Transformation of the Roman Catholic Teaching on Islam

A few years ago, I wrote a post examining the Roman Catholic catechism's teaching on Muslims in relationship to God's plan of salvation and whether or not Muslims worship the true God. In my studies, I've come across some quotes and teachings from Rome that have led me to revisit this topic - namely, a clear sign that Rome's teaching regarding Muslims and Islam has dramatically changed over time.

First, a quote from the Second Vatican Council:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God… [Second Vatican Council; Nostra Aetate; 3; source] 

Next, from the Catechism itself (cited in my previous post):

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. [Roman Catholic Catechism; 841] 

And finally, from a pope:

Then we see another circle around us. This too is vast in extent, yet not so far away from us. It comprises first of all those men who worship the one supreme God, whom we also worship...we have those worshipers who adhere to other monotheistic systems of religion, especially the Moslem religion. We do well to admire these people for all that is good and true in their worship of God. [Pope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam; 107; source]

The Roman Church, however, did not always have such kind words to say regarding the religion of Islam. A Roman Catholic ecumenical council, held during the middle ages, wrote these words regarding the Holy Land:

Alas! the very land in which the Lord deigned to work our salvation and which, in order to redeem humanity by payment of his death, he has consecrated by his own blood, has been boldly attacked and occupied over a long period by the impious enemies of the Christian name, the blasphemous and faithless Saracens. [Second Council of Lyons; First Constitution; source]

Whereas the Roman Catholic church, its leaders, and its faithful today claim that Muslims worship the same true God, the Roman Catholic church of the middle ages called Muslims "impious enemies of the Christian name," saying they were "blasphemous and faithless Saracens" (the medieval name for Arabic Muslims). They would not have agreed with the Roman Catholic Catechism that "together with us [Muslims] adore the one, merciful God."

The Roman Church likewise taught a number of things throughout history regarding interaction with Muslims...much of it not very friendly. For example, Christians were commanded not to work for them, or live with them - in fact, you could be excommunicated for doing so:

Jews and Saracens are not to be allowed to have Christian servants in their houses, either under pretence of nourishing their children or for service or any other reason. Let those be excommunicated who presume to live with them. [Third Lateran Council; Canon 26; source] 

Likewise, Christian leaders were commanded to forbid the worship of Muslims:

It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place, in the hearing of both Christians and Saracens and there make public declarations in his honour. There is a place, moreover, where once was buried a certain Saracen whom other Saracens venerate as a saint. A great number of Saracens flock there quite openly from far and near. This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated any further without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council's approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on catholic princes, one and all, who hold sovereignty over the said Saracens and in whose territory these practices occur, and we lay on them a pressing obligation under the divine judgment that, as true Catholics and zealous for the Christian faith, they give consideration to the disgrace heaped on both them and other Christians. They are to remove this offence altogether from their territories and take care that their subjects remove it, so that they may thereby attain the reward of eternal happiness. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet. They shall also forbid anyone in their dominions to attempt in future the said pilgrimage or in any way give countenance to it. Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness. [Council of Vienne; Decree 25; source]

In addition to clear commands to "Catholic princes" to forbid the worship of Islam (indeed, to expel it from their lands in an "obligation under the divine judgment"), we likewise see strong language against Islam. Muhammad is called an "infidel," and the worship presented by Muslims is called an "offence," with toleration of their worship and pilgrimages being displeasing to "divine majesty." Christian leaders permitting Muslims to worship freely and without hindrance is said to not only be an "insult to the holy name," but "a disgrace to the Christian faith." No doubt the clergy who penned the words at Vienne would be shocked to hear the words of Pope Paul VI that Muslims and Catholics together "worship the one supreme God," as well as his words that Catholics "do well to admire these people for all that is good and true in their worship of God."

No doubt some will desire to pull a tu quoque and argue that non-Roman Catholics (even some of the first Protestants) have likewise said hostile words regarding Muslims and other non-Christians. The point, however, is that Roman Catholics deny the statement from Martin Luther that popes and councils contradict one another...yet here, they plainly do. Keep in mind these are not general councils, but rather they are considered ecumenical to Rome (and hence binding), and we have quoted a legitimate pope (not an "anti-pope"). Yet reviewing the teachings in one and then the other, it almost seems as if these are two separate churches.

Some will also probably argue that these are merely referring to specific events in history, and hence should be seen in that context. While it is true some of these canons and decrees were written during the Crusades (or were during a time when another crusade was trying to be started up), they clearly use general language in regards to Muslims, their worship, and Christian interaction with them. Some (such as the quote from the Third Lateran Council) likewise includes the Jews alongside the Muslims. Again, there is a clear contradiction not only in how Christians are told to interact with Muslims, but (more importantly) how the religion of Islam is seen by the Roman Church. On the one hand, Muslims are called faithless and blasphemous; on the other hand, Muslims are said to worship the same God as Christians do. On the one hand, Catholics are commanded not to work for Muslims, live with Muslims, or let Muslims worship; on the other hand, Catholics are told "to work sincerely [with Muslims] for mutual understanding...social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom" (Nostra Aetate).

While I don't deny Christians should treat Muslims with grace, we have to use this to examine the claim by Roman Catholics that their church has been preserved by the Holy Spirit from error, and has always been consistent in their teaching. What we see here, however, is a clear development and change in Rome's understanding of how to respond to Muslims and the false religion that is Islam, as well as whether or not to even consider them a completely false religion. I've spoken to Roman Catholic laymen online who become appalled if you even suggest Muslims worship a false God, and do so by providing the quotes given at the start of this post. One can only imagine what they would think if the quotes from the Church of Rome in centuries past would be presented to them. They would either have to rationalize how the two groups work together (which would require some serious mental compartmentalization), or they would have to borrow the Muslim teaching of abrogation to forsake the more embarrassing decrees and canons (which would contradict the notion that popes and ecumenical councils can teach error).

The unfortunate truth is that the Roman Catholic church is like any other church: it is subject to change and modify its beliefs and expressions according to the winds of time, unless some kind of anchor is put in place. Roman Catholics attempt to put their faith in the magisterium, but the magisterium is made up of men, like you and I, and men can prove fickle. This is how you can get a Roman bishop hundreds of years ago calling Muslims "impious enemies of the Christian name," while a Roman bishop hundreds of years later says of Muslims "together with us they adore the one, merciful God." It is not an anchor which can prevent one from teaching error, just as any Roman Catholic is erring who thinks Muslims, in any way, shape, or fashion, are worshiping the true God.

The question therefore is, if your church, which you claim has not changed or cannot change, does indeed change and transform its beliefs, is it being led by the Holy Spirit, or is it being led by men and the rationality of men? No church is perfect, of course - only Christ is perfect. However, if you find yourself attempting to compartmentalize, you must realize that you are being dishonest. If your church forces you into dishonesty, is it truly led by God? These are things for Christian faithful to meditate on.

"When a Jihadist Calls"

Christian apologist David Wood goes through some 40+ messages on his phone...

More Arguments Muslims Should Not Use

This is a continuation of my Top Five Arguments Muslims Need to Stop Using Against Christians (link). It is, like that post, written for the benefit (and not insult) of Muslim readers, and with the hopes of improving dialogue between the two religious groups.

6. You can't trust the Bible because of all the translations.

For some odd reason this is a popular argument, used by apologists such as Yusuf Estes and even lay Muslims defending the authenticity of the Quran. Basically, the argument is that while there are dozens of translations of the Bible, there is only one Arabic Quran, and because of the countless translations you can't trust what the Bible says, as it must have been tarnished over time.

I say "odd" not out of intent to insult, but because...well...it's just so fallacious. Translations have nothing to do with the original language of a document, and generally we have the original document to go back to in order to know what it originally said. In fact, there are many translations of the Quran itself, and therefore by the Muslim's own logic the Quran itself cannot be trusted.

7. Every prophet has a sign related to the people: Moses did signs against Pharaoh's sorcery; Jesus did healing miracles during a time of great medicine; so of course, Mohammad gave a well written book during a time of great literacy.

This is another popular argument, and one that I've seen float around the internet in various Muslim circles. In the past few months I've seen it used maybe around three times.

The main fallacy here is that it is based off a presupposition: the prophets were always giving signs correlating to the golden ages of their times. Quite simply put, that's nowhere to be found in scripture. This argumentation did not come about until Islamic apologists began to seriously deal with the contradictions between their religion and the revelations given before it, and had to deal with them. In an attempt to show how the only great "miracle" of Mohammad's prophethood (the Quran) could still be valid with what came before, this argument had to be invented.

Stating that Moses was given signs of wonder to counteract the sorcery of Pharaoh's magicians is simply false. It is not found in God's words to Moses concerning the first few miracles:

Then Moses said, "What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say? For they may say, 'The LORD has not appeared to you.'" The LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?" And he said, "A staff."

Then He said, "Throw it on the ground." So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it. But the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand and grasp it by its tail"--so he stretched out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand--"that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you."

The LORD furthermore said to him, "Now put your hand into your bosom." So he put his hand into his bosom, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous like snow. Then He said, "Put your hand into your bosom again." So he put his hand into his bosom again, and when he took it out of his bosom, behold, it was restored like the rest of his flesh.

"If they will not believe you or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign. But if they will not believe even these two signs or heed what you say, then you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water which you take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground." [Exodus 4:1-9]

The signs were given not to confront Pharaoh's sorcerers, but to prove to the people who Moses was sent by. This is seen later on in the same chapter:

Then Moses and Aaron went and assembled all the elders of the sons of Israel; and Aaron spoke all the words which the LORD had spoken to Moses He then performed the signs in the sight of the people. So the people believed; and when they heard that the LORD was concerned about the sons of Israel and that He had seen their affliction, then they bowed low and worshiped. [Exodus 4:29-31]

Now, the argument that Jesus did healing miracles because He lived in a time of great medicine is likewise fallacious, and for two reasons:

1) If Christ was supposed to have come at a time of great medical advancements, He came at the wrong time and in the wrong place. Medical studies had advanced thanks to Hippocrates at the turn of the fourth century BC (some 400 years before Christ's birth), but afterward stalled, and the study would not advance again until the middle to late second century (more than 100 years after Christ's ministry) with the Roman physician Galen. Likewise, it was mostly appreciated among the Greeks and Gentiles, not first century Palestinian Jews...who, incidentally, are the only people Muslims claim Christ came to address. Therefore, Christ came during a period of medical stagnation, not growth, and He came to the people who would have appreciated medicinal advancements the least.

Some might argue, "But still, there was a lot better medicine during Christ's time than before Hippocrates's time." However, it was hardly the time of "great" medicine, and if we're going by the standards of how great medicinal practices were, then why didn't Christ appear today? After all, isn't medicine much better now than it was 2000 years ago? Especially with the fact that so much of it is done with technological methods - just imagine how much awe would come from a man who could heal simply by human touch. You see, when you take this argument and really analyze it, you discover just how incredibly subjective it truly is.

2) In regards to Christ and His miracles, it must first be noted that His healing miracles were not solely for healing, but to prove who He was. When confronted by the Pharisees over His forgiving of the paralytic's sins, Christ replied that it was done "so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt 9:6). When Christ performed miracles in John's gospel, it was written that these were done to manifest His glory (cf. John 2:11). No where does Christ say, "I'm healing people because a lot of good doctors live around here."

Also, Christ's miracles were not isolated to physical healing. Many of His miracles, such as with the loaves and the fish, involved food. In fact, in the gospel of John it is one of the seven major signs that Christ performs to show His power - are we to say that Christ was a prophet sent at a time of great feasting? Or that Christ gave signs with food because He lived in a time of great culinary arts? Or that Christ had come to a people who would appreciate a good dinner?

Again, this argument is inventing a new standard which is completely foreign to the revelations that came before the Quran, and is entirely subjective to the person making it.

8. You can't say Mohammad met a false angel because angels are loyal messengers of God and follow him faithfully.

While this argument will immediately sound strange to Christians, the root of this thinking may be in the Muslim understanding of what an angel is. Whereas in Christianity a demon is a fallen angel that rebelled against God, in Islam there are angels and jinn, with the jinn having been created separately from the angels. Unlike in Christianity, where some of the angels rebelled against God and thus became demons, in Islamic theology the jinn were created by Allah from fire separately from the angels, who were created from light. Some verses regarding this:

He [Allah] said: What hindered you so that you did not prostrate when I commanded you? He [Iblis/Satan] said: I am better than he: Thou hast created me of fire, while him Thou didst create of dust. [S. 7:12; M. Shakir]

And the jinn We created before, of intensely hot fire. [S. 15:27]

And He created the jinn of a flame of fire. [S. 55:15]

And to quote a hadith:

According to one prophetic narration that was narrated by 'Aa'ishah may Allaah be pleased with her the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam (may Allaah exalt his mention) said: "The angels were created from light, the jinn were created from fire, and Aadam was created from that which has been described to you (soil)." [Muslim] [source]

To a Muslim, an angel cannot fall and cannot disobey God, and therefore the idea that the demons (or jinn) are fallen angels is foreign to them.

Yet even with this distinction, the mere fact that we are simply supposed to accept the word of an angel is deeply erroneous and incredibly fallacious. According to this, Muslims should become Mormon because Joseph Smith received special instructions and revelation from an angel. Also, any Word of Faith preacher who claims to have met an angel who taught them heretical doctrine must, by the Muslim's logic, be telling the truth. In fact, any cult leader or founder of a false religion who claimed to have received revelation from an angel must be telling the truth. Any Muslim, therefore, who wishes to make this argument must then explain to us why they are not Mormon or a member of any Word of Faith or pseudo-Christian cult. That is, if they wish to remain consistent with this logic.

Christians, of course, have very important standards when it comes to supposed revelations from angels:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! [Galatians 1:8]

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. [2 Corinthians 11:13-14]

The Roman Catholic Catechism and Islam

A common passage from the Roman Catholic Catechism often used by Roman Catholics to present a kind of semi-universalism is from the section regarding Muslims:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Let's review this statement bit by bit, and review the various strengths and weaknesses of it.

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims...

What is the "plan of salvation"? Is it not the gospel (Eph 1:13), from wherein we learn that the Good Shepherd, by the will of the Father, laid down His life for His sheep (John 10:11, 18), that all given by the Father to behold the Son will never be lost nor be cast out (John 6:39-40)? This Christian plan of salvation is one centered around Christ and His salvific sacrifice on the cross.

Therefore, to say that the plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge "the Creator" seems very vague and universalist in its approach. Many religions outside of Judeo-Christian tradition and Islam could be said to believe in a "creator," but the question then is who is that creator and how do we identify him? Likewise, where in this "plan of salvation" is there room for Christ and His cross, or a declaration in faith in Christ? The true plan of salvation involves a very specific Creator, and therefore the identification of this Creator is a very important matter.

That brings us to the next point.

...these profess to hold the faith of Abraham...

Note something: Muslims profess to hold the faith of Abraham. That is true, Muslims do claim to be in line with Jews and Christians, and that they worship the same God they do, but the question is: is that true? Some have said that the Catechism is trying to exactly make this very simple point: the Muslim claim to hold the faith of Abraham is merely a profession. If this is true, I personally believe any further publications of the Catechism should clarify this point further. I say this because, in the following section, this argument is hurt by these words:  

...and together with us they adore the one, merciful God...

Do they? Both Christians and Muslims are monotheists, yes, but does that mean they worship the same God?

Let's stop and think for a moment how both Muslims and Christians define God: Muslims are inherently unitarians who believe God is one being and one person; Christians are Trinitarians who believe that God is one Being revealed through three distinct Persons. Within this body of Persons are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - the Son is Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word. This second Person in the Trinity is believed by Muslims to have simply been a man and a mere prophet, not divine. They deny He is God.

Many respond to this fact with a kind of "two out of three ain't bad" mentality, but the fact is each Person within the Trinity represents the fullness of God's divinity, and to deny one is to deny them all. To deny the divinity of Christ is to deny the Godhead entire. The apostle Paul wrote that "in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells" (Col 2:9), signifying that to deny the Deity of Christ is to deny the very Deity of God. As I've written before, the Trinity is not a buffet: you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Trinity you want to believe and which you don't; it's all or nothing.

Some key passages in regards to the truth of Solus Christus in scripture.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." [John 14:6; NASB]

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" [John 11:25-26]

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." [Acts 4:12]

Muslims therefore do not worship with Christians the one true God, because they (Muslims) deny the very revelation of God's Being as God has revealed it to His people. They deny the divinity of the Son and the Personhood of the Holy Spirit. Just to remind everyone about the beliefs taught within the Muslim's own holy book:

• The Trinity is a damnable heresy (S. 5:73)
• The Trinity is a lie (S. 5:74)
• Christ is not divine, and any one who says so, according to the own words of "Jesus", is lying (S. 5:116-117)
• Christ was merely a prophet (S. 5:75)
• Christ did not die on the cross (S. 4:157)

If this is given by the same God of Christianity, then God is the author of confusion.

...mankind's judge on the last day.

It is indeed true that Muslims and Christians both believe that God will judge men in a great day of judgment and eternal life. The problem is the God of Islam will not judge Christians the way Christians will expect Him to judge them:

They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. [S. 5:74; Yusuf Ali; emphasis mine]

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. [S. 5:73; emphasis mine]

According to Islam, Christians will be condemned to hell for their belief in the Trinity. If this is the "one, merciful God" which the Catechism claims both Muslims and Christians worship, then we are to believe that God is a sadist, creating Islam and Christianity and letting them go at each other like a brute child wiles up red and black ants against one another.

As offensive as this might be to some people, the Roman Catholic Catechism is absolutely, positively dead wrong on this issue.

Top Five Arguments Muslims Need to Stop Using Against Christians

Much like my post here, this was written mostly for the benefit of the Muslim reader. I've seen this arguments used so many times that I've begun to wonder if Islamic apologetics are simply behind Christian apologetics by perhaps about ten years. Half of them I can only imagine are used to earn points on the Muslim side, as I've never seen a Christian (at least a semi-knowledgeable Christian) wowed or won over by any of them. I'm not writing this to mock or condemn, but hopefully to at least make the discerning Muslim think a little harder or argue a little better.

1. Jesus never said "I am God."

I often call this the "declaration fallacy." This is an incredibly popular argument to make (mostly thanks to Ahmed Deedat), which is unfortunate because it is one of the most fallacious to make, and for a few reasons:

• We are told that Jesus never said the exact words, "I am God." Well, neither did He ever say "I am a prophet," nor "I am just a messenger" either. Therefore by the Muslim's own standards Jesus is neither God, prophet nor messenger. 
• The mere statement "I am God" would not have to be given to prove that Jesus was divine. This would be like saying Hitler wasn't racist because he never said the exact words "I am racist." It's essentially inventing a scenario and then demanding the other person respond.
• Even if Christ did say "I am God," those words alone would not make it true. If I wrote a blog entry where I simply said "I am God," would that mean Muslims had to worship me? I don't think so, yet this is the kind of logic being presented.

As I've said before, the old saying goes, "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a ducks, and swims like a duck, then it must be a duck"...but according to some Muslims that duck would never be considered a duck unless it stopped quacking and said "I am a duck."

2. There are textual variances in the Bible, therefore it's corrupt.

There are textual variances for every piece of literature before the invention of computers - that does not necessarily denote corruption. According to this logic, even accepted works of antiquity such as Plato's Republic are considered untrustworthy (although the New Testament is certainly far more trustworthy in terms of closeness to the authors and number of comparable manuscripts).

The variances within the New Testament itself is more a grammatical and spelling issue than theological. I often tell people to pick up a copy of the NASB and NKJV (two translations based on manuscript traditions several centuries apart) and show me any major theological differences between the two. One will not find any (unless you're a wild-eyed KJV-Onlyist).

Furthermore (and contrary to popular Muslim belief), there exist textual variances throughout the history of the Quran. While it is popular for Muslim scholars and laymen alike to claim there exist no variances in the Quran (mostly because they do not like even talking about the possibility), this is simply not the case. However, I would never use this as an excuse to say the Quran was untrustworthy, mainly because I believe in remaining consistent. Despite this, I have run into Muslims who will declare the Bible corrupt even if the variances are minor, yet will declare the Quran free of corruption because the variances are minor. This is a gross double standard.

3. There are no original New Testament manuscripts!

There are no original manuscripts of many works of antiquity, but I doubt most Muslims (at least the learned ones) will deny we don't know what they say. No one says that Plato's Republic is untrustworthy simply because we don't have the original copy writtten by Plato himself; likewise, no one will say that Caesar's Gallic Wars is untrustworthy simply because we don't have the first edition as those who first read it would have known.

The other problem with this argumentation is that it again presents a double standard - there does not exist an original copy of the Quran as held in the hands of Mohammad himself. Partially this is become the Quran only stopped being written after Mohammad died (thereby ending the continual revelations). This is also because, as sahih ("trustworthy") hadith sources say, all the originals were burned by Uthman when he made his "standard" Quran for Muslims to use. Therefore, according to this argumentation, even the Quran itself cannot be trusted! Once again, a self-defeating argument.

4. You can't use hadith sources!

This argumentation goes either one of two ways. Either...

Muslim: "Mohammad never did anything bad."
Non-Muslim: "What about what he said and did here?"
Muslim: "Oh! That's a hadith! You can use that!"

Or...

Non-Muslim: "I think the Quran is saying this in that verse."
Muslim: "Actually, according to this hadith, this is what it meant."
Non-Muslim: "But this other hadith clarifies that and contradicts your whole point."
Muslim: "Oh! That's a hadith! You can't use that!"

The most common argumentation lobbied in favor of this objection is, "Well, there's a scholarly way of showing what hadith sources are trustworthy and which aren't." My response is usually then, "Yes, I'm well aware of that, could you please show me then how these sources cannot be trusted using that criteria?" At that point, they can't answer. The whole argument is simply a non sequitor meant to distract from the damning evidence found within the hadith.

The fact is, many hadith sources are accepted by several Muslim scholars and many are even used for teachings on the daily Muslim lifestyle and theology. Many more are used to explain confusing beliefs found in the Quran. Like it or not, the hadith sources are an intricate aspect of Islamic theology. If a Muslim wishes to use this kind of argument, they had best be a Koran-only Muslim so that they can at least remain consistent. Otherwise, the whole thing will simply appear foolish.

5. The Council of Nicaea made the Bible!

There is not a shred of evidence that the Bible was collected at the Council of Nicaea, let alone that time period. Those who wish to contest this point may quote me which section of the Council of Nicaea dealt with the Bible. Otherwise, it is not worth mentioning.