The Virtual Abbey

UPDATE 2: Made a slight edit to my phrasing because my original wording was a little too uncharitable.

UPDATE: I have set up a category for arguments against Islam called Arguments Contra Islam. I will try to make here my case, as a Catholic, for why I believe Islam is false. For a Catholic, this a relatively simple logical proposition, as there is, in both religions, a core doctrine of teaching which is said to be infallible. Finding area where those doctrines disagree will naturally highlight areas where one of them must be false. The arguments assume that Catholicism is doctrinally correct in all of its pronouncements that are creedal, promulgated by an Ecumenical council, are made Ex Cathedra by the Pope (which is a very limited body of work), or come from the clear meaning of Scripture, also held to be infallible. In other words, the argument is made from a Catholic point of view, so they are theological arguments, not philosophical ones. Some people reject such arguments because they maintain you have to argue everything from first principles; e.g., prove that I exist or that you exist, prove that there is a God, etc. I would argue that you can spend your time arguing in that direction if you wish, but that we won't get very far in this lifetime unless we start by stating what we believe, and argue from there. My starting point is Catholicism (as, I certainly hope, is my ending point). I still expect that the arguments generated will still be of interest to those who do not accept Catholicism and may even be useful to a non-Catholic who is also not a Muslim, who is trying to reason against Islam. I expect the arguments will be useful because I am confident they are true whether you accept them or not. Naturally, I will invite commentary, criticism, and attempts at rebuttal.

The First Argument

Islam can be shown to be false because of Sura 3:59-3:60 of the Koran, which states:

[3:59] The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.

[3:60] This is the truth from your Lord; do not harbor any doubts.

The Nicene creed, of course, says otherwise:

Begotten, not made, one in being with the Father . . .

The Nicene Creed is infallible; it was promulgated by the ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. To view Christ as being a mere creature is heresy, and therefore the Koran cannot have been dictated by an angel of God, as angels who are not fallen are incapable of speaking falsehood, participating, as they do, in the Beatific Vision.

If the Koran is false, then Islam is false.

Q.E.D.

The price for a Catholic Church in Saudi Arabia?

Recognizing Mohammed as a prophet.

Riyadh, 20 March (AKI) - No churches should be permitted in Saudi Arabia, unless Pope Benedict XVI recognised the prophet Mohammed, according to a Middle East expert.

While Saudi mediators are working with the Vatican on negotiations to allow places of religious worship, some experts believe it will not occur without this recognition.

Anwar Ashiqi, president of the Saudi centre for Middle East strategic studies, endorsed this view in an interview on the site of Arab satellite TV network, al-Arabiya on Thursday.

"I haven taken part in several meetings related to Islamic-Christian dialogue and there have been negotiations on this issue," he said.

"It would be possible to launch official negotiations to construct a church in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognise the prophet Mohammed."

This is an impossibility, because Catholicism does not hold that there are any prophets after Christ, who is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. The fullness of God's revelation to man came in the form of Christ; simply put, after Christ walked the Earth and redeemed man through th cross, God simply has no need of prophets. There is no revelation that has taken place after Christ that is necessary to man's salvation; any revelation after the Resurrection is simply a private revelation, and the Catholic church cannot and will not compel belief in private revelations. It will not mandate belief in the apparitions at Fatima, for instance, even though clearly the Church, in practice, believes in the apparitions at Fatima.

In addition, Christianity will certainly never recognize Mohammed even as a saint, because Islam denies the divinity of Christ. The Church cannot even admit the holiness of Mohammed's private "revelations", because those "revelations" clearly contradict Scripture and the teachings of the Church. It is a simple impossibility that both Islam and Christianity can both stand as revealed truths; God cannot contradict himself, and God cannot lie.

So whence the source of Mohammed's visions? A Christian cannot believe they were from God, which leaves us with two possibilities: Mohammed had no visions from God, in which case Islam is a pious fraud; or the visions came from a source that was unholy, in which case Islam is, from its inception, a work of the Devil.

I personally believe the former. It does not give me joy to say it, for I recognize that to say such a thing is to invite the risk of retribution; it is dangerous to tell the Muslim world that at its core is a falsehood, for the Muslim world has in it a percentage of fanatics who demand death for people who do not believe in it. I also recognize that Islam is practiced by something like a billion people; it is not my intent to denigrate piously held beliefs, especially when those beliefs contain some elements of truth -- I think it is far better to believe in Islam than to believe in nothing.

But imagine the Pope saying "Very well, Mohammed is a prophet, let me have my church." It might seem reasonable for Islam to demand such a thing, but consider if the positions were reversed, and if in every mosque in Christendom stood a crucifix, and a plaque proclaiming "Jesus Christ was God and Man, two natures in one person." Imagine such a thing being mandated by force of law. Surely that would be repellent to Muslims, and they would vent their anger in the most strident terms imaginable. Worse yet, for a Muslim to admit such a thing would be a monstrous act of blasphemy, as they understand Allah.

And yet, that is the very bargain they wish us to make. If anything, it indicates to me the level of respect which Islam holds for Christianity -- the answer is, not very much. Christianity holds Islam in much higher regard, for we allow mosques to be built freely in the west, under the protection of the law. For Islam to hold Christianity in as much regard, one of two things would have to happen -- either they would have to admit Christian churches to be freely built in Saudi Arabia, or they would respectfully close every single mosque in the west, understanding that reciprocity is the first sign of mutual respect.

Since the Saudi government will not allow the former, I suggest that they adopt the latter course.

Close your mosques, and then we can resume discussions as equals.

UPDATE: Not, of course, that I am arguing that course of action seriously, but to merely point out the problem. We allow mosques in the west because of certain things we believe about the rights of the individual in making up his or her mind. While I believe that the Catholic faith is the truth, and were I a king and we were following the principle that the people take on the religion of their ruler, which was held throughout Europe for some time, my subjects would be Catholics. But given that God holds free will in such high esteem (as men may choose evil or good), I'd like to think that I would also hold to the principle of freedom of religion. A man may, provided he does no harm to his neighbor or to the morals of the state, practice his own religion. I will, of course, do what I can to convince him of the merits of Catholicism. But Islam allows for no discussion, though in theory, in conquered lands, it admits the religions "of the book" under highly unfavorable terms (high taxation, no right to hold public office, lesser legal status, etc.). This means that all discussions are held --at best -- under greatly unfavorable terms, under significant duress. Frankly, that is not a situation I would permit; I would admit no duress. If that is what Islam wants, it will have to resort to force of arms to try to compel it, and I would simply say, good luck in trying. You have never succeeded in defeating the West by force of arms, and should you try to conquer Rome, I would be content to see Mecca become a smoking ember before I would see the See of Peter become a mosque. The first thing Islam has to face is that if you address the Catholic Church, the church may, arguendo, permit those discussions on equal terms, though it considers no creed its equal. But we will not come to you as supplicants, or admit any terms in the discussion that involve the renunciation of the power and authority of Christ. We do not ask you to accept that Allah is a Trinity, either. We simply ask that should we build a church in your land, you extend to it the same priviliges that we extend to thousands of mosques in the west -- the freedom to build it, and to go there and worship, without fear of being murdered or having said church burned to the ground. We extend to you reciprocity, not because we believe your faith is true, for it conflicts at far too many points with our own for us to admit it. But we extend and ask for reciprocity because we believe, as you believe, that we were created in God's image, and that affords us certain dignities, even if we occasionally shame that dignity by the occasional blasphemy. We afford you the opportunity to repent in God's good time, and we ask that you allow us the same prerogative. And if you do not see why you ought to do that, then indeed I would ask you to to be men enough to close your mosques in the West, for the discussion is ended to our mutual loss.

Res ipsa loquitor.