Since Muslim debaters never put any thought into their incoherent contradictory ridiculous Dawah claims, why should Christians waste time and energy refuting them? (Matthew 7:6) Here is a list of canned responses to the most common nonsense, in neat paragraphs less than 200 characters, perfect for limited messaging platforms such as TikTok or X.

[TOC]

Holy books

“The Bible has been corrupted”

Today we have 4 complete Bibles from the 4th century. They are two hundred years older than Islam and they are identical in content with modern Bibles. This alone proves there has been no changes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_uncial_codices

https://codexsinaiticus.org/ https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209 https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_02 https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_04

Here’s the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus: https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx And here is our Bible: https://biblehub.com Could you please show me where the corruptions are located?

Apart from 4 complete Bibles, we also have tens of thousands of manuscripts that date back 2300 years, and they match up perfectly with modern Bibles, proving there has been no corruption.

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hebrew_Bible_manuscripts
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_New_Testament_manuscripts

Apart from complete Bibles and manuscripts, the early church fathers heavily quoted the New Testament, giving us yet another layer of confirmation that it has been accurately preserved.

https://evidenceforchristianity.org/what-percentage-of-the-new-testament-greek-text-can-be-reproduced-from-early-church-father-quotations/

The Quran repeatedly confirms the authenticity, integrity, and divine origin of the Christian and Jewish scriptures that were available in Arabia in the 7th century B.C.

Surah 2:4,40-41,89,91,97,101,113,121;3:3-4,23,58,78-79,81,93,184;4:47;5:44,46,48,66,68,84;6:91-92;10:37,94;12:111;16:43;20:133;21:7,48,105;26:196;28:48-49;29:27;35:25,31;37:37;40:53;46:12,30;87:18-19

The Quran confirms that the Bible that Muhammad had access to in the 7th century is the word of Allah. (2:89;5:68) It also says that no one can change the word of Allah. (6:115; 18:27)

Since both archaeology and the Quran confirms that the Bible has not been changed in the last 1800 years, claiming that it has been corrupted is kufr (كفر) and means you’re not a Muslim anymore.

The Quranic dilemma

Surah 2:4,41,89,91,97,101,111;3:3-4,23,81,93,184;4:47;5:44,48,66,68;6:91-92;10:37,94;12:111;16:43;20:133;21:7,48,105;26:196;28:48-49;35:25,31;37:37;40:53;46:12,30;87:18-19 affirms the Bible.

The Quran confirms that the Bible that Muhammad had access to in the 7th century is the word of Allah. (2:89;5:68) It also says that no one can change the word of Allah. (6:115; 18:27)

We have access to Bibles that are even older than the 7th century, so we can see that there has been no changes between what the Quran confirmed as being the unchanging word of Allah. (Surah 6:115)

The Quran at the same time contradicts the Bible in many places, such as Surah 4:157,171; 2:31,55,60,65,66,73 etc.

Meanwhile, the Bible says that the Quran is false and Muhammad is a false prophet. (Matthew 7:15-19; Mark 13:21,22; Galatians 1:8;1 John 2:22,23)

So the dilemma is: If the Bible is true, then the Quran is false (because the true Bible condemns the Quran, and the Quran contradicts the Bible.)

If the Bible is false, then the Quran is false (for affirming the Bible as the unchangeable word of Allah.) In either case the Quran is false.

Religious teachings

The Crucifixion

“It’s unjust that God would let an innocent man be a ransom for others”

Sahih Muslim 2767 a “When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.”

Islam teaches that Muslims are ransomed from hell by Allah sending innocent Jews of Christians in their place. So by your own words you condemn Allah as an unjust god.

Muslims say that Jesus wasn’t crucified because Allah replaced him with someone else who died instead. So Allah let’s an innocent man be a ransom for Jesus?

“The crucifixion is pagan human sacrifice”

Pagan sacrifices were offered as sustenance to their deities. It was believed that the deity was in need of sustenance and somehow fed of the flesh, blood, or life force of the victim.

Yahweh is the source of life and does not need humans to sustain him in any way. (Acts 17:24,25) Biblical sacrifices are not for sustaining God but for reconciliation and atonement.

From Adam to Abraham, to Israel, to Jesus, God has required sacrifices for atonement, not sustenance. The victim takes the place of the sinner and its lifeblood is poured out in exchange for theirs.

The principle of substitutionary atonement, that the death of one innocent victim can atone for the sins of a person, is fundamental to how the God of Abraham deals with sin.

That the Quran denies substitutionary atonement in Surah 35:18 only shows that Allah is not the god of Abraham, for Abraham believed in substitutionary atonement. (Genesis 22)

In fact, Allah just forgives sins without any punishment or corresponding ransom. A judge who leaves sinners unpunished is an unrighteous judge who condones and promotes sins.

Since humans die for human sins, animal sacrifices are not enough for permanent atonement. The only sacrifice that cancels out human sins permanently is the death of a sinless human, Jesus.

God incarnated as the sinless man Jesus and his most important work on earth was to be the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” (Mark 10:45; John 1:29; John 3:16; 1 John 3:5,8)

There is nothing “pagan” about substitutionary sacrifices. It’s the way the God of Abraham has always dealt with sin. By calling it “pagan”, you only prove you’re not worshiping the God of Abraham.

Secondly, Jesus sacrifice was an example of selfless self-sacrifice, not human sacrifice. Like how someone would be willing to take a bullet for someone they love.

Victims of human sacrifice are not volunteers. Jesus self-sacrifice was fully voluntary and he could stop it at any time. It was the reason he came to earth. (John 10:18; Mat 20:28;26:53)

Neither Jews nor Christians have ever considered the crucifixion a human sacrifice. Human sacrifice are abhorrent to Jews and an abomination to Yahweh. (Jeremiah 32:35)

If the crucifixion was a human sacrifice, it would mean the Jews purposefully broke their own laws and killed Jesus to bring sustenance to Yahweh. The idea is abhorrent and the deed pointless.

“X is Pagan”

Accusations of paganism looks very hypocritical coming from someone whose religious practices involves worshipfully touching and kissing a black stone in a formerly pagan temple.

The Kaaba was originally a pagan temple with 360 idols, and the pagans used to smear the blood of their sacrifices on the black stone. (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2478)

The pilgrimages to the Kaaba are of pagan origins. The ritual processions around the Kaaba were part of pagan beliefs and custom, the white robes worn by the pilgrims are from pagan origins.

Pagans called out the names of their pagan gods as they circled the Kaaba. Today Muslims call out Allah’s name. Pagans ran between the nearby hills. Today Muslims follow their example.

Muslims believe that praying under the rain gutter of the Kaaba purifies them of all sins. They thus say that a building can do something only God can do, making the Kaaba equal to God.

Islam teaches that touching or kissing the black stone erases your sins; Something only God can do. The veneration of the Kaaba and black stone are derived from pagan rituals and beliefs.

Sahih al-Bukhari 1597 shows even Umar recognized that kissing the black stone was a pointless act of idolatry, but he only did so because Muhammad did so. (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:1597)

Islam also teaches that the black stone is omniscient and will intercede on judgement day for those who touched it. Apparently Allah doesn’t know who did or not. (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:961)

Sahih al-Bukhari reveals that Muhammad himself used to be a pagan, sacrificing to false gods. No prophet of the God of Abraham has ever sacrificed to false gods. (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5499)

Every Muslim that makes the Hajj, runs between the hills, or kisses the black stone, is performing pagan rituals founded on pagan superstitions sanctioned by Muhammad himself.

Defending the pedophilia of Muhammad

“Rebecca was 3 years old when Isaac married her”

See “Rebecca was only 3 years old when Isaac married her”

Note: The argument goes that Isaac was born when his mother was 90, and his mother Sarah died at the age of 127, when Isaac was 37 years old. (Genesis 17:17;21:2-5;23:1) Before she died, Genesis 22:20-24 mentions that Bethuel became father to Rebecca. And since Isaac was 40 when he married Rebecca, this would mean Rebecca was only 3 years old when Isaac married her. (Genesis 25:20) The argument is put forth to defend the fact that Muhammad married a 6 year old child., as if Isaac did something similar it would make pedophilia morally good.

Would it justify pedophilia?

That Rebecca was 3 years old can be proven to be a blatant lie. But even if it was true, why would the conduct of Isaac justify pedophilia? Do you believe pedophilia is morally good?

If it was true that Isaac married a 3 year old, then Isaac was just as horrible as Muhammad. We Christians do not follow the example of Isaac, but muslims do follow the example of Muhammad.

If Isaac married a 3 year old, he would be a horrible human being. So you use a horrible person to defend your prophet, showing your prophet is a horrible person whose behavior is morally repugnant.

If that was true, then by using the Bible as an authority to defend Muhammad, you acknowledge that the Bible is morally superior to the Quran and that he is no better than the worst possible sinner.

Is it true?

That Rebecca was 3 years old when marrying Isaac is a lie. There is no way to prove that. According to the text she was an independent adult woman. (Genesis 24:5,8,14,16,28,39,43-44,55,57-58)

In Jewish culture, a girl is not considered a woman until at least her early teens. This would put Rebecca’s lowest possible age at 13.

In Genesis 22, Isaac was called a boy. In the Bible those called boys are usually 13-17 years old. No 37 year old is called a boy. So there is likely a 20 year difference between Genesis 22 and 23.

This shows there could be a 23-28 year gap between the sacrifice event and the marriage of Isaac at age 40. This matches with the fact that Rebecca was a “young woman”. Likely between 13-28 years old.

An average camel can drink 200 liters of water. No 3 year old toddler has the strength or stamina to carry 2000 liters of water to ten camels. (Genesis 24:10) The idea is ridiculous.

In Genesis 22:20-24 Abraham gets the news that no less than 14 relatives in 2 generations have been born. If this means Rebecca is 3 years old then all 14 of them would also be 3 years old.

The news mentioning Rebecca covered what had happened to Abraham’s relatives the last 60 years. Rebecca’s birth could be anywhere within that timespan, so it can’t be used to pinpoint her age.

“Mary was 13 / Joseph was 90”

That is a myth. The Catholic Encyclopedia specifically says that such an idea is false, a myth that is not authoritative:

“These dreams, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration, are void of authority” https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm

“No historical document tells us how old she actually was at the time of the Nativity.” https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

Falsely accusing others of marrying teenagers does not excuse Muhammad having sex with an even younger 9 year old child. It doesn’t make him less of a pedophile.

Even though they are false, giving such examples only emphasizes that Muhammad was way way worse than the worst possible examples you can come up with. How does that defend his pedophilia?

“[Random person] married a child” / “Country X allowed child marriage”

What they did has literally nothing to do with the topic. What’s your point? That they are just as bad as Muhammad, so therefore Muhammad’s pedophilia was justified?