7 Reasons Why I Reject the Prophet Muhammad.


1. Allah’s Morally Flawed Nature.

When Muhammad began receiving his alleged divine revelations he himself didn’t believe they were actually from God. His alleged revelation seemed to be far more like torture than God’s reaching down to reveal himself. From historian Ibn Ishaq we read of Muhammad’s first meeting with the angel Gabriel:

“When it was the night on which God honoured him with his mission and showed mercy on His servants thereby, Gabriel brought him the command of God. “He came to me,” said the apostle of God, “while I was asleep, with a coverlet of brocade whereon was some writing, and said, ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it so tightly that I thought it was death; then he let me go and said, ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it again so that I thought it was death; then he let me go and said ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it the third time so that I thought it was death and said ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What then shall I read?’—and this I said only to deliver myself from him, lest he should do the same to me again.”

This is revealing. Firstly, Muhammad recounts this experience as being analogues to death. This suggests a form of torture and torment since it was allegedly repeated three times. In other words, Allah’s angel, Gabriel, forced Muhammad by threat and pain to accomplish his intent. Since Gabriel is Allah’s messenger it renders Allah as morally inferior. For Allah to be God he has to be the greatest conceivable being and that would entail moral perfection. If Allah, in any way, is not the greatest conceivable being then one can conceptualize of a being that is greater than Allah, and therefore Allah cannot be God (most people would say that a deity that tortures his subjects would not be the greatest conceivable being in the moral sense). In other words, Allah is morally flawed and therefore is a false God. Muhammad’s revelatory experience cannot therefore be attributable to God.

2. Muhammad’s Sin.

Muhammad wasn’t morally pure either as many Muslims today claim that he was. In Mecca Muhammad received a command about his sin: “Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours.”(Surah 40:55). Surah 48 also lends credence to the fact that Muhammad was a sinner, “That Allah may forgive you your sins of the past and the future and complete His Favour on you, and guide you on the Straight Path…”

Thus, according to the Koran itself, the very book that Muslims so revere, Muhammad was a sinner. In other words, Muhammad was very much like ordinary people as all humans are sinners. Sin signifies crime, offense, and any act having an evil result or intent. If Muhammad was just an ordinary man in this regard then why believe that he was God’s messenger?

3. Muhammad Tries To Kill Himself.

Muhammad stands in as the leading example of how Muslims are to conduct themselves (Surah 33:21), however, when we look closer we see that when he became upset he tried to kill himself. According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad said, “I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest. So I went forth to do so and then when I was midway on the mountain, I heard a voice from heaven saying, “O Muhammad! thou art the apostle of God and I am Gabriel.”

Further, according to Sahih al-Bukhari 6982, Muhammad “became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and everytime he went up to the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Jibril would appear before him and say, “O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah’s Messenger in truth”, whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the Revelation used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Jibril would appear before him and say to him what he had said before.”

David Wood explains that “Muhammad tried repeatedly to kill himself. Muslims believe in a man who tried repeatedly to commit suicide. According to Muslim sources he tried to commit suicide after receiving revelation because he didn’t want his tribe to say that he was possessed by a jinn” (1). It is thus hard to fathom that this is the person that God has revealed himself to and the one who we ought to emulate. Muhammad is the one person who Muslims trust with their salvation; a man that attempted on several occasions to kill himself.

4. Muhammad was Victimized by Magic.

According to Sahih Al-Bukhari 3175, Muhammad was a victim of a magic spell. This is alleged to have given him delusional thoughts and false beliefs. According to Sahih Al-Bukhari, Aisha said that “Once the Prophet was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact, he had not done.”

Again in Sahih Al-Bukhari 5765 we read in full that, “Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he used to think that he had had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not. Then one day he said, “O Aisha, do you know that Allah has instructed me concerning the matter I asked Him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat near my head and the other sat near my feet. The one near my head asked the other: ‘What is wrong with this man?’ The latter replied, ‘He is under the effect of magic.’ The first one asked, ‘Who has worked magic on him?’ The other replied, ‘Labid bin Al-Asam, a man from Bani Zuraiq who was an ally of the Jews and was a hypocrite.’ The first one asked, ‘What material did he use?’ The other replied, ‘A comb and the hair stuck to it.’”

According to Islamic commentator Abdul-Rahman the hadiths on Muhammad’s bewitchment, and influences from magic, are evident, “As far as the historical aspect is concerned, the incident of the Holy Prophet’s being affected by magic is absolutely confirmed” (2).

This surely invites one to question whether or not they can actually trust someone who was controlled by a magic spell. However, the problem becomes more pronounced since according to Surah 2:102 of the Koran magic comes from demons as it is they who teach people magic. Would that suggest that Muhammad was susceptible to demonic influences? Muhammad, according to trust Islamic sources was thus prone to delusional thoughts and ominous influences from demonic forces. This illustrates the spiritual condition of Muhammad; a man who was not protected by God from magic.

5. Muhammad’s Abominable Acts.

There are many morally abominable acts on the part of Muhammad. We shall note a few of them. Firstly, in his fight against those in Mecca, Muhammad gained an advantage through hijacking Meccan caravans that were transported through the desert. In one case some Muslim invaders killed a man during the Nakhla Raid while there existed a truce between Muslims and non-Muslims. Muhammad’s tactics were very unfortunate for those who relied on the goods being transported in the caravans. For example, Meccan families would have invested much, if not all, of their income into resources being brought in through these caravans. However, Muhammad attacked the caravans which would have left families starving and resourceless due to jeopardizing their livelihoods. That was his intent; to throttle his Meccan enemies via any way possible. In fact, Muhammad’s raids often failed miserably but eventually he was successful. Quite remarkably, however, is that his successful raid takes place in a sacred month. He conducted his raid in the forbidden month where he attacked one such caravan, stole its goods, and killed the person transporting it. Essentially Muhammad’s alleged revelation in Koran 2:217 was “revealed” to justify his attack.

Another moral atrocity on the part of Muhammad was his commanding of followers to kill critics of Islam. In one case a defenceless old man by the name of Abu Afak penned a poem about Muhammad who was dividing people and causing them to kill one another. Muhammad caught wind of this and, according to Ibn Ishaq, wants him dead, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the “weepers”, went forth and killed him.”

Muhammad’s message was clear to his followers: people who criticized Islam or himself must be murdered. In fact, according to Sunan Abu Dawud 4348, there was a blind man who had a slave-mother “who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him.” Though the blind man forbade her to criticize Muhammad she did not listen and one night “he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her.” Sunan Abu Dawud 4349 further recounts an incident where a Jewish woman who had disparaged Muhammad was strangled to death by a Muslim. Moreover, after Muhammad had captured Mecca in 630 he demanded that two female slaves be put to death alongside their master after having mocked him in a song (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 819, Abu Dawud 2684). And where Muhammad did spare the lives of women it was not out of compassion as opposed to the fact that they were considered property. Muhammad also ordered that a Jewish woman be put to death for losing her mind while her male relatives were being beheaded (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 691). Elsewhere Muhammad tortured many opponents (Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764). This list is hardly exhaustive.

6. Muhammad’s Non-Blood Thirsty Crimes.

As we saw in point 5 Muhammad committed heinous acts against enemies, harmless opponents, women, towns and a city, people who did not accept Islam, and so on. However, there are acts he committed that didn’t always involve blood and slaughter. For example, he permitted lying (Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:85), slavery and the trading of human beings (Sahih Muslim 3901), sex slaves (Bukhari 5:268, Koran 33:50), and even had sex with a nine year old girl (Bukhari 5:268, Koran 33:50). Islamic texts also instruct husbands to beat their disobedient wives (Koran 4:34, Sahih Muslim 2127).

7. Muhammad’s Double Standard.

The Koran says that Muslim men are allowed to have up to four wives at one time (Surah 4:3). However, we find that Muhammad was married to eleven wives at one time. According to Sahih al-Bukhari 268, “Anas bin Malik said, ‘The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.’ I asked Anas, ‘Had the Prophet the strength for it?’ Anas replied, ‘We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men).’ And Sa’id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).”

One would seem warranted in questioning why Muslim men can marry no more than four wives whereas Muhammad could marry more. The answer to this is that Muhammad simply exempted himself of having to adhere to the standards he enforced on his followers. In other words, Allah’s revealed revelation, the Koran, makes an exception for Muhammad as Surah 33:50 informs us.

Putting this Together.

There is much more that one could present here but I think the point has been illustrated. I find myself hard stretched to accept that Muhammad was God’s messenger and that the Koran is God’s revealed word (more on the Koran at a later point). When we look at Muhammad we see someone who was power hungry, incredibly ruthless and violent, and exceptionally intolerant of his enemies as well as his opponents of whom presented no threat. We see a man that was susceptible to the influences of magic, someone who attempted to commit suicide by hurling himself off of a cliff, had sexual relations with many women (wives), had sex with a nine year old girl, and who consented to slavery and sex slaves. He even exempted himself of having to adhere to the same standards as he instructed his followers to. I therefore strongly fail to see how God would choose to reveal himself in such a man.


1. Acts17Apologetics. Muhammad and Suicide in Early Muslim Writings. Available.

2. Abdul-Rahman, M. 2009. The Meaning and Explanation of the Glorious Qur’an (Vol 10). p. 630.


29 responses to “7 Reasons Why I Reject the Prophet Muhammad.

  1. The only reason you are posting this is because you are from a western country. If you were born in Afghanistan, you’d be preaching about mohammed.

    Your believes are based on geography, not facts.

      • 1. What does genetics have to do with culture?
        2. Atheists have a lack of belief due to the lack of evidence.
        3. 99.9% of the population in Afganistán is Muslim.
        4. The religious couldn’t conclude that an atheist is born in America, because there are atheist in every country. You are born atheist, it’s only after indoctrination that you adopt the culture you grow up in.

      • Everyone is born an atheist, it’s only after indoctrination that you adopt culture.

        Atheist is the lack of beliefs in gods due to the lack of evidence.

        Atheist know more about religions than believers themselves, so yeah, atheist are atheists because they know religion.

    • The argument is a weak one, Dorian. Firstly, everyone may be born an atheist, but everyone indoctrinates children at some stage, whether that be with religion or secularism. Thus the root of it comes down to how one raises their family. Where they’re born is simply be a bi-product of how they may do so, and even then it’s a broad accusation. So I would argue atheism and its secular entailments is just as susceptible here. The argument amounts to nothing more than an insult that atheists parents only can raise children sufficiently.

      Furthermore, we have the analogy critics of David Hume have used of the Indian Prince who lacks belief in ice due to lack of physical evidence or experience. If we take the “where you’re born” argument as a conclusion I can say the prince raised in a tropical climate is just as validated for his lack of belief in ice as the one born and raised atheist lacks belief in God and rejects such testimony.

      The bottom line is objective truth exists regardless of what we think. But it isn’t found by saying we believe what we do solely because we were born and raised a certain way. The argument is just a dodge to avoid dealing with the arguments made.

      • Your arguments are non sequiturs one after another.

        1. Secularism is based on critical thinking. In educating someone on how to think and not be taken for a ride by charlatans. We teach the scientific method, not dogma, which is what you have.

        This method can be used for everything in life and produces our modern world. While religion produces nothing more than false hope and division among humanity.

        2. Someone in a jungle without any knowledge of ice would probably ask for evidence of the ice, if you can’t provide it, then it is you that has failed, not him. This is exactly what you are doing with your god, you are implying that he is real and have produced no actual evidence for his existence and you insist he is real to the point of indoctrinating your children with it.

        3. If you were born in Afghan, you’d be a muslim, that’s a fact and NO, you are calling the kettle black, because we are not dodging anything, as a matter of fact, why would I be dodging if I’m here? You are not making any sense.

        You fail to provide actual empirical evidence of any of your believes. Everything in this site is based on hearsay, everything, that’s why we don’t believe.

        Believing based on faith is insanity.

        • My arguments were solely taking this argument as conclusive.

          1. Secularism also carries philosophies such as naturalism, nihilism, etc. It was these I was alluding to as indoctrination, I apologize if I wasn’t clear.

          2. Your conclusion refutes the prior argument you made concerning where one is born. You concluded, “Your beliefs are based on geography,” in your first comment. The analogy of the Indian prince inadvertently concedes that human experience is not uniform (thus agreeing with the argument’s premise) while your point here says that sufficient testimony or evidence should be allowed to challenge the uniformity of a single person or culture’s experience. The prince who lacks the experience of freezing simply because of geography cannot conclude with certainty that it doesn’t exist, thus arguments and evidence have to be made and given.

          If one born and raised in Afghan becomes a Muslim because of this his belief would be justified until evidence and arguments against it can be given. Thus in your first comment to James your argument concludes James is justified in his beliefs until proven otherwise. In conclusion, truth is not arrived at by geography but through arguments, evidence, and testimony.

          3. Can you please show me where I denied the premise of the argument? I remember saying, “Where they’re born is simply a bi-product of how they may do so.” Does that sound like a denial of the premise or an affirmation that what one believes can be determined by where one is born? You took this as conclusive, I said there needs to be further research to discover objective truth. Furthermore, when did I say YOU were dodging arguments? Did you read my comment? I said THIS ARGUMENT is a dodge to further research.

          • 1. Secularism is based on empirical evidence, materialism is the only thing we can test for. Anything else is dogma.
            2. You are convoluting different points as you try to make sense of your argument. In Afghanistan, 99.9% of the population IS muslim. That’s a fact. Then you try to compare the indoctrination of religion into children, against what we are talking about. You cannot! They are not the same thing. Children in America and in Afghan are indoctrinated into their believes. Religion is NOT the same as all other subjects. Religion is the exception. It makes people fail at critical thinking. The chief has no reason to doubt ice exists, but should not accept that it does until shown evidence. You continue to fall for the same argument.

            Testimony does NOT account for anything. It is the worst type of evidence there is. ANYONE could lie, specially people who you can’t cross examine. You do not know the people who wrote the bible, you can’t cross examine them, hell no one knows who they were, except they were primitive sheep herders. Who’s stories were past down and then modified at will by a bunch of powerful and corrupt council.

            3. I’m not sure, I’m doing this in a hurry as I try to finish a programming assignment. If I got that backwards, my bad. But there is nothing further to research, the bible is nothing more than primitive peoples concepts of a world they could not understand. That’s a fact.

            • Sorry for the late reply.

              1. I’ll grant you this, the only thing scientifically testable is the material world. There’s no disagreement there. However, I would add that science makes no claims on the existence of God due to its limited scope. That needs to be decided on other terms.

              2. 99.9% is Muslim seems like a stretch to me, and you provide no evidence for those statistics, anyhow for sake of argument, I’ll take it as it’s plausible.

              “You try to compare the indoctrination of religion into children, against what we are talking about. They are not the same thing. Children in America and in Afghan are indoctrinated into their believes. Religion is NOT the same as all other subjects.”

              You misspelled beliefs twice now. I fail to see how teaching religious doctrine is different than teaching, say, communism. Is it because some religions claim the existence of a deity? What do you do with Buddhism then? Is it because they’re teaching a certain philosophy? Then what do we do with Nihilism? Isn’t that a philosophy? I can’t see how it’s as clear cut as you claim it to be. “Religion is the exception”? How? Why does Mohammed’s doctrine count as indoctrination and Nietzsche’s doesn’t? I’m not saying you’re wrong, people are indoctrinated, but you failed to define why “religion” is the only example. The only explanation you offered is, “It makes people fail at critical thinking,” which is baloney.

              “Testimony does NOT account for anything.”
              I strongly disagree. There’s a need present in jury trials to test eyewitness testimony for a reason. Testimony helps if it passes the tests of reliability. This is to find out if an eyewitness was present at the time of the crime, can be corroborated by outside evidence, has been accurate and consistent in the past, and is free of bias that might prejudice his testimony or motivate him to tell a lie. If they pass these tests there’s a very good reason to trust them as reliable. This is far from the worst evidence.

              “You do not know the people who wrote the bible…. no one knows who they were, except they were primitive sheep herders.”

              You’re obviously out of your field here. What is it with you guys arguing out of your field anyway? Aren’t you a programmer? Would you care to see another debate I had on this blog? https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/01/qa-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-and-the-god-of-the-gaps/#comments Skip to my final two comments if you want to get straight to authorship. Your view of the canonization process also needs correcting. I recommend this article: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.php. And that’s it, make of this as you will.

              • 1. Science makes no claim to a god because there is no way to test something that doesn’t exist. That’s why science makes no claims about unicorns.
                2. Took me 2 seconds to get this: “Islam is the religion of more than 99% of Afghanistan’s citizens. An estimated 80–90% of the population practice Sunni Islam and belong to the Hanafi Islamic law school, while 7–19% are Shia; the majority of the Shia follow the Twelver branch, with smaller numbers of Ismailis.”

                3. Like I said I’m typing this as fast as I can, because frankly I don’t have the time. So yeah, excuse any grammatical or spelling errors, because I will not proof read any of it.

                Because both Islam, christianity and Hinduism are religions, not philosophies. Science is a way of thinking clearly, so it’s not indoctrination, it’s the teaching of a proven way of thinking that leads to the ability to differentiate facts from fiction.

                How is it baloney? Do grown ups who are indoctrinated end up believing that some piece of bread is the flesh of a god? Yes or No?


                4. Again, testimonies in court have the change to CROSS examine. EXACTLY, but in the bible, you can NOT cross examine ANYONE. You don’t even know who wrote the book. It is therefore, Hearsay and nothing more.

                I am not out of my field at all. Who wrote the bible? Go ahead make my day.

                Read Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Interrupted or any other scholar will tell you the same thing, NOBODY knows the authors of the bible.

  2. Stop spreading islamophobia you ugly cracker you don’t even know the first Muslim and you are making unbelievers hostile towards Christianity

    • If they aren’t hostile towards Christianity then they are clearly not living out their Islamic values as imposed on them by their scriptures. Secondly, disagreement isn’t hate nor dislike, you should know that. And if Muslim apologists like Shabir challenge my faith (which he does in debates with Christian apologists) please write him a letter asking him to stop spreading Christianophobia because it’s hurting my feelings…

  3. Bart Ehrman is your source? Mmhmm, I’ve read his stuff, it doesn’t stand. Any scholar will tell me we don’t have a clue who the authors were? That’s a bald-faced lie. The OT can be a little murky, and maybe a few in the NT (namely 2 Peter and Hebrews), but the Gospels, as well as most of the Pauline epistles, are well attested.

    Sorry, but I can’t believe how ill-informed you are here, Dorian, for someone who prowls blogs thinking they have the answer. Have you read the scholarly works of Craig Keener? Craig Blomberg? Richard Bauckham? Martin Hengel? J.P. Moreland? J.P. Holding? N.T. Right? David DeSilva? Gary Habermas? The point is each of these authors, having specialized in the field of historical research for decades, gives incredibly strong evidence for the authenticity and authorship of the Gospels. Ehrman’s works, although somewhat peppered with truth, just don’t stand up to scrutiny and have been thoroughly refuted by the above. In addition, it seems you took no mind to my prior comments on authorship in that link.

    Furthermore, you never addressed my question on defining why religion is the only example of indoctrination. The one’s you listed are monotheistic, so are you saying polytheistic and ditheistic ones don’t count as religions? What about paganism? If I were to use the same source you got those statistics from I can define indoctrination as “the process of forcibly inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine) by coercion.” I hardly see exclusivity for religion, in fact further down we have this “The initial psychological preparation of soldiers during training is referred to (non-pejoratively) as indoctrination.” Indoctrination CAN be religious ideologies, but nowhere does it say it’s exclusive. You brought science into a picture that never included it.

    “Do grown ups who are indoctrinated end up believing that some piece of bread is the flesh of a god? Yes or No?”

    Yes AND no. When it comes to Transubstantiation, I can see how that may be so, but I don’t believe that. Communion is a form of fellowship meal. Within this meal, elements may stand in or represent something the community shared a belief or bond over. Hardly a case of indoctrination.

    • Wait, are you seriously going to tell me that we know who Mathew, Luke and John actually were? NOBODY knows who these people were, they literally were names adopted by the council. There are NO signatures in ANY of the scriptures, NONE. There is no evidence of Moses, and the bible gets all kids of placed wrong. These people copied from each other, which was common in those days. There is nothing unique in the bible, it’s just another religious book, just like the books from the Hindus or any other cult.

      Please provide a reliable source that says that we KNOW who the writers of the bible were.

      No, all religions are indoctrination. If they are based on dogma and hearsay they ARE by definition indoctrination. They don’t teach you how to think they teach you WHAT to think.

      So are you saying that telling children that they will burn forever in torment if they don’t believe that baby Jesus is their lord and savior is not EXACTLY “forcibly inculcating ideas”? Yes, the military is a form of indoctrination. The only difference is that religion preys on children with threats. At least the military only prey on poor adults. Religion preys on BOTH.

      Science is the only way out of this mess. Science, by definition is information, and the Scientific Method the way of acquiring truthful and useful information. Without this two things, we are back to the dark ages.

      That’s YOUR take on the flesh, the fact is that the largest sect of this death cult is catholicism and they DO believe in the literal transubstantiation of this cookies and wine.

      Craig Keener, Craig Blomberg, Richard Bauckham, Martin Hengel, J.P. Moreland, I stopped at this guy, because they are ALL CHRISTIAN apologetics. These are the type of people that used to burn people alive for going against their insane beliefs.

      I might as well believe what a Muslim Apologetic says.

      Find me CRITICAl NON-religious sources.

      • “Wait, are you seriously going to tell me that we know who Mathew, Luke and John actually were?”

        We don’t have 100% certainty but based on the historical evidence and data we do have we have a fairly good idea of who they were. I’d argue at least 90. Why do you think historians know with almost complete certainty who wrote the Annals of Tacitus when it’s far less attested than the Gospels?

        “NOBODY knows who these people were, they literally were names adopted by the council.”

        False. Firstly you never answered any of the arguments in that link regarding the Biblical canon. Secondly, I directly addressed why names could not possibly have been made up by the early church in that debate I linked.

        “These people copied from each other, which was common in those days.”

        Copied from each other? Hardly. Inspired by other works, I’d argue that’s very likely. Paul quoted the Hebrew scriptures all the time in his works with varying degrees of differences. You’d do good to read up on Glen Millar’s articles here.




        “No, all religions are indoctrination.”

        Dorian, stop rushing these comments, it’s not helpful. I never said religions don’t indoctrinate, I said this, “Indoctrination CAN be religious ideologies.”

        “Yes, the military is a form of indoctrination.”

        So we’ve agreed indoctrination isn’t an exclusively religious practice? I agree with the difference, although I don’t personally relate to it.

        “That’s YOUR take on the flesh, the fact is that the largest sect of this death cult is catholicism and they DO believe in the literal transubstantiation of this cookies and wine.”

        Ok. And? That doesn’t address what I said. I don’t hold that view. Comment on catholic blogs if you want to argue their views.

        “Craig Keener, Craig Blomberg, Richard Bauckham, Martin Hengel, J.P. Moreland, I stopped at this guy, because they are ALL CHRISTIAN apologetics.”

        And? They know their field, that’s the very reason they believe. Do you automatically claim bias and false information permeates their works without even reading them? That’s called blind faith. Should I go into atheist works thinking all they’re going to say is baloney? No, because I’ve learned a lot from them and am grateful for the work they do.

        “I might as well believe what a Muslim Apologetic says.”

        Don’t blindly believe him, but read his work. I recommend the same to Christian authors. Read them, don’t presuppose and say it’s fact.

        • Not only did they not copy from each other, but many times verbatim. Grab 4 copies of your children’s book and read them side by side, so you can see how they copy, and elaborate off of each other.

          Stop listening to apologetics and actually read the damn junk.

        • They are biased apologetics, like WLC, another nut case.

          Their work? What work? Making up crap as they go and using their “studies”, if you can call them that? Because studying the Bible is like studing the Quran, a waste of time.

          It’s like studing chicken scratch and making crazy ideas as to what they were writing.

          • If WLC is a nutcase , then you and Dawkins should reside with him in the same mental institution .
            Studying the rationality of Atheists is like arguing with a blind person that obstinately refuses to accept that others can see because he has no way of objectively clarifying the existence of sight

          • “There is absolutely no way in hell I’ll read the works of an apologetic” – just what are you doing on James’ site then? Do you consider him to be “l—g s–m”? Is filthy language like yours common to all your atheist friends?

  4. Sir I must say I am very impressed. I’ve touched on Islam versus Christianity generally in my post: Who has the real answers? Feel free to check it out and follow my page for current and upcoming theological posts! Continue to rebuke the ridiculous arguments and beliefs of the opposition. Blessings.

  5. Quran itself is a divine book which reveals what is hidden and its exquisite rhyme in Arabic cant be written by any human. Which means its a book of the Almighty Allah SWT. IT is only Quran that has its Hafiz(the one who Memorises) which ensures its authencity unlike any other holy book.

  6. The funniest thing I have heard in a while is that children are born Atheists . Atheism is a belief system and its a positive form of belief , because atheism is an assertion of knowledge. and not just an absence thereof . Belief without evidence to support ones belief is FAITH . Atheism must therefore be considered a faith , since science lacks the means to qualify weather God exists or not . This BELIEF , or “intellectual assertion” , without proof cannot be present or possessed by a child that hasn’t formed his/her intellect . So to say that children are Atheist is False . A child doesn’t have a view one way or the other .
    Atheism is taught > it is not benign . It is not a default setting in the mind of a child …..Its an indoctrination

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s