Whenever any discussion of Islam arises, there is no point in engaging in polemics about the content of the Qur'an or the character of Muhammad. Doing so will only provoke a Muslim to anger, and bring charges of hate speech and Islamophobia. Rather, we have the tools of historical criticism that skeptical scholars have used against Christianity for the last 200 years. They tried to tear apart the Bible and the evidence for Jesus, and failed to do anything except dig up the evidence for the truth of our faith.
Let's use these same techniques of historical criticism to show how Islam fails to preserve any evidence of its origins. Instead, the evidence shows that the "Standard Islamic Narrative" has too many holes in it. Indeed, so far from being a shelter for believers, any decent rain would wash it away. Islam is a house built on sand.
Unfortunately, too few Muslims have taken any interest in looking for the foundations of their faith, fearing that they might instead be left wandering in apostasy. This they cannot afford, because the penalty in Sharia Law would be death. They can't just leave. They need to replace it with a faith worth dying for, and only finding a right relationship with Jesus can save them. In the West, they may find refuge, but in a Muslim country, they face real danger, and need a real faith.
All we need to do is ask the right questions, and insist that the evidence they offer must come from within the 7th century, when Muhammad supposedly lived. If the King, Ibn al-Malik could build the golden Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem in 695, surely there must be plenty of proof for their claims about their religion. Where is the evidence for Muhammad, and for the four "rightly guided" Califs of the 7th century? We need to talk about their Prophet, the city of Mecca, and the Qur'an. If they want to claim extraordinary things, we only need to ask them to "prove it."
Here are some important questions to ask that will hold their story to account:
1. Which Muhammad are you talking about? "Muhammad" is not a name, but a title meaning, "the Praised One." Are there any outside records that specifically speak of him by name, and does he fit the story?
2. What evidence, from the 7th century, do you have for Mecca in Arabia? Is that really the place where Muhammad was born? Is there any archaeology?
3. Where are your manuscripts, the official copies of the Qur'an, that Uthman had written and sent out for safekeeping and preservation in 652 ce?
4. Why are your earliest manuscripts written in the 8th century in the wrong kind of Arabic? It's not the Sabaic Arabic of southern Arabia.
5. How can you decide what those oldest manuscripts say when they are written with only 16 characters and have no dots or vowels?
6. Why are all of your sources for the story of Muhammad and Islam from so far to the North, and collected in the 8th and 9th centuries?
7. Why does all of the archaeological evidence show that the Saracen, or Ishmaelite, empire in the 7th century was ruled by Arian Christians from Damascus? The coins and stones carved with inscriptions have crosses on them, and the writing in the Dome of the Rock is about Jesus.
8. Why do all of the earliest mosques, built before 720 ce, have qiblas that don't point toward Mecca? Most of them point to Petra instead.
9. Why does none of the geographical description in the Qur'an have any resemblance to the Mecca you go to today? It matches either Petra or Jerusalem.
10. There are 30 different versions of the Qur'an in print today. Which one is the correct version that speaks Allah's perfect Truth?
11. If there are so many important disagreements among your different versions of the Qur'an, how can you say that Allah has preserved it from corruption?
12. If there is so little evidence for the "Standard Islamic Narrative," why are you so sure that you have not been deceived into believing a falsehood?
It would appear that the Islam of today was fabricated to serve as an ideology of conquest, condoning violence, pillage, slavery and oppression so that their warriors would be motivated by the desire for booty. Most of the story of Islam comes from sources away too far north, and collected centuries too late. If there had been any proof, why was it not preserved for the edification of the faithful. Wasn't it worth keeping?
On the other hand, we have a faith in the One God who offers us a faithful relationship based on his activity in history. Our God is not limited by his "spiritual divinity." Rather, YHWH is the true creator of all of the reality we can perceive, and of the Heaven where He now resides. He can inhabit his creation, and -- being omnipotent -- he can enter into the world he created to interact with humanity, even to the extent of becoming a man Himself! And that is what He chose to do, so that He could bridge the impossible gap between us by his own action, and save us from destruction. Allah cannot do that, he is only a fallen angel.
There is ample evidence to support the truth of Christianity, and better promises for the salvation of its believers than anything Islam has to offer. We need to offer them the Truth found in our own faith. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. So ask them: Since Islam itself acknowledges that Jesus was a perfect man, why not try to find out what you've been missing and come back to the faith that the Arian heretics pulled you away from?
.
