Trapped in Islamic Wonderland

A certain Muslim responded to my post Islam in Wonderland on Facebook and we had a back and forth exchange there. Unfortunately, he blocked me before I could reply to his last message.

Abdulmalik: I have read your thoughts about Islam in wonderland. I must say their is no myth and fairly tales in the koran, neither is there is any contradiction. What you refuse to to acknowledge is the deep meaning of what each of the verse represent.

Surah 6:14 “Say: shall i take as a guardian any other than Allah, the creator of the heavens and the earth and it is He who feed but is not fed. Say: verily, i am commanded to be the first of those who submit. And be not you of the idolators.” What it means is that, at that very moment in time he was the first to believe in the revelation and submit to Allah. Same thing apply to Q6vs163. It does not mean that he was the first mankind to submit to Allah…

Q7v: 143: “And when Moses came at our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: My Lord!! show me (thyself), so that i may look upon thee. He said: you cannot (bear to) see Me but look at the mountain, if it remain firm in its place, then will you see Me; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain He made it crumble and Moses fell down in a swoon; then when he recovered, he said: Glory be to thee, i turn to thee, and i am the first of the believers.”

In this verse which you refuse to quote is what transpire between Moses (may peace be upon him) and God when he went to receive the criterion. He ask to see the Lord, but was told will not be able to see the Lord in this world, when God manifested his glory the mountain crumble, and Moses exclaimed that he was the first to believe.

Islam means that one submit ones self to the creator, with associating partners in any form to Allah. A muslim is then is someone who submit his/herself to Allah, with associating partner to Him. All those who you mention that claim to believe in one God, then compare their doctrine of one God to the following simple quote from quran. “Say: He, God is one. God is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like unto him” Q112 vs 1-4.

Then compare The believes of Abraham, Noah, Jacob, David, Solomon, Moses, Jesus (peace and blessing of God be upon them to those verse if it contradicts, and surely you will find no contradiction with these pious servants of God.

What then Mohammad (peace he upon him) did about qibla, when to fast, how to pray etc is to standardise the practices of Muslims and perfect the religion of God. What you succeeded in doing is to lie and deceive, that is why you do not quote fully from your source. I hope you upload my response on [your] blog.

Victor: I got your messages reading my mind (that I spend my time devising ways on how to “lie and deceive people”, that’s why I don’t quote fully from my sources. Thanks!) You must be the “champion scholar” bold enough to burst all my “lies”. So thanks once again.

My point in Sura 6:14 was that Muhammad admitted he was the first Muslim (“I am the first Moslem“). We have no problems with that. Every historian agrees with it, so I accept it. First means first in my language. Even if you say he was the first to “believe in the revelation and submit to Allah” I may not argue with you.

The Islamic worldview says everybody was busy worshipping idols, but one day an “angel” squeezed an Arab man in a cave, then suddenly he started continuing the religion of Abraham – a man who had died over 1,500 years before him, and that was a man who never even lived in Mecca! Such funny myths.

The problem started when Muhammad began to contradict himself by claiming Moses also said he is the “first of the believers/Muslim.” So which is it? Was Muhammad the first Muslim or not? How can there be two firsts? That was my point in the post, yet you toe-danced it away.

If you are familiar with your book, you would have known that some Egyptians became Muslims too (Sura 26:51), so which is it? Is Moses still “the first to believe?”

You said Islam means to submit oneself to the creator, and that all those people in the Bible believed in one God. I already refuted this lame definition.

Every religionist submits to a god. Sikhs submit to one God, are they Muslims? Jews submit to one God, are they Muslims? Satanists submit to one god, are they Muslims too?

That one believes in one God doesn’t make one a Muslim. It’s a shame you ignored this fact in my post. You are a poor advocate if you keep repeating a point that has already been refuted. Besides, you have not yet proven to me that the god of Islam is the Creator. That is blind belief. Prove this then we can discuss further.

You spoke about the “beliefs of Abraham, Noah, Jacob, David, Solomon, Moses and Jesus.” Where did you get their beliefs from? Where are their Islamic books? All their words in the Quran are plain forgeries from Muhammad’s lips. Islam didn’t exist before Muhammad. Anybody who says otherwise is swimming in a myth.

Only Muslims believe their religion predates Muhammad. Please wake up from this delusion. If you want the real facts about these men, consult the Bible. They are not in Islam. I could care less about a jumbled mass of confused post-Christian Arabic writings from a warlord.

You speak so much about logic, yet on this point, you abandon logic and cling to the redaction of a 7th century Arabian liar.

I have already defined what a Muslim is in the article: one who adheres to the five pillars of Islam. None of the people before Muhammad knew of, let alone followed the five pillars, so if you tell me that they are Muslims, you are just rehashing your myths (tales) and if you persist in that, I will simply ignore your points. Why should I embrace Islamic myths and not Greek or Aztec myths?

You said Muhammad came to “standardize and perfect” the religion of God. What a joke. That means for more than 4,000 years, this “religion of God” had no standard and had no one to perfect it. So the hands of Allah were tied until the 7th century when Messiah-Muhammad came along. If this fantasy suits you, that’s cool, but don’t please don’t call it the truth.

Abdulmalik: Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the first to submit to the oneness of God when the revelation was revealed to him. He was the first at that time to believe in it, that is why he was able to call others to it.

Likewise Moses, for he was the first to believe at that moment, before he travel to Egypt to warn Pharoah and his people… They did not claim to be the first mankind to submit…Yes, [Islam] means submission to the creator. That is why I gave a basic description of what oneness of God is Q112vs1-4.

I ask you to compare those who you called to believe in one God if their God is as it was stated in those verses. All those which you mentioned have an image of God, and God said in Q112vs4 that “there is none like Him”. When you said and angel squeezed him into a cave to give him a message. Where did God spoke to Moses? Did he squeeze him to that place?

Where did angel met Mary to give her glad tidings of a pious son? Did he squeeze into that place?…You said Abraham never stayed or live in mecca? You only confirmed that you are just bent on decieving people, who then built the this black stone you refer to?

Victor: I have said I will only continue this exchange if you are forthright in answering my questions. If you ignore my questions after this, I will terminate further correspondence with you because I prioritize my time.

I will allow the issue of the “first Muslim” contradiction to rest, since you can’t address it.

You talked about Muhammad’s submission to one God, yet you refuse to answer a simple question, which God did he submit to? Wasn’t Allah one of the many pagan gods of Mecca?

Where is the proof that the deity Muhammad submitted to is the Creator? Or are you telling me that Allah is equivalent to the chief deity of any pagan culture? If that’s true, then Allah is equivalent to Vishnu, Baal, Jupiter or Osiris. Anyone can submit to just one pagan god and then become a Muslim right?

That is why your argument fails. You are concluding what you are yet to prove. You have accepted through blind belief that Allah MUST be the creator and you are trying to force your assertions on us. Sorry, it won’t work.

Muhammad’s father was Abdul-Allah (servant of Allah), his uncle was ObeidAllah. They were Allah worshippers, yet they weren’t Muslims but pagans! Allah was simply a pagan deity straight out of Arabian paganism. Read this

Since Islam didn’t exist before Muhammad, whatever “image” he had about Allah (whether physical or mental) must have come from somewhere. You can’t tell me that a 40 year old pagan all of a sudden received a “new image revelation” about the same deity worshipped by his fathers. This is why I find your quote from Sura 112:4 “there is none like him” amusing. Your Allah appeared to Muhammad physically (53:1-10), Allah has a face (55:26-27), a hand (48:10), an eye (20:36-39), a shin (68:42), and he even forgets (2:37) etc. So how can you say “there is nothing like him?” Read this for more

It seems you haven’t read the Sirat Rasulullah where it was recorded:

“…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 … He pressed me with it the third time…” (Ibn Ishaq, translated by Alfred Guillaume, p. 106)

How many people in the Bible were squeezed and forced by an angel of God? None! Only demons act like that. Yet on the basis of your own ignorance, you question the veracity of the experience of your guru. Keep it up!

As for the issue of hajj, Abraham, Mecca, Adam or Noah, I don’t wish to talk about them again because I sense you are incapable of breaking free from your lalaland. Since all your claims are based on just one fairy tale book – the Quran, you have no historical backing.

I’ve told you you are free to rehash your myths as much as you like, but don’t present them to me since I wont buy them.

Abdul Malik: If you claim islam have spread all those things you mentioned, why do people of different background accept this your so called “lies”, “myth”, “forgeries” etc, its because they see through all media lies that it portray in islam … I have done that critical analysis my friend, about moon-god, warlord, polytheist, pagan, i have read all those, but they always get it wrong like you. Apply the logic then my friend to what you believe.

Victor: You asked why islam has spread among many people of different backgrounds if it’s false, I’ll tell you why:

1. Lies are spiritual. Satan is the “father of lies” and he is the brain behind all false religions. Once he breathes into a lie, it lives on and spreads far. That is why religions founded on myths are still alive and kicking. They serve the devil’s purposes in enslaving mankind and keeping them from the Gospel.

2. Islam is not learnt naturally, it has to be imposed by brainwashing. From young ages, Islam is drilled into people by hammering the same ideas into their heads over and over again, and censoring any criticism of Islam. This is why Islamic nations ban the Bible and Christian materials. A lie that is often repeated often becomes “true” to those who refuse to think out of that precinct.

3. Islam appeals to the fallen human nature. It gives a false outward impression of humility and loyalty, whereas it approves of the worst vices inherent in man. It approves of hate, war, adultery, use of charms, deception, looting, rape and even paedophilia. It also promises a carnal heaven and an afterlife debauchery that would more or less appeal to criminals.

I’m sorry, you are incapable of doing any critical analysis of Islamic beliefs. You are a “submitter.” You may criticize other belief systems, but when it comes to Islam, your reason becomes a limp noodle.

This is called a blind spot – it’s just like a fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. You still don’t know the nature and extent of deception into which you have fallen. Ignorance can be very deadly. I simply pray your “applied logic” helps you find truth in Jesus Christ.

Islam in Wonderland


You can’t be a good Muslim if you don’t have a flare for myths and fantasies. The core one says: “Islam is the religion of all the prophets of God.”

Muhammad’s claims are so full of holes – historically and logically – that believing them requires a wandering out of the realm of reality.

Believing in Islam is like wearing goggles that make you step into a world of virtual reality where you encounter fictitious or mythical characters designed by a computer programmer. This is why Islam is largely defended by lies and violence. When you believe in reality and facts, you don’t need to resort to such vices.

Every history book agrees that Muhammad was the founder of Islam. Before him, Islam simply didn’t exist. Muhammad himself said he is “the first” to be a Muslim (Sura 6:14, 163).

But Muslims realize this can have a devastating effect on their myth of a long line of Islamic prophets traced back to Adam, so they twist the verse to say he was the first among the Arabs to be a Muslim.

When his religion expanded, Muhammad himself forgot his earlier lies (liars have poor memory). He later claimed Moses said “I am the first Moslem” (Sura 7:143). How ridiculous. How can there be two “firsts?”

In Sura 2:127-128 Abraham and Ishmael are presented as Arabs who built the Kaaba praying: “Our ‘Lord! Make us Muslims…”

Sura 2:132 also says Abraham left a legacy to his sons and Jacob saying: “Allah has chosen faith for you, then die not except in the faith of Islam”.

Historically, the terms “Muslim” or “Islam” didn’t exist at the time these men lived. So whoever wrote the Quran must be a fraudster, making up fictional speeches for Bible characters.

Our Muslim friends desperately cleave to these myths by arguing that “All the prophets taught us to worship one God, so they are Muslims!”

By this definition, then, anyone who believes in “one God” is automatically a Muslim. Since Jews, Zoroastrians, Sikhs and even some Satanists believe in “one God”, they are Muslims! Nice try, but it won’t work.

Muslims apologists perennially slander the Bible in their videos, books and sermons as “porno”, a collection of fairy tales or a corrupted book, but when it comes to tracing Islam back to solid history, they don’t go to the Vedas or Ramayana, they go to that dangerous Book – the Bible.

They often bleat with certainty: “There is Islam in the Bible!” When you ask them where it is, they will point to Exodus 40:30-31, and say “Moses did ablution.” Here is the passage:

And he set the laver between the tent of the congregation and the altar, and put water there, to wash withal. And Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet thereat.”

Only Moses, Aaron and his priestly sons washed themselves, not all the worshippers. And there is no way a sacrificial altar would be allowed in a mosque so you can’t say he was observing ablution.

Muslims don’t want to let go. They tell us Moses and Aaron were Muslims because they “fell on their faces, and the glory of the LORD appeared to them” (Num. 20:6).

But they didn’t do ablution before they bowed! Again, does the glory of God appear to you Muslims when you bow to your Allah? They’d answer “No.” Certainly, the God they prayed to is not the Allah of Islam.

Others point at Nehemiah 8:6 where Ezra and the people “blessed the LORD…while lifting up their hands. And they bowed their heads…

They argue that this is also an “Islamic” mode of worship. By this definition, anyone who lifts up his hands and bows his head is a Muslim!

What about the crippled, the lame who can’t bow or those whose hands were amputated by Sharia law for stealing and have no hands to raise? They can’t worship Allah – right?

If Allah wants to be worshiped only by bowing and hand-lifting why did he even prescribe that law of amputation? This argument folds upon itself on scrutiny.

Without any sense of irony, Muslims boldly claim Jesus too was a Muslim because he practiced ‘ablution’: “He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet” (Jn. 13:5).

I need a Muslim to show me where in his books does the washing of the feet alone equals ablution. After that he would have to take us to a mosque where the imam performs ablution by washing the feet of his congregants one after the other.

It will be a sight worth seeing. Until then, every Muslim appealing to that passage is shooting himself in the leg, theologically and logically.

This feeble attempt to co-opt Jesus into a Muslim is based on Muhammad’s claim in the Quran that Jesus began to talk shortly after he was born saying:

I am a servant of Allah; he has given me the book and he has appointed me a prophet…to offer salat and give zakat so long as I shall live” (Sura 19:29-31)

This was an old fairy tale stolen from an apocrypha work called The Arabic gospel of Infancy. There it was alleged that “Jesus spake in his cradle and said to Mary his mother ‘verily I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Word which thou hast borne…” (Chapter 1).

Muhammad altered this fairy tale, changed the words of its Jesus to make his own mythical version of a Muslim baby Jesus (using Islamic terms like “salat” and “zakat”). This man would have done a better job than Alice in Wonderland.

According to the hadith, a Muslim is one who observes all the 5 pillars of Islam – recites the shahada, prays (salat), give alms (zakat), performs hajj and fasts (ramadan) (Bukhari 1:7).

Since Jesus did not say the creed, perform the salat, give zakat, perform the pagan hajj or observe the ramadan, by the islamic definition, He wasn’t a Muslim.

Muslims also argue, “But Jesus did rakat, he bowed his head the way we Muslims do.” They cite Matthew 26:39

And he went a little further, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

Does this sound like an Islamic prayer? Jesus addressed God as “My Father” in His prayer, Is Allah the Father of Jesus Christ? Sorry folks, Jesus didn’t practice Islam.

The Quran is full of recycled fairy tales, some of which were attached to Bible characters. For example, the case of king Solomon. In the Quran, he is portrayed as one who is able to listen to the discussion of birds and ants:

At length, when they came to the valley of ants, one of the ants said ‘get into your habitation lest Solomon and his hosts crush (under foot) without knowing it.” (Sura 27:18)

One wonders how Solomon was able to maintain his sanity hearing thousands of insects all around him “talking” day and night? Or how does an ant have the brain to recognise people or know they want to get crushed?

Islamic scholar, Muhammad Assad, has even dismissed this tale as a borrowed legend:

“This is the Quranic moral of the legendary story of the ant. The Quran alludes to many poetic legends which were associated with his (Solomon’s) name since early antiquity and had become part and parcel of Judeo-Christian and Arabian lore long before the advent of Islam” (The Message of the Quran, Dar Al-Andalus, 1993, p. 578).

If all the prophets of old in the Quran were Muslims, then why Muhammad was grossly inferior to them in acts and signs? Did Allah loose his power over time?

Ibrahim’s son was spared from death, but all of Muhammad’s sons died.

Saleh pronounced Allah’s doom on the people of Thamoud and they all died, but Muhammad cursed and invoked doom and nothing happened until he had to take up his sword.

Musa showed signs to the Egyptians; turned a stick to a snake and back to a stick, but Muhammad couldn’t do that to convince the pagans who asked for miracles.

Suleiman had many jinn that brought him wealth from the bottom of the sea, but Muhammad resorted to robbing merchant caravans to get rich.

Isa raised the dead, opened the eyes of the blind and cleansed the leprous, but Muhammad couldn’t do any of these. What then makes him “the greatest of the prophets”?

If all the prophets of old were Muslims, where are their books and mosques?

How did they know the Qibla, salat, toilet rules and the rituals of hajj? How did they recite their shahada?

Since they all came before Muhammad, it means they didn’t follow “the perfect example for mankind” (Sura 33:21), “the seal of the prophets” (Sura 33:40) and the man with “an exalted standard of character” (Sura 68:4), then their “Islam” was non-existent!

The Quran says:

“We sent not a Messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make things clear to them. So Allah leads astray whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases and He is Exalted in power, full of wisdom.” (Sura 14:4)

If this is true, which prophets were sent to the Indians? They have a wide variety of languages there. Where are the books and teachings of these ancient prophets?

In Nigeria, we also have over 200 different languages, where were these messengers sent to each of them and when? Where are their revelations?

Islam has no proofs, all it has is blind belief in a bunch of myths! My dear Muslim friends, leave the myths, come to the truth of the Bible.

Examining The Authority of Rome

All the teachings of Catholicism rest on a single pillar: the authority of the Catholic Church. The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1977, 25) states: “Man can obtain a knowledge of God’s Word [only] from the Catholic Church and through its duly constituted channels.”

Why is this so? A Catholic website explains that the Bible “is younger than the Catholic Church and is the product of the Catholic Church. This means that the Bible is not the sole rule of faith for Christians, but rather the Church”.

This is what we call “sola ecclesia“. The three assertions made are:
1. The Bible can only be interpreted by the Catholic church
2. This is because the Catholic Church wrote the Bible.
3. Therefore, the authority of the Catholic church is greater than the Bible.

These claims do not hold water. Even in the Old Testament times, the common people were expected to know God’s Word, not through rabbinical interpretation but for themselves, and were able to.

Psalm 1 speaks of the blessed man – not a special class of highly educated experts – who meditates on God’s Word day and night.

A “young man” is also expected to “heed” God’s Word- without a hint that it must be explained to him by a rabbi (Ps. 119:9).

The epistles of Paul were written to all Christians and were expected to understand them by the indwelling of the same Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures (2 Peter 1:21).

Timothy knew the Hebrew scriptures from early childhood (2Tim. 3:15) and it was taught to him at home not by a rabbi but his mother and grandmother (2Tim. 1:5). No one in the OT times looked up to any hierarchy for an official interpretation of Scripture. Nor do the early church. Nor should we today.

The second assertion is as false as it sounds, since the Hebrew Scriptures existed long before any church came into existence. It must also be emphasized that while the New Testament church pre-existed the New Testament canon, it didn’t pre-exist God’s Word.

The NT church was constituted by apostolic preaching, so historically, the Word preceded the church. The only distinction is between the spoken and written Word.

Also, priority in time doesn’t equal to priority in rank. That Moses preceded Christ doesn’t make him superior to Christ. The NT books were addressed to the NT churches (Gal. 1:2, Col. 4:16, Jas. 1:1 etc). The church was obliged to submit to the authority of the written document, not the other way round. They were inspired writings that had authority over the church.

In a Catholic Answers tract titled What’s Your Authority? we are told: “The only reason you and I have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church“.

Yet this tract didn’t tell us why Rome’s authority is trustworthy and that of the Watchtower Society or the Mormon prophet isn’t. The Catholic just blindly assumes the authority of Rome without demonstrating its validity. The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine brazenly declares:

“When he has once mastered this principle of divine authority [residing in the Church], the inquirer is prepared to accept whatever the divine Church teaches on faith, morals and the means of grace” (p. 27).

Let me rephrase the second line: “the inquirer is prepared to accept whatever the Church of Scientology teaches…”

“the inquirer is prepared to accept whatever the Moonies church teaches…”

“the inquirer is prepared to accept whatever the Hare Krishna Society teaches…”

Enter in the name of any cult in the above quote and the argument remains valid. In fact, this is the first principle of every cult: surrender your mind and accept whatever you are told.

One can’t embrace the false teachings of Rome unless one first takes a blind logical leap to believe that Rome is an infallible authority. To Catholics, Rome is right because she says she’s right! This is absolutely wrong.

Catholic apologist, Karl Keating wrote: “The Catholic believes in inspiration [of the Bible] because the Church tells him so…and that same Church has the authority to interpret the inspired text” (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius Press, 1988, p. 125).

This implies that people can’t believe the truth of the Bible unless the Catholic church attests to its authenticity. So God needs the authority of Rome to endorse His Book! Of course that is nonsense.

Keating went on to quote “St.” Augustine who said “I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.”

This argument is also false because the gospel has its own power to convince those who hear it, as does the Word of God which is “quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb 4:12). While the church has a role in the dissemination of Scripture, she does not have a role in its production.

This destructive belief that the Bible must have Rome’s endorsement is refuted by Scripture itself.

Early in His ministry, before any church was established, Jesus sent His disciples forth “and went through the towns preaching the gospel” (Luke 9:6).

Peter preached to 3,000 Jews who became Christians on the day of Pentecost without any mention of a true Church. Rather He preached only Christ who is “the true light that lighteth every man” (John 1:9).

In the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Samaria where thousands became Christians, Philip simply “preached Christ unto them” (Acts 8:5). When he met the Ethiopian eunuch, he preached Jesus unto him and he believed by the convicting power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:35), not because ‘an infallible Church’ moved him to do so.

The apostles and first century Christians “went everywhere preaching the word” to those who never heard of a church or an ecclesiastical authority in Rome (Acts 8:4).

Apostle Paul and his colleagues didn’t preach a church but “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1Cor. 2:2). If the endorsement of the Catholic Church wasn’t needed then, it’s equally not needed now.

Another argument that is frequently thrown about is the statement of Paul in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the church is “pillar and foundation of truth”, but this doesn’t make the church infallible or even the truth itself.

Patrologist J. N. D Kelly comments on this verse, pointing out that:

“As in 3:5, there is no definite article before ‘church’, and this suggests that Paul is thinking primarily of the particular local community… What Paul is saying is that it is the function and responsibility of each congregation to support, bolster up, and thus safeguard the true teaching by its continuous witness. We should note that (a) that ‘buttress’ is probably a more accurate rendering of the Greek endrawma (nowhere else found) than ‘foundation’ or ‘ground’ and that the local church is described as ‘a pillar’ not ‘the pillar’ because there are many local churches throughout the world performing this role.” (A Commentary on Pastoral Epistles, 1986, pp. 87-88)

It is therefore wrong to equate Paul’s reference to a local church situation with a centralized and pyramidal agency where truth is vested in a top-down teaching office.

Catholics have their authority in the wrong place. True authority is in the Head, NOT the body (Eph. 1:22-23). The ruling is in the King NOT the kingdom (Heb7:1-2). Therefore, the authority is in Christ NOT the church (Matt. 28:18).

True Christianity is a relationship with Jesus, not just being in a popular religion. Almost every Catholic convert boasts of the discovery of “an ancient church” – a human institution – and not the receiving forgiveness of sin through faith in Jesus.

A “church” that has replaced Christ, the Living Word with itself and denigrates the written Word, the Bible, is a false church.