to Muhammad; if Christians try to argue the same, it is suddenly evidence of “corruption” of God’s original message), etc. etc. Islamic apologetics are an absolute disgrace.

I can recommend two books to you, if you are truly interested in learning about Islam from all sides and not just those predisposed to present it as the greatest thing since sliced khubz:

“Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam” – Robert G. Hoyland

and

“Islamic Imperialism: A History” – Ephraim Karsh

The first is a very scholarly collection and analysis of primary texts from non-Muslim sources in the early days of Islam. The second is more polemical but raises some interesting and necessary questions regarding the handling of pivotal points in early Islamic history which are not usually dealt with properly when compared with the volumes of scientific or historical literature written on (supposedly) comparable events in Christian or otherwise non-Islamic history.

God be with you.

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