Isn't it ironic? ABSOLUTELY ROBYN
Weirdest Koran Qoutes = "Beat your Wife, Worship Adam, Men turned into apes
by Witness 007 48 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
stillajwexelder
FOR MERRY
© 1996 Research and Education Foundation
Common Logical Fallacies Made By Muslims
Dr. Robert MoreyChristians must be prepared to answer the typical objections made against the Gospel. Most of the objections are based on simple logical fallacies. The following is a list of some of the most common fallacies used by Muslims.
Note: The average Muslim does not know that his arguments are logically erroneous. He is sincere in his beliefs. Thus you must be patient and kind in sharing with him why his arguments are invalid.1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions: In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.
Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity. The Bible tests and judges the Qur'an. When the Bible and the Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself.
Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof and that the Qur'an judges the Bible.2. Arguing in a circle: If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing.
If you end where you began, you got nowhere. Examples:
#1 Proving Allah by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Allah.
#2 Proving Muhammad by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Muhammad.
#3 Proving Islam by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Islam.3. False Analogy: Comparing two things as if they are parallel when they are not really the same at all.
Examples:
#1 Many Muslims erroneously assume that Muslims and Christians share the same concepts of God, revelation, inspiration, textual preservation, the Bible, prophethood, biblical history, conversion, etc...
#2 Because a false analogy is drawn between Islam and Christianity, some Muslims think that any argument which refutes the Qur'an will likewise refute the Bible; any argument which refutes Muhammad will also refute Jesus Christ, etc...
#3 For example, many Muslims claim that Muhammad and all prophets were sinless. They even deny that Abraham was an idol worshipper. Thus when a Christian points out all the wicked things that Muhammad did (mass murder, child abuse, lying, etc.), the Muslims will say,"If you are right, then you must also reject your biblical prophets for doing wicked things as well."
What he is really saying is, "If you reject my prophet, then you must reject your prophets as well. If Muhammad was a false prophet, then your prophets are false as well."
The root problem is that the Muslim concept of prophethood is not the same as the Christian concept of prophethood. We teach that prophets sin like anyone else. Thus while Islam is refuted by the sins of Muhammad, Christianity is not jeopardized at all. The Muslim is guilty of setting up a "false analogy."
Whenever a Muslim responds to a Christian attack on the Qur'an, Muhammad, or Allah by flipping the argument around and applying it to the Bible, Jesus or the Trinity as if Islam and Christianity either stand or fall together, he is guilty of the fallacy of false analogy. Islam can be false and Christianity be true at the same time.- 4. The Fallacy of Irrelevance: When you introduce issues which have no logical bearing on the subject under discussion, you are using irrelevant arguments.
Examples:
#1 Some Muslims argue, "The Qur'an is the Word of God because the text of the Qur'an has been preserved perfectly." This argument is erroneous for two reasons: - a. Factually, the text of the Qur'an has not been preserved perfectly. The text has additions, deletions, conflicting manuscripts, and variant readings like any other ancient writing.
b. Logically, it is irrelevant whether the text of the Qur'an has been preserved because preservation does not logically imply inspiration. A book can be perfectly copied without implying its inspiration. - #2 When Muslims attack the character and motives of anyone who criticizes Islam, they are using irrelevant arguments. The character of someone is no indication of whether he is telling you the truth. Good people can lie and evil people can tell the truth. Thus whenever a Muslim uses slurs such as "mean," "dishonest," "racist," "liar," "deceptive," etc., he is not only committing a logical fallacy but also revealing that he cannot intellectually defend his beliefs.
#3 When confronted with the pagan origins of the Qur'an, some Muslims defend the Qur'an by answering, - a. It is a false analogy to parallel the pagan origins of the rites commanded in the Qur'an with the present day holidays nowhere commanded in the Bible. What some modern day Christians do on Dec. 25th has no logical bearing on what the Qur'an commands Muslims to do (eg. the Pilgrimage, the Fast, etc.).
b. It is irrelevant that some Christians choose to celebrate the birth of Christ. Since the Bible nowhere commands it, it is a matter of personal freedom. But Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an to believe and practice things many things which came from the paganism of that day.
c. The Muslim by using this argument is actually admitting that the Qur'an was not "sent down" but fabricated from pagan sources. This means he has become an unbeliever (Surah 25:4-6). - #4 Some Muslims argue that the Qur'an is the Word of God because it contains some historically or scientifically accurate statements. This argument is irrelevant. Just because a book is correct on some historical or scientific point does not mean it is inspired. You cannot take the attributes of a part and apply it to the whole. A book can be a mixture of true and false statements. Thus it is a logical fallacy to argue that the entire Qur'an is true if it makes one true statement.
When a Muslim argues that history or science "proves" the Qur'an, this actually means that he is acknowledging that history and science can likewise refute the Qur'an. If the Qur'an contains just one historical error or one scientific error, then the Qur'an is not the Word of God. Verification and falsification go hand in hand.
#5 The present meaning of a word is irrelevant to what it meant in ancient times. The word "Allah" is a good example. When confronted by the historical evidence that the word was used by pagan Arabs in pre-Islamic times to refer to a high god who was married to the sun-goddess and had three daughters, some Muslims will quote dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. to prove (sic) that "Allah means God." They are thus using modern definitions to define what the word meant over a thousand years ago! What "Allah" means now has no bearing on what it meant before Muhammad.
"But Christians celebrate Christmas and it was originally a pagan holiday! Thus both Muslims and Christians get their rites from the pagans."
This argument is erroneous for several reasons.- 5. The Fallacy of Equivocation: If we assume that everyone has the same definition of such words as God, Jesus, revelation, inspiration, prophet, miracle, etc., we are committing a very simple logical fallacy.
#1 When a Muslim says, "Christians and Muslims worship the same God," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. While Christians worship the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Muslims worship a Unitarian deity. Obviously, they are worshipping different Gods.
#2 When a Muslim says, "We believe in Jesus too," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. The "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not the Jesus of the Bible. Islam preaches "another Jesus" (II Cor. 11:4). The Jesus of the Bible is God the Son who died on the cross for our sins. But the "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not God the Son and he did not die on the cross for our sins. Thus it is erroneous for Muslims to tell Christians that they believe in Jesus too.
#3 When a Muslim assumes that Christians have the same concept of revelation as Muslims, he is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. According to Islam, the Qur'an was written in heaven by Allah and has no earthly sources. When we prove that it comes from earthly sources, this threatens the inspiration of the Qur'an.
On the other hand, the Bible does not claim that it dropped out of heaven one day. It openly quotes from earthly sources. It uses pre-existing sources without any difficulty whatsoever. Thus while the Qur'an is threatened by historical sources, the Bible is actually confirmed by them.
#4 When a Muslims tells you that the word "Allah" has only one meaning: "the one, true, universal God," he is assuming a fallacy. The word "allah" has many different meanings. - a. It can be used as a generic term like the English word "God." Thus it can be applied to any god or goddess regardless if if a true or false god is in view. (ex. The "Allahs" of Hinduism.)
b. The Nation of Islam uses it to refer to Wallace Dodd Ford, Elijah Muhammad, and Louis Farrakhan as "Allah" and teaches that all black people are "Allahs."
c. It has been used by some Christians in Arabic speaking countries as a generic name for the Holy Trinity.
d. It was used in pre-Islamic times by pagan Arabs to refer to the moon-god whowas the father of al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat.
e. It is used by Muslims to refer to their god. - Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God. The Christian worships the Holy Trinity while the Muslim worships a unitarian deity.
6. The Fallacy of Force: The Qur'an commands Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and apostates (Surah 5:33; 9:5, 29).
Some Muslims use a false analogy to answer this argument. They respond by saying, "Well, what about the Crusades? You Christians use violence just like Muslims."
It is logically erroneous to set up a parallel between Muslims killing people in obedience to the Qur'an and Christians killing people in disobedience to the Bible. While the Qur'an commands Jihad, the New Testament forbids it.- 7. The Fallacy Of Confusing Questions of Fact with Questions of Relevance: Whether something is factually true is totally different from the issue of whether you feel it is relevant. The two issues must be kept separate.
Examples:
#1 When a Christian argues that some of the beliefs and rituals of the Qur'an came from pre-Islamic Arab paganism, the Muslim will deny it at first. But as more and more evidence is given, the Muslim will often do a flip-flop and begin arguing, "So what! Didn't you Christians get Christmas from the pagans?" The Muslim has now committed three fallacies: - a. The "So what!" argument is dealing with the issue of relevance, not fact. You must stop the Muslim at that point and ask him, "Since you are now dealing with the issue of whether the pagan origins of the Qur'an are relevant, does this mean that you are now agreeing to the fact of the pagan origins of Islam?"
b. The Muslim has also committed the fallacy of equivocation. The Bible is not threatened by historical sources. It freely refers to them and even quotes them (Acts 17: 28). But the Qur'an denies that it has any earthly historical sources (Surah 25:4-6).
c. He also committed the fallacy of false analogy. The Bible and the Qur'an are two totally different books. The inspiration of the Bible does not depend upon the fate of the Qur'an because what Muslims claim for the Qur'an is not what Christians claim for the Bible.
8. Phonic Fallacies: The phonetic sound of a word should not be used to twist its meaning. For example,
a. Some Muslims try to prove that the word "Allah" is in the Greek New Testament because of the Greek word alla. But while the word is pronounced "alla," it only means "but" in Greek. It has nothing to do with the Arabic "Allah."
b. Some Muslims have claimed that the word "Allah" is in the Bible because the Biblical word "Allelujah." They then mispronounce the word as "Allah-lujah!" But "Allelujah" is not a compound Arabic word with "Allah" being the first part of the word. It is a Hebrew word with the name of God being "JAH" (or Yahweh) and the verb "alle" meaning "praise to." It means "praise to Yahweh." The Arabic word "Allah" is not in the word.
c. The same error is found in the Muslim argument that the word "Baca" (Psa. 84:6) really means "Mecca." The valley of Baca is in northern Israel.
d. Some Muslims have tried to go from "Amen" to "Ahmed" to "Muhammed!" Such nonsense is beyond belief.9. "Red Herring" Arguments: When a Muslim is asked to defend the Qur'an, if he turns around and attacks the reliability of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Crusades, etc., he is introducing irrelevant issues that have no logical bearing on the truthfulness of Islam. He is trying to divert attention from Islam to other issues.
Furthermore, he is assuming that if he can refute the Bible, then the Qur'an wins by default. If he can refute the Trinity, then Allah wins by default. But this is logically erroneous. You cannot prove your position by refuting someone else's position. The Bible and the Qur'an could both be wrong. Muslims must prove their own book.10. Straw Man Arguments: When you put a false argument into the mouth of your opponent and then proceed to knock it down, you have only created a "straw man" argument. Muslims sometimes either misunderstand or deliberately misquote the arguments Christians give them.
Example:
Some Muslims have built a "straw man" argument that claims that we teach,"The Qur'an teaches that Allah is the Moon-god and that Muslims knowingly believe in and worship the Moon-god and his daughters."
They then knock down this "straw man" argument and claim victory. Of course, we never said such nonsense. What we have said is that while the Qur'an claims that Allah is God and Muslims think they are worshipping the one true God, in reality they are worshipping a false god preached by a false prophet according to a false book.
Conclusion
The average Muslim has been deceived by Muslim apologists who use such logical fallacies without regard to reason, fact or honesty. But there are many Muslims who want to be rational in their religion and thus have an open mind to rational discourse. Once they see that their arguments are based on logical fallacies, they will be open to the wonderful news that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins on the cross.
- 4. The Fallacy of Irrelevance: When you introduce issues which have no logical bearing on the subject under discussion, you are using irrelevant arguments.
-
-
Merry Magdalene
Thank you, stillaI will read them.
~Merry
-
oompa
Shouldn't we get to the serious and important stuff?? What does the Koran say about ORAL SEX???............oompa
-
SickofLies
HERE is a great article about Islam that hopefully will help give some historical context to how it started and what it is really about.
Edit: Here is a small sample from that page
The Five Pillars of Islam
Given the fierce monotheism professed by Muslims and their sometimes violent rejection of all religions other than Islam, one might suppose that intolerance would be the first and most fundamental 'pillar' upon which their religious practice rests. Not surprisingly, however, this greatest of Muslim virtues is not made explicit, but rather is allowed to lurk hidden within the first of the five duties ('pillars') required of all Muslim men.
The first pillar is the recitation (preferably in Arabic) of the creed, or shahada: "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." If Allah is the only god in the neighborhood, Trinitarian Christians and Hindus are endlessly blaspheming true religion. Despite the occasionally tolerant references in the Qur’an to "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians in addition to Muslims), the non-Muslims need to be eliminated. Convert them or kill them, or make them pay a religious ransom to continue the private practice of their religion. (Of necessity, Muslims must reject the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.) Atheists and Agnostics, who deny the reality of Allah, are also wicked blasphemers. They need to be eliminated also. It is preferable to kill them. Such intolerance, of course, is not unique to Islam. It is a natural attribute of all monotheistic religions.
The second pillar of Islam, salat, is daily ritual prayer. This is mandatory only five times per day (at dawn, noon, mid-afternoon, sunset, and nighttime), but extremely religious Muslims such as suicide bombers and aerial terrorists usually pray more frequently. Prayer requires a person to face Mecca and the Ka‘aba, a roughly cubical building containing a magical black stone thought by some to be a meteorite. (Archaeological and other evidence shows, however, that in the early years of Islam, prayers were directed at Jerusalem, not Mecca.) Prayer is preceded by ritual purification and involves a series of bowings, prostrations, and recitations from the Qur’an. On Fridays, prayer is communal and conducted in a mosque (Arabic masjid, 'place for prostration'). Led by an imam (from Arabic amma, 'to walk before'), with worshippers standing in rows behind him, prayers normally are followed by a sermon. (Contrary to common western opinion, it is not mandatory for sermons to contain the slogans "Death to America" or "Death to Israel.") Women do not generally attend these public prayers, and when they do enter into mosques they are segregated from the men. Although this offends the western sense of sexual equality, it is quite understandable. The minds of men bowing down to the ground might wander from thoughts of the singularity of Allah if their noses were merely inches away from the raised derrieres of women kneeling on prayer rugs in front of them. Even if the women were completely shrouded in burqas, their intermingled presence would be a deterrent to patriarchal piety.
The third pillar of Islam is zakat, the giving of a fixed percentage of one's property to the poor and the homeless. Since there usually are no formal arrangements made for collection of zakat, this generally is the least burdensome of the five pillars.
The fourth pillar is the fasting required during the lunar month of Ramadan, which can occur at any season of the year. During this period, no food or drink may be consumed during daylight hours, although pregnant women and certain others may be exempted from this rule. Feasting is obligatory at the end of Ramadan, but with both pork and alcohol being forbidden, this feast offers far less fun than that enjoyed at, say, Irish or Polish Catholic festivals.
The fifth and final pillar of Islam is the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca every able-bodied Muslim is required to make at least once in his life. Pilgrims must wear special dress, walk seven times around the Ka‘aba (Arabic ka’bun, 'a cube'), and kiss the talismanic black stone enshrined like an idol in the southeast corner of the edifice. Although probably a meteorite — and thus a truly heavenly stone - the black stone is claimed to be one of the precious stones of paradise given by the angel Gabriel to the patriarch Abraham when he built the Ka‘aba — in Arabia, contrary to Jewish and Christian opinion! Even though the stone has been stolen, burned, and broken, it is the veneration focal point for more than a billion Muslims in the world today. (With so many Muslims required to come to Mecca, the logistics of the Hajj are rapidly bursting the bounds of the possible.) The Ka‘aba temple is widely believed to be older than Mohammed, having housed the pagan Arabian pantheon. All its idols were destroyed when it was adapted to serve the Islamic cultus.
When in Mecca kissing the Ka‘aba, it is also incumbent upon pilgrims to kill an animal in the Mina valley on the tenth day of the month of pilgrimage, since Allah, like the Yahweh of the Jews, is believed to enjoy having animals killed for his viewing pleasure. (It is amusing to imagine what will happen if P.E.T.A. and the Animal Liberation Front ever get wind of this. How Muslims would deal with the threat of animal-rights terrorism would be something worth watching closely.) After killing a goat or other suitable sacrificial species (for some reason, dogs and pigs are deemed unsuitable), most pilgrims then betake themselves to Medina (Yathrib), a city located 210 miles north of Mecca, in order to pray at what is claimed to be Mohammed's tomb. (If there are in fact human remains in the tomb, it would be interesting to see if the DNA could be matched up to that of persons claiming descent from the prophet.) I have been unable to learn whether pilgrims face the tomb or Mecca when performing their Medina prayers.
-
stillajwexelder
Thank you, stillaI will read them. ~Merry
You are welcome. I just wish more people - PEOPLE (that is all people not just Muslims) would be more open minded and willing to read other sources
-
Merry Magdalene
I just wish more people - PEOPLE (that is all people not just Muslims) would be more open minded and willing to read other sources
Me too!!! When I first began investigating Islam I had no desire to restrict my resources or to limit myself to certain perspectives, and I still feel that way. I love to dig...and, if anything, I am far more inclined to jump to questions than to jump to conclusions. That is to say, the first answer I find to anything rarely satisfies me and generally triggers an avalanche of ongoing questions.
Assuming that you wanted me to answer what you posted (if you didn't, feel free to ignore):
Common Logical Fallacies Made By Muslims
Dr. Robert Morey
Christians must be prepared to answer the typical objections made against the Gospel. Most of the objections are based on simple logical fallacies. The following is a list of some of the most common fallacies used by Muslims.
Note: The average Muslim does not know that his arguments are logically erroneous. He is sincere in his beliefs. Thus you must be patient and kind in sharing with him why his arguments are invalid.1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions:
In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.
Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity. The Bible tests and judges the Qur'an. When the Bible and the Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself.
Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof and that the Qur'an judges the Bible.So the Bible's being older than the Qur'an automatically gives it historical precedence as an established authority against which the Qur'an must be judged??? If not, how has the Bible been verified as an acceptable authority? Is it proven to be trustworthy? Was Christianity similarly tested and judged against Judaism? When the old and new testaments contradict each other do Christians (other than JWs LOL) logically give the old testament first place as the older authority? Is not this first argument an example itself of The Fallacy of False Assumptions?
2. Arguing in a circle:
If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing. Agreed. Quite worthless.If you end where you began, you got nowhere.
Examples:
#1 Proving Allah by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Allah.
#2 Proving Muhammad by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Muhammad.
#3 Proving Islam by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Islam.#1 I believe in One God, One Creator, one Controller, because it makes sense to me to do so, not because the Qur'an told me to. I believed in God long before I believed the Qur'an was the final message from God. I call God by the name Allah because that is the Arabic name for God and I pray in Arabic. Believing in Allah because the Qur'an tells me to and believing in the Qur'an because it tells me that Allah tells me to would indeed be foolish and circular. Same for the Bible or anything else. It is also an unnecessary mistake as their are other proofs for both (which have been satisfactory to me but not to everyone).
#2 When it became clear to my mind that the Qur'an was the final message from God, I had no choice to but to believe that Muhammad was God's final messenger since it was to him that it was revealed. Nothing circular in my beliefs there either. And I am not inclined to rely on the circular arguments of others (that I am aware of).
#3 Islam is based on what was revealed through the Qur'an. I have recently said that all expressions of Islam should be judged by the Qur'an and not vice versa. The Qur'an delineates what Islam is meant to be and is the final authority to which we should turn as Muslims.
3. False Analogy:
Comparing two things as if they are parallel when they are not really the same at all.
Examples:
#1 Many Muslims erroneously assume that Muslims and Christians share the same concepts of God, revelation, inspiration, textual preservation, the Bible, prophethood, biblical history, conversion, etc...Those could indeed be erroneous assumptions, and not ones shared by me or any of my Muslim friends as far as I know. They seem to be well aware of the differences. But we do often wish to find common ground for peaceful and respectful discussion, and so we do mention that we accept and honor many of the same prophets that Jews and Christians do, even though we feel differently about how they are sometimes portrayed and how their messages have been preserved.
#2 Because a false analogy is drawn between Islam and Christianity, some Muslims think that any argument which refutes the Qur'an will likewise refute the Bible; any argument which refutes Muhammad will also refute Jesus Christ, etc...
See above.
#3 For example, many Muslims claim that Muhammad and all prophets were sinless. They even deny that Abraham was an idol worshipper. Thus when a Christian points out all the wicked things that Muhammad did (mass murder, child abuse, lying, etc.), the Muslims will say,
"If you are right, then you must also reject your biblical prophets for doing wicked things as well."
What he is really saying is, "If you reject my prophet, then you must reject your prophets as well. If Muhammad was a false prophet, then your prophets are false as well." How can you be sure that is what he is really saying? Maybe you have misunderstood him.The root problem is that the Muslim concept of prophethood is not the same as the Christian concept of prophethood. We teach that prophets sin like anyone else. Thus while Islam is refuted by the sins of Muhammad, Christianity is not jeopardized at all. The Muslim is guilty of setting up a "false analogy."
Whenever a Muslim responds to a Christian attack on the Qur'an, Muhammad, or Allah by flipping the argument around and applying it to the Bible, Jesus or the Trinity as if Islam and Christianity either stand or fall together, he is guilty of the fallacy of false analogy. Islam can be false and Christianity be true at the same time. Ok, I can see how a Muslim might think that Christians should logically reject the Biblical prophets for doing bad things if they are going to reject Muhammad for doing bad things, but them trying to use that line of reasoning on the Christian does not mean they believe that Muhammad did the bad things of which he is accused. As mentioned, we also do not believe that any of the earlier prophets did the bad things that they have been portrayed in the Bible as doing, so I don't really see where this example is going. Christians believe the prophets did wicked things (all except for Jesus pbuh) and they still accept them as prophets (all except for Muhammad pbuh). Muslims believe none of the prophets did wicked things (including Muhammad). So even if Christians think he did bad things, they can't rejected him on that basis unless they are willing to reject the other prophets similarly. And you would have to prove to a Muslim beyond the shadow of a doubt that Muhammad did bad things and was thus not a prophet in order for him/her to give up Islam (and me thinks that's not an easy thing to do). So this seems like a dead end area to me.4. The Fallacy of Irrelevance:
When you introduce issues which have no logical bearing on the subject under discussion, you are using irrelevant arguments.
Examples:
#1 Some Muslims argue, "The Qur'an is the Word of God because the text of the Qur'an has been preserved perfectly." This argument is erroneous for two reasons:a. Factually, the text of the Qur'an has not been preserved perfectly. The text has additions, deletions, conflicting manuscripts, and variant readings like any other ancient writing. We believe it has been preserved as perfectly as is necessary for it not to be invalidated, and what we use now is not significantly different from the earliest manuscripts and fragments available for comparison.b. Logically, it is irrelevant whether the text of the Qur'an has been preserved because preservation does not logically imply inspiration. A book can be perfectly copied without implying its inspiration. I do not think the preservation of the Qur'an is irrelevant but it also cannot stand alone in defense of the Qur'an. It is just one aspect worthy of our appreciation. Taken together the different points support and enhance each other IMO.
#2 When Muslims attack the character and motives of anyone who criticizes Islam, they are using irrelevant arguments. The character of someone is no indication of whether he is telling you the truth. Good people can lie and evil people can tell the truth. Thus whenever a Muslim uses slurs such as "mean," "dishonest," "racist," "liar," "deceptive," etc., he is not only committing a logical fallacy but also revealing that he cannot intellectually defend his beliefs. Muslims aren't the only ones to do this by any means, but should they? No. Should anyone? No. Let's all do our best to avoid personal attacks which are as abhorrent as they are irrelevant! It seems to be one of the easiest misteps to make, and it can be difficult to refrain from responding in kind when it happens, but things usually rapidly degenerate from there.
#3 When confronted with the pagan origins of the Qur'an, some Muslims defend the Qur'an by answering,
"But Christians celebrate Christmas and it was originally a pagan holiday! Thus both Muslims and Christians get their rites from the pagans."
Again, I would be very surprised to hear a Muslim defend the Qur'an by accepting that it is ok for it to be of Pagan origin because so are Christian holidays. It's an absurd violation of our basic beliefs, and probably another misunderstanding. They might point out that Christians accept Pagan rites as part of their own celebrations, but not to justfy using Pagan rites, just to point out what appears to be hypocrisy. Muslims do not accept that any rites commanded by the Qur'an are of Pagan origin although Pagans may have adopted them or something like them from earlier Divine revelations previous to the Qur'an.
This argument is erroneous for several reasons.
a. It is a false analogy to parallel the pagan origins of the rites commanded in the Qur'an with the present day holidays nowhere commanded in the Bible. What some modern day Christians do on Dec. 25th has no logical bearing on what the Qur'an commands Muslims to do (eg. the Pilgrimage, the Fast, etc.).
b. It is irrelevant that some Christians choose to celebrate the birth of Christ. Since the Bible nowhere commands it, it is a matter of personal freedom. But Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an to believe and practice things many things which came from the paganism of that day.
c. The Muslim by using this argument is actually admitting that the Qur'an was not "sent down" but fabricated from pagan sources. This means he has become an unbeliever (Surah 25:4-6).#4 Some Muslims argue that the Qur'an is the Word of God because it contains some historically or scientifically accurate statements. This argument is irrelevant. Just because a book is correct on some historical or scientific point does not mean it is inspired. You cannot take the attributes of a part and apply it to the whole. A book can be a mixture of true and false statements. Thus it is a logical fallacy to argue that the entire Qur'an is true if it makes one true statement.
When a Muslim argues that history or science "proves" the Qur'an, this actually means that he is acknowledging that history and science can likewise refute the Qur'an. If the Qur'an contains just one historical error or one scientific error, then the Qur'an is not the Word of God. Verification and falsification go hand in hand. Again, the authenticity of the Qur'an does not stand upon this point alone, it is just a part of what Muslims appreciate about it.#5 The present meaning of a word is irrelevant to what it meant in ancient times. The word "Allah" is a good example. When confronted by the historical evidence that the word was used by pagan Arabs in pre-Islamic times to refer to a high god who was married to the sun-goddess and had three daughters, some Muslims will quote dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. to prove (sic) that "Allah means God." They are thus using modern definitions to define what the word meant over a thousand years ago! What "Allah" means now has no bearing on what it meant before Muhammad. Huh? Why wouldn't the Pagan Arabs called their "high god" "The God" (Allah)? Makes perfect sense to me. Does the author have proof that it meant something else? Do Christian Arabs fear their worship was or is tainted by using it? How does the way Pagans used this name have any bearing on the way the Qur'an used it (i.e. telling them there is no god, nothing in creation, that is worthy of worship. Only The God, the Creator and Sustainer of the heavens and earth is worthy of that. Also that no images should be created to try to represent the unseen Creator, and that the One cannot be divided into many, or even three, and still be The One God, nor is He comparable to any of His creation)?
5. The Fallacy of Equivocation:
If we assume that everyone has the same definition of such words as God, Jesus, revelation, inspiration, prophet, miracle, etc., we are committing a very simple logical fallacy.
#1 When a Muslim says, "Christians and Muslims worship the same God," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. While Christians worship the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Muslims worship a Unitarian deity. Obviously, they are worshipping different Gods. We believe in one God, one Creator, who sent the prophets, including Jesus, to mankind with messages of hope and warning. We believe that those who originally followed the teachings of Jesus Christ also believed this and so we certainly worship the same God as them. Truly we do not worship a triune God but we do wish to point to unity of origin in some of our beliefs, to help in understanding where things got off track and how they need to be rectified.#2 When a Muslim says, "We believe in Jesus too," he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. The "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not the Jesus of the Bible. Islam preaches "another Jesus" (II Cor. 11:4). The Jesus of the Bible is God the Son who died on the cross for our sins. But the "Jesus" of the Qur'an is not God the Son and he did not die on the cross for our sins. Thus it is erroneous for Muslims to tell Christians that they believe in Jesus too. Before I became Muslimah I was quite surprised when my first Muslim friend told me he also believes in and honors Jesus pbuh. Then I was offended when he said that Jesus was only a prophet--a very important prophet, but not more--not the Son of God nor God the Son, but a man highly blessed. I was even more concerned that he would accept Jesus but not his sacrifice. But the more I researched it and contemplated it, the more it made sense, and the more honor it gave to God with genuine respect for those He sent. I do not believe my friend commited any Fallacy of Equivocation when he said that to me, although I may done have when I heard him say it.
#3 When a Muslim assumes that Christians have the same concept of revelation as Muslims, he is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. According to Islam, the Qur'an was written in heaven by Allah and has no earthly sources. When we prove that it comes from earthly sources, this threatens the inspiration of the Qur'an.
On the other hand, the Bible does not claim that it dropped out of heaven one day. It openly quotes from earthly sources. It uses pre-existing sources without any difficulty whatsoever. Thus while the Qur'an is threatened by historical sources, the Bible is actually confirmed by them. He can prove it comes from earthly sources? I'll have to check into that.#4 When a Muslims tells you that the word "Allah" has only one meaning: "the one, true, universal God," he is assuming a fallacy. The word "allah" has many different meanings. Oh? Different meanings or different uses?a. It can be used as a generic term like the English word "God." Thus it can be applied to any god or goddess regardless if if a true or false god is in view. (ex. The "Allahs" of Hinduism.) No, it can't. It can't be used as gender specific and their is no plural form of it. It always means "The God." The word the author is looking for here would be "illah." Thus, in the shahadah we say, "La illaha illAllah"--"There is no god but the God"--testifying that there is no god worthy of worship instead of or in addition to The God who created all. b. The Nation of Islam uses it to refer to Wallace Dodd Ford, Elijah Muhammad, and Louis Farrakhan as "Allah" and teaches that all black people are "Allahs." If that's true it sounds blasphemous to me. And Malcolm X did have good reason for leaving the Nation of Islam apart from that.c. It has been used by some Christians in Arabic speaking countries as a generic name for the Holy Trinity. It still means "The God."d. It was used in pre-Islamic times by pagan Arabs to refer to the moon-god who was the father of al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. It still means "The God"even if what "The God" means and who it is applied to in the minds of various people may differ.e. It is used by Muslims to refer to their god. Because it means "The God" and is how God refers to Himself in the Qur'an.
Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God. The Christian worships the Holy Trinity (not all Christians) while the Muslim worships a unitarian deity. This always puzzles me though. I may be entirely wrong here, but I can't help but feel that most people who believe in an Ultimate Source, a Creator who cares about the creation, really do at least endeavor to worship the same God. Maybe because I've been a JW, an eclectic Pagan, and a non-denominational Christian mystic before I was a Muslimah.
6. The Fallacy of Force:
The Qur'an commands Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and apostates (Surah 5:33; 9:5, 29). If attacked or oppressed.Some Muslims use a false analogy to answer this argument. They respond by saying, "Well, what about the Crusades? You Christians use violence just like Muslims." Again, possibly an attempt to bring attention to hypocrisy--"If not using violence is a criteria why did/do Christians use it?"--but this still doesn't answer the question and should not be relied upon to do so or to avoid doing so.It is logically erroneous to set up a parallel between Muslims killing people in obedience to the Qur'an and Christians killing people in disobedience to the Bible. While the Qur'an commands Jihad, the New Testament forbids it. So does the author of this article believe that Christians should never fight in any war, defensive as well as offensive? What about self-defense or on behalf of one's family? Does the author understand what Jihad is and what the well-defined rules for war are in Islam? But if he believes in no fighting under any circumstance I guess that wouldn't matter to him. What are the rules that Christians are to follow when attacked or oppressed?7. The Fallacy Of Confusing Questions of Fact with Questions of Relevance:
Whether something is factually true is totally different from the issue of whether you feel it is relevant. The two issues must be kept separate. Agreed. Keep them seperate.
Examples:
#1 When a Christian argues that some of the beliefs and rituals of the Qur'an came from pre-Islamic Arab paganism, the Muslim will deny it at first. But as more and more evidence is given, the Muslim will often do a flip-flop and begin arguing, "So what! Didn't you Christians get Christmas from the pagans?" The Muslim has now committed three fallacies:a. The "So what!" argument is dealing with the issue of relevance, not fact. You must stop the Muslim at that point and ask him, "Since you are now dealing with the issue of whether the pagan origins of the Qur'an are relevant, does this mean that you are now agreeing to the fact of the pagan origins of Islam?"
b. The Muslim has also committed the fallacy of equivocation. The Bible is not threatened by historical sources. It freely refers to them and even quotes them (Acts 17: 28). But the Qur'an denies that it has any earthly historical sources (Surah 25:4-6).
c. He also committed the fallacy of false analogy. The Bible and the Qur'an are two totally different books. The inspiration of the Bible does not depend upon the fate of the Qur'an because what Muslims claim for the Qur'an is not what Christians claim for the Bible.No "evidence" I have seen on this proved pagan origin to me.
8. Phonic Fallacies:
The phonetic sound of a word should not be used to twist its meaning. Agreed. For example,
a. Some Muslims try to prove that the word "Allah" is in the Greek New Testament because of the Greek word alla. But while the word is pronounced "alla," it only means "but" in Greek. It has nothing to do with the Arabic "Allah."
b. Some Muslims have claimed that the word "Allah" is in the Bible because the Biblical word "Allelujah." They then mispronounce the word as "Allah-lujah!" But "Allelujah" is not a compound Arabic word with "Allah" being the first part of the word. It is a Hebrew word with the name of God being "JAH" (or Yahweh) and the verb "alle" meaning "praise to." It means "praise to Yahweh." The Arabic word "Allah" is not in the word.
c. The same error is found in the Muslim argument that the word "Baca" (Psa. 84:6) really means "Mecca." The valley of Baca is in northern Israel.
d. Some Muslims have tried to go from "Amen" to "Ahmed" to "Muhammed!" Such nonsense is beyond belief.I don't doubt that this has been done, I've seen some pretty silly though well-meaning apologetics, but I have not felt any need or desire to play with words in the Bible in this way myself. It should be recognized, however, that Arabic and Hebrew are both Semitic languages and closely related.
9. "Red Herring" Arguments:
When a Muslim is asked to defend the Qur'an, if he turns around and attacks the reliability of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Crusades, etc., he is introducing irrelevant issues that have no logical bearing on the truthfulness of Islam. He is trying to divert attention from Islam to other issues.
Furthermore, he is assuming that if he can refute the Bible, then the Qur'an wins by default. If he can refute the Trinity, then Allah wins by default. But this is logically erroneous. You cannot prove your position by refuting someone else's position. The Bible and the Qur'an could both be wrong. Muslims must prove their own book.Also agreed. Proving the Qur'an is a seperate issue from disproving the Bible.
10. Straw Man Arguments:
When you put a false argument into the mouth of your opponent and then proceed to knock it down, you have only created a "straw man" argument. Muslims sometimes either misunderstand or deliberately misquote the arguments Christians give them.
Example:
Some Muslims have built a "straw man" argument that claims that we teach,"The Qur'an teaches that Allah is the Moon-god and that Muslims knowingly believe in and worship the Moon-god and his daughters."
They then knock down this "straw man" argument and claim victory. Of course, we never said such nonsense. What we have said is that while the Qur'an claims that Allah is God and Muslims think they are worshipping the one true God, in reality they are worshipping a false god preached by a false prophet according to a false book. So then pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians, as well as current ones, were/are also worshipping a false god because they too use(d) the name Allah? Bad news for them, I guess. Has anyone told them (the current ones, I mean)? I am curious--can you unknowingly believe in and worship the Moon-god and his daughters or anyone else??? How does that work? How can something that actively forbids Pagan worship be seen as ensuring it?
Conclusion
The average Muslim has been deceived by Muslim apologists who use such logical fallacies without regard to reason, fact or honesty. But there are many Muslims who want to be rational in their religion and thus have an open mind to rational discourse. Once they see that their arguments are based on logical fallacies, they will be open to the wonderful news that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins on the cross.
Well, thank you for showing me the errors of someone else's ways.Still, some good basic points to review and remember when engaging in such discussions, lest I get too cocky.So a genuine thank you for that, Stilla. You're patience and willingness to remain engaged is much appreciated.
~Merry
-
Merry Magdalene
Oh, and quickly, the serious and important stuff for Oompa:
There are only two specific sexual acts not allowed in Islam that I know of, and oral sex isn't one of them. One is sex during menstruation, the other is anal penetration. Generally speaking, in regard to everything else, sexual acts should be performed in ways that aren't hurtful, damaging or that would introduce impurity/dirt inside the body.
That's about it.
~Merry
If you end where you began, you got nowhere.