logo.gif (6340 bytes)

To Attacks Against Islam:



Page last updated:



Bismillaah al Rahmaan Al Raheem

When "attacks" against Islam are examined rationally,
it comes out ON EACH ISSUE
that Islam should be the accusing party indeed,
not the other way around.

"Of all the world's great men, none has been so much maligned* as Muhammad."
W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina,  Oxford University Press, 1956.
* ma-lign: v.t. to speak harmful untruths about... (R. H. Webster's).

Introduction | The Answers (Summary)


Please also visit the following sites for more Answers:

Islamic Awareness


For Comments or questions, click here

False-Prophet?Atonement | Grammatical-Mistakes | Polygamy | Early Marriage | Inconsistency | Theological-Errors | Woman's-Status | Islam and "Terrorism" | Jesus-&-Muhammad-PBUT

God sacrificed his only begotten son to forgive our sins?!?!
This is the creed of "deformed Christianity".
The Muslim's position clearly states that such were not the teachings of Jesus, Peace be Upon Him, in fact they contradict them.
To those Christian readers who might feel uneasy about the following discussion, we state that the "claim" under discussion, is extremely irreverent of God in many respects and we are simply showing that irreverence.
Above all, we keep respect of Jesus, Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him, in all our actions. Such is a religious duty to all Muslims. We even maintain, as will be detailed within the rest of our answers, that our code and actual actions concerning most issues (morals, values, modesty, humility, rejection of materialism, women's modesty) are closer to the actual teachings of Jesus (PBUH) than those of most Christians.
What we are addressing are the lies and deformations that were introduced to Christianity after him.

  • Introduction:
    Foundations of the disagreement between Islam and Christianity
    Islam and Christianity have more points in common than they have differences. Yet the differences are basic, although they are mostly "theological".
    Most important is the "concept" of "trinity" refused by Islam and affirmed with different "nuances" by Christian theologians (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost). From this concept arises that of "atonement", whereby "God Sacrificed His Son in order to forgive the sins of mankind".
    These differences need to be discussed by examining the foundations of the beliefs of both parties: How do they get to such beliefs, and how do they defend them. 
    • The Muslim view on theological beliefs:
      For any Muslim, there are two types of theological beliefs:
      1. Deduced by reason (logical topics):
        Such as the necessary existence of a Creator, that He is Capable, Omniscient, the impossibility of "no-start" for the Universe, ...etc.
        These are concepts within the normal reach of human reason and logic, and many discussions have been presented by Muslim and Christian scholars, where both camps agree on almost every detail.
        No Muslim's creed on such matters is accepted if he is not logically convinced of them.
        Blind "following" is not acceptable: At worst, if a Muslim does not understand a logical argument, he may review different discussions of it. One is only responsible according to his own mental capabilities, thus no belief (in such matters) is required unless it is comprehensible by the person.   
      2. Conveyed from God (the unseen):
        Such as descriptions of the hereafter, the dimensions of our universe that are normally not reachable by the common senses (angels, revelation), or descriptions pertaining to the attributes of God such as His self-subsistence, Omni-science, etc.
        No belief on such matters is accepted (let alone "imposed") unless formulated by Allaah in the Quran, or explained unequivocally by his prophets.
        Thus no such theological belief is acceptable if it is "formulated" by a Muslim scholar, no matter what his rank may be. It must originate from the Quran or Hadeeth, and all that scholars may do, is to quote from such sources, or explain how some notion can be rationally deduced from them. All such "reasonings" must conform to the universal rules of logic, and "arbitrary" choices are not acceptable.
      3. God's "Essence":
        Based on several passages of the Quran and sayings of the Prophet, the "nature" or "identity" of God is beyond the capacity of Man to grasp. The same applies to the "nature" or "essence" of his attributes: Mercy, Power, etc.
        His blessings can be counted, the results of His Action and Capability can be observed, his attributes (Existence, Capability,  Mercy) can be rationally deduced and discussed by man, his "essence" can not: Man does not share any identical feature with his Creator (apart from "semantics" as will be explained below), and therefore he has absolutely no means to grasp the "nature" or "essence" of God, Exalted is He indeed.
        The "created" being is essentially different from his "Creator" in all respects; the only aspects they have in common is a concordance between words designated by man, not the essence of the attributes. Thus both God and man may be described as "merciful", but both "mercies" only share the nomenclature, not the actual meaning or "essence":
        • Support:
          Man's Mercy needs the support of God to exist and to exert itself.
          God's Mercy needs absolutely no outside support.
        • Humane v/s Divine:
          Man's Mercy is accompanied with a state of uneasiness, "weakening of the heart" with respect to the hardship of others.
          God is Exalted from "weakness". His Benevolence and Will to ease our suffering is not to be described with human features such as "weakness" or "uneasiness".
        • Purpose:
          Man's Mercy is self-gratifying: If I can help an innocent person under torture, I will feel pain and remorse if I do not help him, thus my Mercy always includes an element of self protection.
          Gods Mercy is purely altruistic.
      4. In conclusion:
        The same word "Mercy" is used for both as a metonymy:  Because of what results from it -benevolence and good deeds-, not because of any common feature between the essence of God's Mercy and that of Man.
        The same applies to other attributes of God: Man uses the identical words because of a concordance between what results from Mercy, Knowledge, Capability, not because such attributes have any similarities in their own essence (between God and Man). 

    • The Christian view on theological beliefs:
      Surprisingly, Christian theologians agree in principle, that God's nature is not comprehensible by man. Yet they formulate concepts and impose them as dogmas, and when challenged they respond that these pertain to the Nature of God, therefore man must accept them without analyzing them!
    • Islam's view of the Christian position:
      An impartial study, trying to examine the foundations of such "postulates" will accept either that they are formulated by Christian theologians, or claimed to originate from God, or from a bona-fide Prophet, speaking for God.
      1. If these concepts ("trinity", the "nature" of God) are formulated by Christian theologians, they are refuted because both religions agree that man is not capable of understanding such issues, so how can Christian theologians "formulate" them as dogmas?
      2. If Christian theologians claim their "dogmas" to originate from God, as relayed by Jesus, Islam's answer is that such "dogmas" are the least acceptable interpretations of the words of Jesus PBUH:
        Accepting such interpretations results in major clashes with other unequivocal words of Jesus.
        The rational procedure in analyzing any "text" (such as the Bible or the Quran) is first to maintain the unequivocal part of that text. After that, if other passages accept various interpretations, one must chose the interpretations that do not contradict the "unequivocal" portions of the text.
        As will be shown below, Muslims' understanding of the words of Jesus agrees with all his words: We maintain his unequivocal meanings as a priority, and we interpret his other (ambivalent) words in accordance with them.
      3. If Christian theologians claim their "dogmas" to originate from God, as relayed by other than Jesus, such as Paul, Islam's answer again is that such "dogmas" are in full opposition with the unequivocal words of Jesus PBUH. From this, Muslims deduce that such a source is a false Prophet, in fact, an enemy of Jesus.
    • Based on the above, Muslims strongly challenge that they are closer indeed to the teachings of Jesus, and that Christian theologians are more attached to their own interpretations than to the unequivocal words of Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.", which they try to avoid with an enormous web of illogical acrobatics refused even by the majority of Christians.
  • SON
    • Metaphoric Meaning:
      Muslim creed has no objection to the metaphoric interpretation of of the "sonship" of Jesus: Beloved by God, honored and supported by glaring Miracles and a Virgin holy birth, the Nearest to God in his age, and among the greatest men this universe has ever been honored with.
      But in par with that, the same metaphoric meaning applies, to different degrees, to other pious and obedient subjects of God: They too are the "sons" of God, although most of them not even nearing the special honorable rank of Jesus, Peace and Blessings be upon him.
    • Literal Meaning:
      The literal meaning of "son", is: Another of the same species, produced from the original parent, and who shares all the essential characteristics of that parent.
      If one maintains this literal meaning, then he means the literal meaning, and thus cannot maintain that a wall, for example, can actually have a son in the literal meaning: such a description or function simply does not apply to the wall. Similarly, the beauty of a scenery does not have a width or height: these attributes simply do not apply to it. Finally, the Creator is more elevated in His Sublime Attributes, to even be described by the function of having a son, in the literal meaning.
    • Who Maintained the Literal Meaning?
      1. Many Christian theologians endeavor to hunt for the words "son" and "Father" within the sayings of Jesus, and then labor to insist on their literal meaning with fallacy after fallacy. It is glaringly surprising how such interpretations are in direct contradiction to unequivocal statements of the contrary such as "The Father is Greater than I am". Such unequivocal meanings are "forgotten" or plainly omitted.
        This holy sentence of Jesus PBUH is unequivocal and the word "Father" can only be understood as a metaphor. Once the word "Father" is explained in its literal meaning, the sentence falls apart in an endless loop of fallacies. The opposite is true when we explain "son" and "Father" in their metaphoric meanings: This and all similar sentences containing them, make total and perfect sense all of a sudden, in one unique and perfect structure: Such is the great impact of truth in the universe, especially on the sane "heart".
      2. We may be told that a certain "Prophet" found it out directly from God, by revelation, inspiration, or vision.
        Islam's answer is: This would then be a false Prophet, because he is in major contradiction with the teachings of Jesus "Only the Father is Good", as already detailed above, to which we add:
        • Jesus PBUH said "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." How can a divine "son" not be good like the Divine Father? After all, aren't they taking it in the literal meaning of the word?
        • Jesus PBUH admitted he could not do miracles independently, but only by the Will and permission of God. See Matt. 12:28; Luke 11:20; John:3:2, 5:30; Acts 2:22.
        • Jesus PBUH clearly states that his teachings are not his own, but those of the One who sent him. See John 7:16,, 12:49, 14:24, 31.
        • Jesus PBUH admits that he does what he is taught by God. See John 8:28.
        • It says in the New Testament that Jesus prayed: How can he be God and pray to God at the same time? This is explained away with as a "mystery", and that we are not supposed to use our reason to discuss it! Fine, but why then, try to impose this whole concoction on that same intellect of ours?
        • Finally, Jesus called himself the son of man, not God, nor God's literal son. See Matt. 13:37; Luke 12:10; Tim 2:5.

        How many more self-contradictions are we supposed to be gullible to, such as in an infinite cycle?
        We send a call to every sincere Christian:
        Is it any respect to Jesus just to brush his explicit words away, the essence of his message, and replace them by their opposites, which amount to no more than twisted and untenable human fabrications!?
        Any one who truly loves Jesus knows the answer.
        Aren't we supposed to respect Jesus and accept that not only was he making sense, but he was also actually giving us a commandment worthy of our full attention:
        Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.

        To every honest Muslim, such a commandment is crisp-clear and should by no means be met with "ifs" and "buts" and "I thought" and "He meant not what he said".

        Finally, the Quran disproves the divinity of Jesus with an unparalleled subtlety yet with such irresistible power!
        The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger; messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him, his mother was a saintly woman, and they both used to eat food. See how we make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away! S5, A 75.}
        The Quran does not spell out the common knowledge of what bodily functions occur as a result of eating food, such as bowel movements and whatever happens when we "go to the toilet": It subtly alludes to it, leaving it for the reader to deduce the actual implications of the argument in question.
        Such is the forceful impact of truth: The more one attempts to fight it, the worse his position becomes. 
        It is indeed not an enviable position to defend any divinity (the utmost perfection), while the opponent has the power of raising questions about a God that goes to the toilet and makes "------".
        Again, we are not trying to be impolite toward our opponents: We simply are not giving up our right (in the discussion) to point out the opponent's fallacy, and his extreme irreverence to our common Creator. If one's position is that flimsy, then one must accept it and live with it, not blame others for mentioning its grave, untenable and irreverent defects.

  • Only begotten son: We are told this as a great favor: "Only"... So we challenge: Why "Only", and who said so?:
    • Why "Only"?
      Any human who can get one son can normally get another. Almost any living being can do that too.
      Man, the created being, with his limited knowledge, has succeeded in genetic cloning, and somebody wants to invite mankind to the notion that God has a son in the literal meaning, and that furthermore, he is an only son?!
      Such a premise is an insult to the Capability of God, besides the point that maintaining the literal meaning of "sonship" itself, is false and irreverent as discussed above.
    • Who said so?
      We need to point here that a very convenient "cheat" for the Christian clergy, is to falsely classify their theological fallacies under the topic: God's nature is not explicable to mankind, nor are the reasons of all His Actions.
      This is expected to dismiss this issue but it is an insult to human intelligence.
      1. This faulty "dismissal" accuses itself:
        Yes, the notion of "only son" precisely pertains to the Nature of God, yet it is not stated by the Creator nor by Jesus. Any man "formulating" it, is specifically "peeking" into the Nature of God, which is not possible according to both our creeds.
        How can any man state it from his own authority and then say: It pertains to the Nature of God, so don't think about it?
      2. We may be told again, that a certain "Prophet" found it out directly from God. Islam's answer was detailed above under SON: Who Maintained the Literal Meaning?
  • Begotten:  In the New Testament the verb "sire" is also used, i.e through intercourse. (Random House Webster's: To sire: To beget; procreate as the male parent)
    Such a premise is so irreverent of God, in addition to being totally untenable in many respects.
    Jesus is no more accepted as the "begotten" son of God (as it used to say in John 3:16), since that word has been cancelled from the Revised Standard Version (RSV), as well as from many other new versions of the Bible.
    We thank Allaah that not all Christians today maintain this outward meaning of "begotten", yet for the sake of comprehensiveness the reader can review the above discussions "SON" and "Only begotten son".
  • Sacrificed to forgive our sins:
    Based on that premise, that God Sacrificed in order to forgive, we add: Why not sacrifice other sons? that would give all of us a much greater lift?
    This may seem abrasive although such is not our intention. This question is a true challenge: God is All Powerful and Most Merciful. If they claim that He did such an act out of Mercy, aren't we allowed to ponder why He did not do another similar act?
    If the counter argument is mentioned "This pertains to the nature of God, and to God's purpose and Wisdom", we answer that such an argument is not true: You are again formulating human premises in meticulous details "For God so loved the World that He Sacrificed...", then you are claiming them to be God's Nature or Intentions, as discussed in detail
    in the above discussions "SON" and "Only begotten son". 
  • Sacrificed to forgive our sins:
    "To Forgive" is to cease to feel resentment against... (Webster's).
    If a human wants to forgive your sin against him, well he just forgives it: He just works on "ceasing to feel resentment" until he succeeds, which normally does not take long if you did not hurt him deeply.
    Jesus (PBUH) taught us all to: Turn the other cheek. Can't this invented God do the same?
    Shouldn't He do the same, if not much better?
    Can't He "cease to feel resentment" for something we did that cannot even hurt Him?!

    But we are told, instead, that this invented God has so much "Mercy" that He will kill His only begotten son to forgive us.
    Why? What's preventing Him from just forgiving? Is there another force that requires it? Are we dealing with multiple gods of some ancient pagan mythology?
    Or are we again going to be told that this pertains to the Nature of God, so we are not supposed to think about it, we must just accept what we are being told?
    We maintain that linking "sacrifice" with "forgiveness" is not part of Divine Nature nor Divine Purpose as explained in the above discussions. Such "linking" is an untenable and irreverent fabrication by man, and hundreds of millions of rational people challenge it by offering their total submission only to God and His Words, not to dogmas formulated by "mortals".
  • In addition to our "rebuttals" above, the truth still has to be said:
    What Christian Theologians are inventing fits the profile of a psychopathic killer, not that of The All-Merciful Omnipotent All-Powerful Creator of the Universe.
    As Ahmad Deedaat once said, it is as if a thief robbed your house, and you wanted to forgive him, so you kill your son... to forgive him...!
  • To those who feel their beliefs insulted by our words, we simply ask:
    Do you blame us for proving FORCEFULLY how SOME CREED implies grave insults and irreverence against The One God whom we both worship and respect?
    We are criticizing false human logic. Our tone remains by far more polite than the implications against the Attributes of God - Mercy and Capability. To any person jumping to criticize our tone, and ignoring the offense that we are addressing, we quote the warning from Jesus PBUH not to see the straw in other peoples' eye, and ignore the "trunk" in one's own
  • We conclude on this subject that our common Creator (whom we dearly call Allaah) is Elevated indeed, beyond the best of our praises, let alone these irreverent notions (to put it in mildest possible manner).