"And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which we reveal unto thee, then ask those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee." Sura Yunus 10:95

Mohammed like any honest person was in doubt concerning his claimed revelations. Although he (in his pride/ignorance?) never resolved those doubts unto his own perdition, we hope that others would not be so insincere as to continue to live in the errors of a creed, which contradicts the very law of God. Hence we hope to resolve those doubts for the honest and sincerely open minded Moslem who is seeking the truth. In this study we have set forth we hope to answer the commonly put forwarded objections of adherents to the Mohammedan creed. Most of the questions are taken from a serious of Debates on various issues while others are fictitious but nevertheless resemble those commonly put forward by Muslims who are seeking the truth.

Q. I think because we both have several things in common. We believe in the One Creator Who sent many Prophets and in Jesus as the Messiah as well as the Word of God who was denied by the Jews. Hence why do you see us so distant from your creed?

This is a False Assumption. No, we do not speak the same language when we say God, Jesus, and Prophets-- If you believe that, then we assume you believe in the trinity, in Jesus divinity, that Mohammed was no prophet, and that the Quran is full of errors.

The words God, and Prophet don’t have the same meaning for the both of us. This is a fault in logic; it is what we call False Analogy. Further if you believe in God’s Word, in His spirit and that Christ was born of the Spirit of God. Then you must accept the Trinity, since God, His Word, and His Spirit are not separable from Him. They are all one with His essence. When speaking of the birth of Christ the author of the Quran (Sura 4:177) speaks of a "sprit proceeding from God". Yet he fails to realize (blinded perhaps by his own prejudice?) that this would logically entail the incarnation of God as Man, since either you estrange the Word of God and His Spirit from Him, or you proclaim Christ to be the Son of God straightforwardly.If you reject it you are simply declaring that God is "without-Word" and without­ Spirit," and so you mutilate God! It is therefore evident that Muslims must confess that there is this trinity in God. For unless you confess [it], then (since you believe that the Koran is the Book of Truth) you are convicted of ascribing to God a participant.

Allah is not just another name for God! Saying there is only one God, does not automatically mean that you have singled out the right one! Would someone who worshiped Zeus alone be worship the True God? Of Course not, he would not be worship the True God any more than an infidel who worships "Allah".

Q.  If Mohammed traces his lineage to Abraham through the celebrated Koreish tribe, which sprang from Kedar.Why do you stay that we have no historical claim to being the people of God?

It wouldn't help Muhammad much being a descendant of Ishmael if his testimony is false. Same thing for Our Lord Jesus Christ; even if he was from the Davidic line, if he did not fit into the other descriptions of the messiah, he wouldn't be the messiah!

If we read the testimony of Scripture in regards to Ishmael we note that he is not the son of promise, but Isaac. We read in Genesis (the First book of the Old Testament) "he (Ishmael) shall be a wild. His hand shall be against all men". This profoundly sounds like the Arabian warring tribes from which Mohammed came and simply continued with a new name. He simply called this new warring tribe of his, Islam and falsely claimed to be under God.

Long before Moslems made such a historical claim St. Paul had well affirmed that Isaac was the son of Promise and Not Ishmael. We read in his letter to the Galatians (Chapter 4:22 - 31) that St. Paul states:

"For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman and the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from Mount Sina, engendering unto bondage, which is Agar. For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is: and is in bondage with her children. But that Jerusalem which is above is free: which is our mother. . . .Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was after the spirit: so also it is now. But what saiththe scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman (Gen 21:12). So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free."

Hence it is clear that Ishmael is not the Son of Promise and so it profits you no more to be a descendant of Ishmael than it does profit a Jew to claim he is a descendant of David. Even though Ishmael was Abraham's first son, God chose to fulfill His covenant through Isaac, his younger son. All the future prophets of God and the Messiah would appear only from the lineage of Isaac, the chosen son of Abraham, without any exception.

Q. All prophets from Adam to Muhammad were sent with the same message: man's total submission to Allah. Islam means submission. Hence if Mohammed preached this submission why do you say he was wrong?

We deny that every prophets before Muhammad preached the Islamic message. One of the major themes of these pre-Mohammedan prophets is that of Original Sin and the hope of a Savior (messiah); Muhammad does not accept neither Original Sin nor that Jesus is "the Savior that takes away the sins of the world."

Long before Muhammad claimed that the Angel Gabriel appeared to him, St. Paul had expressly warned the faithful saying " But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Galatians 1: 8).  St. Paul is here warning others in advance not to be deceived by an angel, for as he points out  "Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light Satan" (2 Cor 11:14). In order for Satan to appear as a good Angel is an easy work. He is the father of lies and will do all that he can to undermine the faith. For this reason even if we do concede that Muhammad saw an angel we must admit that it was truly the devil appearing as an angel of light. Since not only does it rest upon his own testimony, but it also contradicts the scriptures and all previous oral traditions which the people of God had ever received. We might compare him to a child who was told by his father not to open the door to strangers and yet in disobedience to his father did so, only to reap the fruits of that disobedience, namely by the propagation of a false creed and the damnation of his soul.

Q. Why do you reject the testimony of Mohammed and accept the testimony of the rest of the Prophets?

The answer is quite simply because Mohammed contradicted in almost every respect the testimony of Christ and all the prophets. While Muslims insist stoutly that they accept the prophets (Sura 2:136) they nevertheless contradict the very testimony of the prophets they claim to accept!

We shall list below some truths that were clearly taught by Christ and the Prophets that Mohammed and his false creed totally contradict. Although we shall supply one verse for each contradiction it should be noted that there are hundreds of other verses from scripture, which can be found in any standard Catholic Theology book, that confirm the same.

The Testimony of Christ and The Prophets vs. The Testimony of Mohammedan Creed

Q. You believe in the Trinity, and yet the word is not found in your bible, how do you explain this?

We are not Protestants or Moslems, and so we reject the notion of "Sola Scriptura"- Bible alone or "The Book Alone", we hold to the deposit of the faith (those truths essential for salvation as revealed by God), which have been handed over to the Prophets and Apostle and transmitted both orally (by preaching) and in a written form (the Sacred Scriptures). In fact unlike Islam, the prophets such as Abraham followed what is classified as a Patristic religion, which the Catholic Church holds to today. We look to what those Church Father who went before us had laid down in their writings and in their practices. Hence we look to both the Scriptures and Tradition, holding to that which was taught always, everywhere and by all.

The word trinity is not explicit in scripture but implicit. Since Christ claimed to be God, and he gives testimony of the Holy Ghost as having divine attributes, it hence becomes clear that we have three divine persons and one almighty God. The fact that word is not in scripture is another proof of the Catholic religion, since we have not tampered with the scriptures to suit the times, but rather understand the scriptures in the manner that Christ had intended them to be understood, namely according to definitive understanding as expounded by the Church which He founded as an infallible guide to salvation (Matt 16:18, Matt 18:18, 1Tim 3:15).

What we mean by the word Trinity is precisely that Christ is God and that he clearly claimed to be and so He is indeed the third person of the Blessed Trinity.

It is evident that Christ is God from the fact that He asserts of Himself that which in the Old Testament is said of God alone and thereby makes Himself equal to God.  Like God in the Old Testament Christ sends out prophets, seers and doctors of the Law (Matt 23:34, Luke 11:49) and gives to the promise of His assistance (Luke 21:15/Exodus 4:15). Like God in the Old Testament He is Lord of the law and in His own perfection of power he completes and changes certain precepts of the Old Testament Law (Matt 5:21) He also claims to be Lord of the Sabbath (Matt 12:8, Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5). Like God of the Old Testament he makes a covenant with man (Matt 26:18, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20).

That Christ claimed to be God is also evident from the fact that He imposes obligations on His disciples, which none but God can impose on men, such as belief in His Person and of a supreme degree of love directed to Himself personally. He wishes to be Himself the content and object of faith (Luke 9:26).

For a more lengthy exposition of the Trinity from a biblical perspective see our article on: The Trinity

Q. Doesn't the Koran reject the Christian notion of the Trinity and if so on what basis should we accept this teaching?

On the basis of the Koran itself since the Koran does not reject the Christian notion of the Trinity. The problem is that the Koran doesn't contain the term "trinity" rather the literal Arabic text states: "They are blasphemers who say that Allah is the third of three" - that is of three deities/gods - which no Christian believes in. What the Koran condemns is polytheism (the belief in more than one God), which is also condemned by Christianity.

In fact nowhere in the Quran does one find the orthodox Christian position of the Trinity attacked or defined. Instead, the Quran attacks the belief that God is the third of three and therefore those who believe such must stop saying that God is three. Furthermore, the Quran defines Christian teaching on the Trinity as the belief in God, Mary and Jesus as three gods and accuses Christians of believing in Jesus and Mary as two separate gods apart from the true God. Since no Christians hold or have ever held this the pretension to reject the trinity on the basis on the Koran is not really accurate.

Secondly, the fact is that the Quran itself teaches that Allah is tri-personal in some sense since it views God's Word and His Spirit as entities that are both distinct from Allah and yet at the same time eternal and inseparable from him. For instance, God's Spirit is personal as well as the instrument through which God grants life to man and strengthens believers:

Man was given life by God's Spirit, implying that the Spirit is the source of life.

God's Spirit assumes the form of a man and is described with masculine pronouns. This indicates that the Spirit is not just some force, but is a divine personality.

Believers are strengthened by a spirit from Himself, i.e. a spirit from God. In order for the Spirit to be able to strengthen believers everywhere implies that the Spirit is omnipresent. Yet, only God is omnipresent which essentially means that the Spirit is God. This is precisely the conclusion one Muslim scholar comes to in his footnote. Yusuf Ali notes:

Hence, the Spirit is of the divine essence, is incomprehensible, omnipresent, personal, and the source of Life, all qualities that are true of God.

This also refutes the Muslim claim that the Spirit of God is the angel Gabriel since Gabriel is neither omnipresent nor divine. In fact, both the Quran and hadiths clearly demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is not Gabriel:

According to Sahi Bukhari this verse came down when the Jews questioned Muhammad on the Spirit's identity:

Hence, Muhammad did not even know the identity of God's Spirit. Two hadiths from Sahi Muslim affirm that the Spirit is not Gabriel:

This tradition makes a distinction between Angels, of which Gabriel is one, and the Spirit. This indicates that Gabriel is not the Holy Spirit.

The Quran also describes the Word of God as being personal and as having a dual aspect to it.

John is to bear witness to a Word from God, namely Jesus the Christ. Here, Jesus is the one who is the Word from God. The fact that he is a Word from God implies preexistence, that Jesus preexisted as God's Word. This point is brought out more clearly in the two following passages:

According to this passage God's Word is not a mere abstraction but rather a person. This is due to the fact that the Word of God is given a personal name, Jesus. This implies that the Muslim argument that Jesus is only a by-product of God's creative command cannot be sustained. Hence, according to this one passage the Word of God is a person who shall be known as Jesus, implying that Christ is the personal Word of God come down from heaven.

Jesus is both the Word of God, not just a word from him, given to Mary and a spirit that proceeds from God himself. We discover that in one sense the Quran denies the divinity of Jesus and yet in other places it affirms that he is the divine preexistent Word and Spirit from God.

Muslims try to evade the fact that Jesus is the very Word of God by indicating that he is called God's Word solely because he was created directly by God's command, kun fayakun- "Be and it is." Firstly, the problem with this is that Jesus is not simply a by-product of God's command, but is the very Word of God to man. This is based primarily on the fact that the Quran clearly teaches that the Word of God is personal and became man in the person of Jesus.

Secondly, if it were true that Jesus is God's word solely because he was created by the command of God then we would expect to find Adam called the Word of God since he was also created by God's command according to the Quran (cf. S. 3:59). Yet, neither Adam nor anyone else is ever called the Word of God.

This implies that the Quran acknowledges that the eternal Word of God became flesh, two aspects (eternal - according to his Divinity and finite - according to His human nature) united in one Person.

In fact, not only is Christ eternal and finite at the same time, the Quran itself is believed by Muslims to be the eternal speech of God in book form. This would imply that the Quran also has a dual aspect, one eternal and one finite. Yusuf K. Ibish, in an article entitled "The Muslim Lives by the Quran," writes:

Therefore in light of the preceding factors, Muslims have no case against the Trinity or the Incarnation since they themselves must affirm that Allah is somehow triune as well as affirming that the Quran, like Christ, is both eternal and finite at the same time.

Hence, if Christians are blasphemers for believing that God is a triune Being or for believing that Jesus is both eternal and finite at the same time, then Muslims themselves are unbelievers. Muslims either believe that there are three distinct eternal beings, implying that there are three Gods or must admit that God is a multi-personal Being.

Q. We know well, that by the Trinity you mean that there are three divine person in the One God, however prior to the Bible what evidence do you have to support the teaching that God is a Trinity?

While we don't claim that there is any explicit evidence in the works of the prophets prior to Christ of the Trinity, there is nevertheless innumerable accounts in the Old Testament that allude clearly to the existence of the plurality of persons in God. For example God often speaks in the plural form of Himself: (Genesis 1:26) "Let us make man to our image and likeness" (Cf Gen 3:22; 11:7).

God asks through the prophet Isaias how he who bestowed on others the power of begetting was able to be sterile as He declares, "Shall not I that make others to bring forth children, myself bring forth, saith the Lord? Shall I that give generation to others, be barren, saith the Lord thy God? (Isaias 6:9).

Secondly the Angel of the lord in his manifestations is called Jahweh, El and Elohim, and reveals Himself as Elohim and Jahweh. By this it is indicated that there are two persons, who are God: One who sends, and one who is sent (Cf. Gen 16:7, Exodus 3:2-14).

Thirdly the Messianic prophecies postulate a distinction of persons in God in so far as they distinguish God and the Son of God Psalm 2:7 "The Lord hath said to me: thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee" and in Isaias (9:6) speaking of the Messiah to come says "his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counselor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the prince of Peace" and again he later states  (35::4) "God himself will come and save you" (Cf. also Ps 109:1;44:7, Isaias 7:14).

Fourthly The Sapiential Books represent the Divine Wisdom as an Hypostasis side by side with God. It has proceeded from God (according to Proverbs 8:24, by birth) from all eternity, and co-operates in the creation of the world (Cf. Prov 8:22-31, Wisdm 7:22-8;8:3).

Fifthly the Old Testament frequently speaks of the "Spirit of God" or of the "Holy Ghost" (Gen 1:2, Ps 32:6, Is 11:2, Wis 1:5) which again is another clear allusion to the plurality of persons in God.

Hence In the light of the New Testament revelation (the Bible) we may well see (John 1:1, Hebrews 1:3) in the wisdom of the Old Testament a pointer to the Divine Personality of the word, which clearly sets forth the Catholic teaching of the Trinity.

Q. Since for more than fourteen hundred years has passed and not a single word of the Qur'an has been changed, why should we not regard the Quran as the standard by which to judge other religious texts?

No real proof has ever been presented that the Quran has not bee corrupted. Muslim scholars claim that the original manuscript of the Quran is still in existence. But we ask. "Where is it?" The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam comments: "One thing is certain and is openly recognized by tradition, namely, that there was not in existence any collection of revelations in a final form, because, as long as he (Muhammad) was alive, new revelations were being added to the earlier ones."

It is clear therefore, that the bones, stones, palm leaves, tree bark, etc.. , which contained some of the material which Muhammad spoke after his (diabolic?) seizures were gathered together after his death. It is also a fact that none of these things are in existence today. They have all long since been lost or perished.

The Quran is filled with contradiction (see our article on this) which Muslim scholars at are loss to explain. In fact it is impossible to establish the original text of the Qur'an and so Muslims scholars will never be able to establish a definitive version.

There is, in fact, a virtually unanimous opinion among the early historians that the Qur'an, as it stands, is incomplete. Abdullah ibn Umar, in the earliest days of Islam, was quite emphatic about this:

It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from IbnUmar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an,p.524).

There is also evidences of whole surahs said to be missing from the Qur'an as it is today. Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, one of the early authorities on the Qur'an text and a companion of Muhammad, is reported to have said to the reciters of Basra:

"We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust". ( Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.501).

Again "We used to recite a surah similar to one of the Musabbihaat, and I no longer remember it, but this much I have indeed preserved: 'O you who truly believe, why do you preach that which you do not practise?' (and) 'that is inscribed on your necks as a witness and you will be examined about it on the Day of Resurrection'." (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.526).

Further if the Torah and Injeel (the Bible) came from Allah, as the Quran claims to be, and as "Allah" says in surah 15:9" No doubt we have sent down the qur'an and surely we will guard it (from corruption)"- why should you trust this when Allah couldn't do it for the Torah and Gospel? Perhaps he is lying again-- for the third time. Philosophically, if God is truth and when God speaks he cannot lie, then here Allah just contradicted himself-- and of course Allah would know he messed up, since he is "all-knowing." Also, was the torah and injeel adulterated pre-Mohammed or post-Mohammed? Because if it was corrupted in pre-Mohammedan times, how would the Christians and Jews-- who were not in speaking terms as the Quran indicated-- agree together to change the books? Also that would ignore the fact that the multitudes of early copies of the Bible such as the Codex Vaticanus are in agreement with the multitudes of later copies of the bible. And if it happened in post-Mohammeden times, why would Allah tell Mohammed to refer to them and that Mohammed should tell the Jews and Christians to look at their Books to prove it to themselves that Mohammed was indeed who he said he was, since as you say, these books have been corrupted? Then again, if you say right away the Bible is corrupted, you pull the rug under your feet since the Quran claims it can prove itself from the Bible!

Q. How do you answerer problem of Scribal errors in your bible?

As we have pointed out both to our Islamic and Protestant opponents such a thing is not an issue for Catholics since even if we readily grant that the Scriptures in the present state have suffered some minor alterations which can be classified as (1) changes in punctuation, (2) spelling errors, (3) changes to upgrade the language in order to make it more legible to modern-day readers, and various other minor alterations etc. It makes little to no difference since we don't believe in the "Book alone" or "Bible alone" like the Moslems and Protestants. We have an infallible guide, which is the Church Christ founded and declared would endure all ages (Matt 28) and it is this Church we look to in matters of Faith and morals. Such a system as given to us by Christ not only refutes your argument but is clearly the only system that salvation history has ever know. Even before Christ the prophets like Abraham followed what is classified as a Patristic religion, that is they interpreted the sacred text they had according to the tradition they had received from those who came before them, seeing in their practice of life and oral teachings an exemplar by which to understand the Sacred text they had.

Something that is often over looked with this question is that the Quran itself is riddled with contradiction! We will site just a few (but for a lengthy exposition see our article "The Contradictions in the Quran"):

1. Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven [2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30].

2.Surah 29:27 states that all prophets came Abraham's seed. But 16:36 claims that Allah raised messengers from among every people.

3. Did Jesus Die already? Surah 3:144 states that all messengers died before Muhammad. But 4:158 claims that Jesus was raised to God (alive?).

4. Could Allah have a son? Sura 39:4 affirms and Sura 6:101 denies this possibility.

5. Wine: Good or bad? Strong drink and ... are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. [5:90, also 2:219]. Yet on the other hand in Paradise are rivers of wine [47:15, also 83:22,25]. How does Satan's handiwork get into Paradise?

6.The Koran states in one section (Chapter 6) that that Abraham was neither an unbeliever nor an idolater but else where it explicitly states that he was an idolater (Surah 19:41-50. Surah 6:74).

Q. But didn't Jesus prophesy that people would worship him uselessly and believe in doctrines made by men: "But in vain they do worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:9).

The text has been taken out of context for if we read Matthew 15:9 IN CONTEXT we clearly see that Christ was affirming that he did require to be worship, contrary to what you have falsely assumed. We shall quote the whole text for your benefit.

Mt:15:1"Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death. But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee. And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition.  Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. And having called together the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear ye and understand. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized? And having dismissed the multitude, he went up into a boat, and came into the coasts of Magedan. (Douay-Rheims Bible).

Hence your interpretation is absurd. Christ himself demanded that men must worship and acknowledge him in order to be saved:

"No one comes to the Father but through me" John. 14:6

"If I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself" John 12:32

"I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live" - John 11:25

"Amen, amen I say unto you that he who heareth my word and believeth him that sent me hath life everlasting" - John 5:24

"If anyone loves Father or Mother more than me, is not worthy of me" Matt 10:37

Q. The Quran denies that Christ was ever even crucified (Quran 4,156), what proof could you give to the contrary?

This Quranic error on this point is too blatant, as it (the Quran) contradicts not only the testimony of the prophets who (as we have show above) foretold that the Messiah would be put to death, but it also contradicts all non Christian historical accounts which give testimony to this fact. It seems that Mohammed denied the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ because he intended to deprive the Jews of the victory they claimed was theirs in the death of Christ. However the Quran asserts that God put somebody who looked like Him on the cross in the place of Jesus. However God is not in the business of fraud, for if he had wanted to deliver Jesus from the cross, He could have done it miraculously without having to deceive and put Jesus' likeness on someone else.

What is more, the Quran is self-contradicting on this point, as in many other point (see our article on the contradiction in the Quran), for while it claims that the Jews did not really kill Jesus it also affirms very distinctly the reality of Jesus' death in the sura of the family of Imran 3:47/54 - 48/55 as it states:

When God said: "Oh Jesus, I shall cause you to die, and then shall raise you up to me".

A clear affirmation of the death and resurrection of Christ!

Let us look however at a few of the Non Christian Testimonies that confirm the historical death of Christ (the issue of the resurrection we deal with in another question).

In the year 93-94 AD we have the testimony of the well known Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities (18.3.3. sub sub sections 63-64) who explicitly states:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah [some believe this part is a later Christian interpolation]. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

Another Jewish source that confirms the same is the Jewish Talmud (complete about 220 AD), which although it speaks of Christ in offensive terms, nevertheless remains as a witness to the fact of his death of the cross under Pontius Pilate.

Amongst the Pagan Sources both St. Justin Martyr (Apol. I, 35,48) and Tertullian (Apol. V, 21) affirm in their works that in the Roman archives there existed two official reports from Pontius Pilate, telling of Christ's condemnation and crucifixion. Nevertheless we have the existing testimony of a number of great Roman historians.

Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived under the Roman Emperor Trajan, writing in his Annales which he published between the year 115 and 117 AD states that "Chrestus (that Christ), the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius" (Annal, XV, 44).

We should not omit the important fact the reality of Christ's crucifixion was never denied by any Pre-Mohammed Christian testimony (of which we could give volumes of evidence).

Q. Why do you persists in rejecting the testimony of Mohammed?

Mohammed bases the authority of his testimony on himself. Who witnessed God's giving of the Quran to Mohammed?" What prophet foretold that such a prophet would come? Why did God not provide proofs, as in the case of Moses and Jesus, so that men could be sure about your prophet?"

Mohammed claimed to give you the Quran on his own authority and yet he tells you not to do anything without witnesses (Sura 2:282), Why did you not demand of him witnesses about this giving of the Quran to him by Allah, and prophecies in support of it?

No transaction of whatever is legal for you is to be done without witnesses, yet you have accepted without a witness a book you call the Quran without any witnesses!

Christ and all the other prophets appealed to a higher authority than themselves. Christ appeals to the Testimony of the Prophets, which his life was a fulfillment of, along with the astounding evidence of His miracles. Mohammed neither had any miracles nor did he fulfill any of the prophecy of the Old Testament accept maybe those which were referring to false Prophets. Christ is everything, which Muhammad is not. Muhammad is without authority, his coming was not foretold, he worked no miracles, he revealed no mysteries. Any man could do what Muhammad has done; no man could do what Jesus has done.

What is more, the testimony of the Koran itself shows Mohammed to be a revengeful, ambitious and violent man (Koran, Chapters 8,9, 36, 33 and 47) devoid of any real attribute that would distinguish a person as being a true man of God. This is confirmed by the fact that the Islamic notion of heaven as portrayed by Mohammed in the Koran is one that only a man sunken in the sins of lust could have imagined. All the Joys of heaven consist in earthly pleasures of the flesh. This debases man to a mere animal. Yet, if a number of these pleasures are considered, even by Moslem standards as sinful here on earth, how could they cease to be sinful in heaven?

Here are just a few of the Prophesies of the Old Testament Prophets that Christ fulfilled. Although there are listed, just a few, a far greater number can be found in any standard Catholic Theology textbook:

Q. Could you please explain why we need Christ's redemption to be saved, for could God not simply impute to us Salvation?

No. This is not only because the holiness of God and his justice demand the punishment of sin, but also because as even the Qurán admits Man has offended God by his sins in which case man remains the enemy of God until this offense is rectified. Further something that is overlooked in this regards is that when Man sins he commits and infinite offense, since the offense is not measured by the act committed but rather by the dignity of the person offended. For example we know that there is a great penalty in committing a crime against a King or Emperor than there is in committing the same crime against a common citizen. The same thing we have with God. If we acknowledge that God is almighty as the Quran does, then we can understand that in offending God we have committed an offense against and Almighty God who is infinite.

Hence this means that we have committed an infinite offense. How can we who are finite going to be able to pay back an infinite price, which is owing for this infinite offense? We need one who is infinite to pay it back on our behalf. Now this person would also have to be Man since it was man who committed that offense against God. For this reason we needed Christ to pay the price for our sins, for He alone was infinite (God) and Man and at the same time a Man without sin (John 8:46), for if he were a sinner he could have no more paid the price for our sins than any other creature. Hence it is only logical that we need the Son of God to pay for us the price of our redemption. Without which we would still be in our sins.

Without Christ we would have no way of paying back the price of an infinite offense. Hence Christ redemption is essential to our salvation.

Q. How then did the People of God obtain salvation before Christ?

They didn't obtain salvation in the sense of going directly to heaven since they awaited their deliverance from what is referred in Scripture as Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22) as no one was able to enter into the king of Heaven until the death and resurrection of Christ for by the sin of Adam the gates of heaven had been closed.

Nevertheless to answer more aptly your question those faithful who lived prior to Christ coming were saved in the same manner as we are today, namely by hoping in the coming of the Messiah, which God promised to send at the very moment that Adam had sinned (Gen 3:15). In fact St. Paul, who was a scholar of the law at the time of Christ, points out all things of the Old Law were mere shadows of what was to come, as they symbolized the New Law or prefigured it in many ways. For example circumcision is what prefigured baptism. Another is the brazen serpent, which God commanded Moses to make and lift up (Numbers 21:8) so that those who had been bitten by serpents would look upon and be healed prefigured the lifting up of Christ on the cross, so that those who looked upon him with eyes of faith would be healed from the bit of sin.

Hence the only difference between those believers who lived before Christ and those of today is that we hope in the reality of Christ redemption, they who were prior to Christ hoped in His coming and redemption as God had promised them, and in this way they were brought to salvation. Hence it still remains that without Christ there is no salvation.

Q. Since  the pilgrimage (hajj - which consists of Muslims circumambulating around the sacred stone (i.e., the Ka'bah) in Mecca, had been performed by many prophets, even by Israelite prophet, because it was built by Abraham, why then do Christians not perform this pilgrimage?

Firstly this is based on false assumption that Abraham built the Kabah , contrary to what the Quran states he built no such thing and no historical proof can be given for this. However we do know that historically the Ka'aba was first used to store the idols of traveling merchants, it had some 360 pagan gods of which "Allah" was one, he was regarded as a most high god amongst the various gods adored in the Kabah. Incorporated into the walls of this Ka’aba (Khabar) is the well known black stone, which is a relic of the idolatry of pre-Islamic Arabs. The pre-Islamic Arabs used to be idolaters and worshiped the moring star and Aphrodite (often referd to as “the moon god” – hence the Islamic symbol of the crescent moon), whom in their own lanuage they called Khabar, which, means great (for in Arabic “Kabirun” means “great; either in sixe or dignity). Herodotus mentions the Arabian cult of “the Heavenly  Aphrodite” but says that the Arabs called her “Alilat” [from which the name “Allah” is taken – Herodotus 1.131 cf. Also St. John of Damascus (8^th Century)  PG 94. 1585 – 1598 On Heresies]. Thus the only people who made pilgrimage to this place were the pagan idolaters. Muslims are simply following in their example and not that of any true prophet.

Q. Why do the Christians reject the command not to eat pork and be circumcised and other things that we Muslims practice?

This same argument is put forward by today's Jews who observe a number of the same things that the Muslims do and yet no Muslim would deny they have not the true religion, for mere external observance do not make one a true follower of God. We mention this since if we look this issue properly we will see firstly that God did not give this command until much further on in salvation history.

Before Abraham circumcision was not known, and yet Adam and his decedents until Abraham were still truly worshipers of God. Circumcision as we previously mention was only to prefigure the Christian baptism, which incorporates one into the Church, the Ark of Salvation. Hence we have no need of it. We have the reality of what it only prefigure.

As to the fact that Christians do not forbid anyone from eating various foods as the Muslims do (i.e. Pork), Christ who is eternal wisdom itself answering it this way:  "And he (Jesus) saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? Understand you not that every thing from without entering into a man cannot defile him: Because it entereth not into his heart but goeth into his belly and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats? But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man."-Mark 7:18

Not only are these words clearly in conformity with sound reason, but also Christ did not hesitate to set them forth in harsh tone for the sake of the Pharisees who were present. If such foods were intrinsically evil (devoid of any possible good whatsoever) it would not be possible to eat them under any circumstance since we can never perform and intrinsically evil act even to achieve a good end. Yet even Muslims would admit that one might be able to eat pork if that were the only thing available.

The Quran itself states on this issue that: "All food was lawful To the Children of Israel, Except what Israel Made unlawful for itself, Before the Law (of Moses) Was revealed." - Sura 3 verses 93

To prove that both the Jews and the Muslims have misunderstood the precept given on this point can be shown from the fact that they have declared Pork to be "Evil". Yet if such a thing be "Evil" in and of itself, then they would be attributing the works of "evil" to God who created all things good (Gen 1:31), such a notion or understand is evidently blasphemous!

For a lengthy exposition of this question one might consider reading St. Justin Martyr's "dialogue with Trypho".

Q. What proof can you give that Christ was really raised from the dead?

In addition to information we have given above all one can hope to set forth in defense of this is to show that such testimonies as we have a morally certain as we don't claim to be able reproduce this same miracle for you! In fact we cannot give metaphysical certitude for any historical event all that one can present is a moral certitude. For example we say that that we know that George III became King of England in 1760 but there is no person today alive who was living then to verify it. It is a historical fact but fact dependent on the credibility of historical witnesses.

Applying the same principle to the resurrection of Christ we may say that He by His own divine authority rose from the dead on the third after his death on the cross. All the Apostles and Evangelists, all the early Christians attest to this fact. All of Christians of antiquity were unanimous on this point. Now either the apostles were deceived and if so by who? Or they were deceivers, and if so how?

The Scriptures tell us that it was Christ appearance to His apostle that caused them to believe in His resurrection as prior to this they all believed him to be dead. In fact even after His resurrection the Apostle Thomas protested openly that he refused to believe unless he saw the risen Christ himself, and so Christ did appear to him in the flesh affirming to him "Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed" (John 20:29). It is evident from the fact that the apostles gave their lives in testimony of this fact that they were not hoping to deceive others. In fact from amongst all the eyewitness of Christ resurrection (the scriptures tell us there were a great number who later saw the risen Christ - 1 Cor 15:6) non-ever denied it when they were subjected to do so under pain of death. If their testimony was false we could be sure that at least one would have succumbed to the various torments used to torture those who followed the Christian faith during the early persecution of the Christians by the Roman authorities.

The very fact that the dating system of entire world is based on the birth of Christ which has split human history in two, shows us that Christ testimony and claims were not that of a mere man. He was indeed God. The impact he had on the world, no other figure has had.

Its worth mentioning on this same point that Catholic Church has a well documented history of Miracles and other unexplainable occurrences that are beyond doubt true and authentic since a great number of them have even been subjected to scientific examination and have showed themselves to be beyond the explanation or powers of nature. These have served to confirm its divine origin and its divine mandate to teach all nations (Mark 16:15), this however is something lacking to Islam. It has no proof of Miracles. Mohammed never worked any. He came without any divine confirmation expecting people to believe his testimony. His proof was simply the power of his word (sword?) that is something that is common amongst all deceivers.  In fact The Catholic Church, in contrast with Islam teaches her children a law opposed to the corrupt inclinations of human nature, she is a living contradict to the carnal minded religions such as Islam. Yet She continues to grow even in adversity.

For a lengthy exposition on the question of Christ resurrection see our article on: The Resurrection

Q. Why is the Bible so full of fantastic stories of the Miracles Christ worked, are these not exaggerations?

No! Anyone who reads the Gospels without prejudice sees in every page of them that miracles were one of the most effective means employed by Christ to prove to His hearers that He was their Messiah performing His divine works and giving the "signs" that Isaias had foretold, - "If I do not the works of My Father, believe me Not. But if I do them and ye will not believe me, believe the works themselves that ye may and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" - John 10:26 (See also Matt 11, John 25:24). Now if Christ really performed those works (miracles) of healing, if He did actually raise the daughter of Jairus, and Lasarus, and the son of the widow of Naim from the dead, then he truly was who he claimed to be, the Son of God. But if He did not raise them from the dead, then since He claimed to do these deeds as proofs of His divinity, He was in truth the blasphemous impostor that the chief priests said He was. Anyone who, though really only human, induces men to worship him as God is both a conscienceless liar and a promoter of idolatry.

In considering the credibility of Christ’s miracles, we should also not forget that they were often wrought in the presence of hostile and skeptical observers. The whole ninth chapter of St. John’s Gospel is an illustration of this fact.

Miracles cannot be regarded as something accidental that is they cannot be regarded as something that can be omitted without doing essential damage to revelation. They not only authenticate the message, but also are part of that message.

Unlike Christ

Mohammed never substantiated any of his claims with a miracle as a sign of divine approval for his doctrine. On the contrary he openly admitted that he was not able to work any miracles (Koran, Chapters 13 & 17).

Unlike Christ, Mohammed never substantiated any of his claims with a miracle as a sign of divine approval for his doctrine. On the contrary, he openly admitted that he was not able to work any miracles (Koran, Chapters 13 & 17).

Note: For a far greater exposition and refutation of Mohammed's teaching and works (i.e. The Koran) is found in our article "A Scrutiny of the Koran" by Fr. Nicholas of Cusa.